ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[DaveB]

Yes yes I know, you think that some styles don't work because evil naysayers like me drive people away from learning them, which is so silly on it's face it deserved a silly answer. Yet, I did point out that things were about the same... actually probably worse because a lot of schools have let mma type stuff slide in under the door...before mma was an acronym for anything.You have to remember, mma evolved out of TMA. If the tma worked mma would never have happened.

The point was that people who want to fight go to the arts known for fighting. Is that silly?

So when people come on forum saying I want to enter ufc tournaments people here direct them to study taichi?

Sparring with other styles does not change the style, it changes the fighter. As you realize your big sweeping blocks aren't ever going to work again real punches, or that your karate punch is complete Ineffective against boxing punches, or when you keep getting taken down or punched in the face when you try to flip someone with an extremely low percentage technique like a wrist throw..you evolve or suck forever.

Right, it changes the fighter.
Step 1. It breaks their daydreams of what they can do and how things work.
Step 2. It forces them to question if some of what they thought about how they use their style is realistic.
Step 3. Bearing in mind most who go through this process are relative beginners, if at this stage you decide "my style doesn't work" and not "I must be missing something" it really says more about you than the art.
Step 4. If you have decided that you may just not be that good, the thing to do is to work out with your sparring partners what you can do different from your style. To drill defending the combinations that catch you until you find what works.

And as someone who has done this, a lot of the time it will be something simple like stepping back and punching or keeping your guard higher or not trying to bridge from too far out etc. Core skills, improved by training.

 

[jobo]

Sorry about the other reply, I'm on my phone.

Maybe the wing chun people will throw up objections, but all the TMA I've encountered are based upon core principles not fixed positions or movements.

So in karate there are guidelines on how to connect your body and generate power. So long as you are following the principles the strike is a karate strike. TMA are built this way precisely to enable fluidity flexibility and adaptation.

Maybe wing chun is different, but the 1 chun teacher I know says it's the same.

But I reiterate, people are not robots. People choose what they train and how. Training against a boxer won't force you to change unless you want to.

If there is really no answer to a problem in your art that's one thing, but I really doubt that's the case.

no people,are not robots, and that's my point, humans have,a,capacity and an advantage over robot( this far but they are working on it) of,adaptive behaviour, we learn through experience at subconscious level, pain being a particularly strong driver in adaptive behaviour.. If we keep doing something and it hurts we will,stop doing it, if it hurts a lot we will stop doing it,sooner.

the robotic type training is the establishment of core principals in MA training,adaptive behaviour is what we change about those,when someone keeps punching us in the,ear, that we have no conscious,choice about that doesn't make us robots it makes us human,and humans,relying on our,subconscious to protect us from harm.
a MT fighter will make mince meat of of a,wing chunner, the human reaction is to change,our programmed movement patterns to protect ourselves, once those have been changed sufficiently to give the,WC a chance, then it,will be,a long way from the,core principals of,WC

 

[DaveB]

no people,are not robots, and that's my point, humans have,a,capacity and an advantage over robot( this far but they are working on it) of,adaptive behaviour, we learn through experience at subconscious level, pain being a particularly strong driver in adaptive behaviour.. If we keep doing something and it hurts we will,stop doing it, if it hurts a lot we will stop doing it,sooner.

the robotic type training is the establishment of core principals in MA training,adaptive behaviour is what we change about those,when someone keeps punching us in the,ear, that we have no conscious,choice about that doesn't make us robots it makes us human,and humans,relying on our,subconscious to protect us from harm.
a MT fighter will make mince meat of of a,wing chunner, the human reaction is to change,our programmed movement patterns to protect ourselves, once those have been changed sufficiently to give the,WC a chance, then it,will be,a long way from the,core principals of,WC

Or the chun student could analyse what's going wrong and improve his core skills to better make use of his stylistic specialisms.

Even if what you said was true, not every sparring match is a title fight. Most are low-mid intensity sessions aimed at skill development.

 

[jobo]

Or the chun student could analyse what's going wrong and improve his core skills to better make use of his stylistic specialisms.

Even if what you said was true, not every sparring match is a title fight. Most are low-mid intensity sessions aimed at skill development.

but the,core,skill of wing,chun are so substandard that they are beyond a bit of tinkering with.
that's the problem with your,original premise, if you had said some tma can be,made,effective by changing a few things then you are,correct, karate has tried to modernise by teaching " practical karate" and having dropped a lot of the,silly stuff, its,a lot more effective than it was, but some,arts are so entrenched in bad body mechanics that there is little that can be,done with them, more so that its become a point of honour with them that they won't,change. If it wasn't done that way in 1901 its not being done that way now

 

[DaveB]

but the,core,skill of wing,chun are so substandard that they are beyond a bit of tinkering with.
that's the problem with your,original premise, if you had said some tma can be,made,effective by changing a few things then you are,correct, karate has tried to modernise by teaching " practical karate" and having dropped a lot of the,silly stuff, its,a lot more effective than it was, but some,arts are so entrenched in bad body mechanics that there is little that can be,done with them, more so that its become a point of honour with them that they won't,change. If it wasn't done that way in 1901 its not being done that way now

What is it you think has changed or been dropped in karate?

