ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Flying Crane]

All you had to do was ask, bro.
View attachment 20886

View attachment 20887
I know it was a small banana, but I'm kinda scared of heights.

I cannot accept this as proof. I did not see you actually eat the banana. For all I know, you posed for a picture with the banana and then threw it away. Hell, it might not even be you in the picture! Or maybe you ate the banana for a mid-afternoon snack, and NOT for breakfast. You are a liar and a deceiver of the worst sort!

 

[DaveB]

a couple of points, there are people who learn and practise boxing for self defence purposes or to preserve against violence if you wish. Therefore by your own defintion it then becomes a ma.
second, I had a fighting method long before I took up ma, the purpose was to preserve against violence, your defintion would include my clumsy fighting as a ma,as that was its purpose and purpose is key

Yes to both points.

It's not meant to be any big deal that boxing isn't ma, it's just how I see it. There's nothing wrong with sport, combat or otherwise.

In the context of this discussion boxing as an ma constitutes one of those incomplete systems that the mma folk are always on about, since it's solutions to violence are sorely limited. But it is great at what it does and will work for a lot of situations so long as the training is up to scratch.

 

[jobo]

Yes to both points.

It's not meant to be any big deal that boxing isn't ma, it's just how I see it. There's nothing wrong with sport, combat or otherwise.

In the context of this discussion boxing as an ma constitutes one of those incomplete systems that the mma folk are always on about, since it's solutions to violence are sorely limited. But it is great at what it does and will work for a lot of situations so long as the training is up to scratch.

 

[jobo]

Yes to both points.

It's not meant to be any big deal that boxing isn't ma, it's just how I see it. There's nothing wrong with sport, combat or otherwise.

In the context of this discussion boxing as an ma constitutes one of those incomplete systems that the mma folk are always on about, since it's solutions to violence are sorely limited. But it is great at what it does and will work for a lot of situations so long as the training is up to scratch.

but if we followed that logic through, any art that is completed with a rule set would also not be a ma

there is no reason a boxer in a street encounted culdnt elbow some one or kick them or anything really, its usefulness isn't restricted by is tournament rules book, any more than say karate tournament rule book stops you from bitting someone ear in a real fight

 

[DaveB]

but if we followed that logic through, any art that is completed with a rule set would also not be a ma

What do you mean completed with a rule set?

As I said it's purpose not construction that defines.

 

[DaveB]

but if we followed that logic through, any art that is completed with a rule set would also not be a ma

there is no reason a boxer in a street encounted culdnt elbow some one or kick them or anything really, its usefulness isn't restricted by is tournament rules book, any more than say karate tournament rule book stops you from bitting someone ear in a real fight

What do you mean completed with a rule set? As I said it's purpose, not construction, that defines.

I'm not saying a boxer can't elbow, on the street. In fact following my argument I'm actually saying that if you were boxing as a martial art, there's nothing stopping you from adding elbows to your boxing skill set.

I'm not sure what it is you feel I'm saying that would limit a boxers behaviour?

Boxing is a sport and so if you go to learn boxing you will not be taught to elbow as it is against the rules, but people can train how they want. That's pretty much my whole point in this thread!

 

[jobo]

What do you mean completed with a rule set? As I said it's purpose, not construction, that defines.

I'm not saying a boxer can't elbow, on the street. In fact following my argument I'm actually saying that if you were boxing as a martial art, there's nothing stopping you from adding elbows to your boxing skill set.

I'm not sure what it is you feel I'm saying that would limit a boxers behaviour?

Boxing is a sport and so if you go to learn boxing you will not be taught to elbow as it is against the rules, but people can train how they want. That's pretty much my whole point in this thread!

but they have multiple purposes, I can learn karate as a sport to complete at a tournament under a rule set, I can fight informally at the dojo under a rule,set, I can fight in the street under no rule,set. but the karate is exactly the same, you can't say it's not an ma in one circumstance but is in another

 

[DaveB]

but they have multiple purposes, I can learn karate as a sport to complete at a tournament under a rule set, I can fight informally at the dojo under a rule,set, I can fight in the street under no rule,set. but the karate is exactly the same, you can't say it's not an ma in one circumstance but is in another

Personally I look at what the activity was created for when defining an activity.

Karate was created for self defence, the principles and techniques are for self defence so it is a martial art.

So yes you can do a martial art for sport, but the purpose of a martial art isn't sport. If I knock in a nail with my screwdriver it is still a screwdriver. It doesn't make it a hammer.

 

[jobo]

Personally I look at what the activity was created for when defining an activity.

Karate was created for self defence, the principles and techniques are for self defence so it is a martial art.

So yes you can do a martial art for sport, but the purpose of a martial art isn't sport. If I knock in a nail with my screwdriver it is still a screwdriver. It doesn't make it a hammer.

karate was designed for fighting, where have you got the idea t was designed JUST for self defence

 

[drop bear]

What do you mean completed with a rule set? As I said it's purpose, not construction, that defines.

I'm not saying a boxer can't elbow, on the street. In fact following my argument I'm actually saying that if you were boxing as a martial art, there's nothing stopping you from adding elbows to your boxing skill set.

I'm not sure what it is you feel I'm saying that would limit a boxers behaviour?

Boxing is a sport and so if you go to learn boxing you will not be taught to elbow as it is against the rules, but people can train how they want. That's pretty much my whole point in this thread!

So basically when you are saying any system can work. You are not actually saying any system. But specific systems.

And we are not even talking about those systems on their own. But those systems that have additional good systems attached.

And by working we are not talking consistent mesurable success. But probably worked somewhere.