We will have to disagree here.

I gave the example of timing punches as a universal core skill (as well as other things). They are not style dependent.

Are the stylistic elements of wing chun totally useless? They never seemed so to me. Since you won't list specific problems here why not start a thread to discuss that point?

 

[Martial D]

At last, the one argument that could work as a viable counter. Does a style exist with no combat useable content.
.

That my friend is what we like to call 'moving the goalposts' What you have moved to here is a totally different question.

A style is a crystalization. Certain movements, certain philosophy, certain biomechanics. A style is a fixed set. Yes you can extract usable techniques from just about any style, but that's different than 'doing the style' because no crystalized style accurately reflect combat.

Even in mma, pure boxers get murked, pure kickboxers get murked, even pure wrestlers and BJJ men get murked. It's not just TMA guys, the nature of fighting invalidates all crystalizations. This doesn't exactly put them all on equal footing though, the ones that have been successful simply have a greater syllabus of high percentage techniques than those that haven't.

Sure, you can try to milk the stones too, but the juice is unlikely to be worth the squeeze.

 

[Martial D]

But to your specific point, faith shouldn't come into it.

If there is a way to make the technique work in the dojo there is a way to make it work on resisting opposition.

Sure. Convince the guy you are fighting to stand there with a loose arm and flip himself when queued. Or throw a slow punch and leave it out there while the guys you are fighting does 3 or four techniques in a row to it. No problem.

Head kicks were useless because a bjj fighter would just take you down.

Which is still a very real concern. You don't see successful fighters throwing lots of high kicks vs BJJ and wrestling specialists. Not useless, but not high percentage either.

Jujitsu wrist lock not working kick his shin then head butt him so he's not thinking about the wrist anymore, or move up the arm to the elbow or shoulder.

'If he does this, I'll do that.'

This kind of talk is what has kept bullshido alive. Let's see it.

The point of sparring is not to win but to analyse what you are doing and get better.

Exactly my point. If what you are doing isn't effective, improve. Why gimp yourself out of loyalty to some archaic 'style'?

 

[jobo]

What is it you think has changed or been dropped in karate?

We will have to disagree here.

I gave the example of timing punches as a universal core skill (as well as other things). They are not style dependent.

Are the stylistic elements of wing chun totally useless? They never seemed so to me. Since you won't list specific problems here why not start a thread to discuss that point?

I didn't say totaly useless, they are useful against other wing chunners and they may very well work against people in the,street, depending of course on the physical atributes of the person on the,street.

what they won't do is hold up against a person of,similar physical atributes that's trained in a style with better movement and body mechanics, and would be of very limited use against a person of far greater physical atributes with little or no formal fight training.

non of which is help by the,some what lapse attitude to physical conditioning that seems prevalent in some of these arts

 

[Steve]

But to your specific point, faith shouldn't come into it.

If there is a way to make the technique work in the dojo there is a way to make it work on resisting opposition.

Head kicks were useless because a bjj fighter would just take you down.

So throw when he's off balance or back pedalling or out of position.

Jujitsu wrist lock not working kick his shin then head butt him so he's not thinking about the wrist anymore, or move up the arm to the elbow or shoulder.

The point of sparring is not to win but to analyse what you are doing and get better.

questionable statement here. I'd say, if it works in the dojo, it might work against a resisting opponent. But I don't think this is a given. How you're measuring "works" is also very important. I mean, will you consider a gimmicky technique that might work once because nobody has seen it before a success, or is the measure a little higher?

 

[DaveB]

Exactly my point. If what you are doing isn't effective, improve. Why gimp yourself out of loyalty to some archaic 'style'?

Some people just want to. It's a hobby for most. Unless your aiming for ufc champion, why not? What difference does it make?

 

[Martial D]

Some people just want to. It's a hobby for most. Unless your aiming for ufc champion, why not? What difference does it make?

I guess that depends on the goal. Are you doing martial arts for health reasons? For comraderie? To stay in shape? Because you just enjoy the art?
All perfectly valid reasons.

Or, are you doing ma to build yourself in to as close an approximation of a living weapon as you possibly can?

For the former, no difference. For the latter, all of the difference.

 

[mograph]

We must not be loyal to a style.
A style is a concept, a construct: something that somebody, or a bunch of people made up over time.
It has no feelings.

To me, in a martial context, the only question is: will my next choice make me a better martial artist in the long term?

(I do understand being loyal to an individual. However, if the student can progress beyond the teacher, then the student can look at the teacher with respect and gratitude, and move on if necessary, in the same way that one would respect someone who taught them, say, elementary physics.)

 

[DaveB]

I don't think loyalty need come into it.