 

[drop bear]

karate was designed for fighting, where have you got the idea t was designed JUST for self defence

This is the most fun part of the discussion. Ask dave what fighting these fighting systems actually do?

Cos fighting systems that dont fight is kind of like me doing the moon walk and calling myself an astronaut.

 

[jobo]

This is the most fun part of the discussion. Ask dave what fighting these fighting systems actually do?

Cos fighting systems that dont fight is kind of like me doing the moon walk and calling myself an astronaut.

there are plenty of karate style tournaments, so at least some of the people fight.
not all the people who attend an mma gym or a boxing gym go on to actual use it in a tounrment

 

[drop bear]

there are plenty of karate style tournaments, so at least some of the people fight.
not all the people who attend an mma gym or a boxing gym go on to actual use it in a tounrment

I dont think any of those are considered styles or fighting in the context of this thread.

That was the reasoning behind why boxers can't wrestle.

 

[DaveB]

I dont think any of those are considered styles or fighting in the context of this thread.

That was the reasoning behind why boxers can't wrestle.

Please stop confusing the thread with nonsense.

 

[DaveB]

karate was designed for fighting, where have you got the idea t was designed JUST for self defence

I didn't write "just", but self defence was as far as all the research can tell, the primary purpose of karate.

General fighting was kyokushin and it's off shoots. But originally karate was like self defence courses taught by kung fu experts from china that merged with an indigenous fighting style called te. Hence Kara (chinese) te. Throw in some jujitsu and Japanese training drills and you get the roots of what we call karate today.

Where did you here otherwise?

 

[jobo]

I didn't write "just", but self defence was as far as all the research can tell, the primary purpose of karate.

General fighting was kyokushin and it's off shoots. But originally karate was like self defence courses taught by kung fu experts from china that merged with an indigenous fighting style called te. Hence Kara (chinese) te. Throw in some jujitsu and Japanese training drills and you get the roots of what we call karate today.

Where did you here otherwise?

what's your source for that?

 

[DaveB]

So basically when you are saying any system can work. You are not actually saying any system. But specific systems.

And we are not even talking about those systems on their own. But those systems that have additional good systems attached.

And by working we are not talking consistent mesurable success. But probably worked somewhere.

You have no argument that actually counters my point so instead you throw muck trying to obfuscate your failure.

Yet it's precisely because of this kind of foolishness that I have to be so specific.

Your first contribution was to bring up people pretending they had psychic powers. If you will drag a discussion into the gutter on page one what do you expect.

So no, I don't include made up styles that try to win through good vibes. I woukd rathrr i didn't have to waste time with caveats for foolishness but, there you are.

I don't know where you got anything about attaching good systems. I think it's something to do with your complete inability to demonstrate the impact of style over training whole refusing to acknowledge the fact. Thus you conflate statements about training options with your idea of good fighting styles.

Lastly the criteria for what works. Since there are two people in the fight, I thought seeing a fighter make it a good fight should be enough. After all, nobody wins everyone so why would we expect consistent victory when the other guy could just be better. Also arts like aikido will never havebring fighting objectives so seems a silly measure to apply...

Clearly this is too complex a line of reasoning, so fine, set your criteria at 100 victories in a row before you can accept a style works. What does it matter??? The point was that with improved training there is improved performance, something a 5 yr old could reason out, coupled with the reasoning for why style is virtually unimportant for getting a good fighter.

None of us are actually going to test the proposition so set whatever b.s. criteria you like...

But here's the thing... You described and advocated my exact point already. You just were so desperate to find a reason to keep style bashing that you didn't notice yourself repeating my argument back to me as if you'd found the chink in my armour at last.

But instead you conceded this debate. So you can go round and round misrepresenting the discussion, or you can man up and admit you're wrong and move on. I won't judge. Honest.

 

[DaveB]

what's your source for that?

5- 10 years ago I could have rattled off a long list of sources, but I haven't been into my books and articles since my son came along.

Karate kyohan by Funakoshi points out the Chinese teachers the top masters of the day and the story about the mixing of te with Chinese ma. Richard Kim's book of tales has some stuff about early karate legends. The English translation by Pat McCarthy of choki motobu's book has some good clues as does Funakoshis biography... And I think his name is Richard Clayton did a very good piece if much contested that focussed on bushi matsumura's karate. The list is endless as it's all scattered around in articles and books and interviews.

There is a book that puts it all together but the author is a convicted paedophile so I won't promote it.

 

[jobo]

5- 10 years ago I could have rattled off a long list of sources, but I haven't been into my books and articles since my son came along.

Karate kyohan by Funakoshi points out the Chinese teachers the top masters of the day and the story about the mixing of te with Chinese ma. Richard Kim's book of tales has some stuff about early karate legends. The English translation by Pat McCarthy of choki motobu's book has some good clues as does Funakoshis biography... And I think his name is Richard Clayton did a very good piece if much contested that focussed on bushi matsumura's karate. The list is endless as it's all scattered around in articles and books and interviews.

There is a book that puts it all together but the author is a convicted paedophile so I won't promote it.

no I mean your source that karate was created for,self defence and not for attacking people who have really annoyed you

 

[DaveB]

no I mean your source that karate was created for,self defence and not for attacking people who have really annoyed you

Yeah, and I have you the beginnings of a long list of sources that when taken together explain that and other aspects of karate's origin and purpose.

Specifically though Funakoshi goes into detail in karatedo kyohan about when and why tl use karate and choki motobu concluded after years of testing his art and getting beat down by a wrestler that it was simply not designed for fighting in the ring combat sense.