Sometimes people just enjoy their style.

I will never get on with jujitsu, Japanese or Brazilian. I enjoy the kung fu and tkd I've done and the last few years I've only trained boxing and Thai boxing, but I will always be a karateka. Everything I do is karate even when it's boxing or kungfu.

 

[DaveB]

questionable statement here. I'd say, if it works in the dojo, it might work against a resisting opponent. But I don't think this is a given. How you're measuring "works" is also very important. I mean, will you consider a gimmicky technique that might work once because nobody has seen it before a success, or is the measure a little higher?

Nothing works all of the time on all of the people but I would say if something works often in the dojo it should work often outside, providing that you can work out the requirements.

What kind of things do you think could work only on the dojo and not anywhere else?

 

[Steve]

Nothing works all of the time on all of the people but I would say if something works often in the dojo it should work often outside, providing that you can work out the requirements.

What kind of things do you think could work only on the dojo and not anywhere else?

who knows? That's the point. This entire discussion is way to loosey goosey. I get where you're trying to go, and don't entirely disagree. I just think you speak in absolute terms without acknowledging all of the subjectivity inherent to your argument.

We don't have a common understanding of what is meant by "works." What does that mean? Works on whom? How often does something have to work in order to be deemed effective or successful? Once? Twice? Once against a new guy?

What's the measurable test for works outside the dojo? A news clipping? Use by a pro mma fighter?

Once again, I don't completely disagree, but you can't get in other posters for lack of cogent arguments or for misapplying a premise when you're guilty of some intellectual laziness yourself.

 

[WhisperingButterfly]

What is the difference between a "style" and a "system?" Are they the same? If so, then would not the original "idea" be the the very essence of the "system"--the reason or purpose of its inception? And how could that be understood, as a process of continued growth, for thousands of years? Or perhaps we are so indulged in our own glorious efforts that the only idea left is this thing we call "winning?"
If "style" and "system" are not the same concept--as in one serving a different purpose--then what would be the purpose of a "style" and why would we entertain such a concept, unless the "style" evolved to counter other "styles," which still does not answer why the idea of "style" in combat formed in essence while continuing to evolve and maintain tradition over thousands of years.
I feel that these are important questions in my efforts to understand more clearly.

 

[jobo]

Some people just want to. It's a hobby for most. Unless your aiming for ufc champion, why not? What difference does it make?

agreed, but that doesnt support your original point

What is the difference between a "style" and a "system?" Are they the same? If so, then would not the original "idea" be the the very essence of the "system"--the reason or purpose of its inception? And how could that be understood, as a process of continued growth, for thousands of years? Or perhaps we are so indulged in our own glorious efforts that the only idea left is this thing we call "winning?"
If "style" and "system" are not the same concept--as in one serving a different purpose--then what would be the purpose of a "style" and why would we entertain such a concept, unless the "style" evolved to counter other "styles," which still does not answer why the idea of "style" in combat formed in essence while continuing to evolve and maintain tradition over thousands of years.
I feel that these are important questions in my efforts to understand more clearly.

yes the words are more or less interchangable, style tends to get used for older systems,and,system gets used for newer styles

 

[geezer]

...a MT fighter will make mince meat of of a,wing chunner, the human reaction is to change,our programmed movement patterns to protect ourselves, once those have been changed sufficiently to give the,WC a chance, then it,will be,a long way from the,core principals of,WC

I have to disagree with the bolded part quoted above. Yes, you are correct that when adapted for fighting or competition, WC often looks very different from the "classical" posturing we see in the Ip Man movies and many traditional schools, but the core combative principles are not changed so much.

The problem is that so few people train and test their WC realistically, that there isn't a lot to look at. On the WC forum, Sean (Lobo66) is giving it a go, and of course there are Alan Orr's Iron Wolves. Locally here in Phoenix, there is a group called DTE MMA that integrates WC principles effectively into the way they train their fighters. They don't look like WC guys... and in fact, they aren't. But they do use many WC core principles effectively and realistically. Probably as they were intended to be used back when WC was actually used for fighting. Just my 2 cents.

 

[jobo]

I have to disagree with the bolded part quoted above. Yes, you are correct that when adapted for fighting or competition, WC often looks very different from the "classical" posturing we see in the Ip Man movies and many traditional schools, but the core combative principles are not changed so much.

The problem is that so few people train and test their WC realistically, that there isn't a lot to look at. On the WC forum, Sean (Lobo66) is giving it a go, and of course there are Alan Orr's Iron Wolves. Locally here in Phoenix, there is a group called DTE MMA that integrates WC principles effectively into the way they train their fighters. They don't look like WC guys... and in fact, they aren't. But they do use many WC core principles effectively and realistically. Probably as they were intended to be used back when WC was actually used for fighting. Just my 2 cents.

that then begs a big question or two, one,,,,if it doesnt look like WC how do you know it is WC and two,,, what are these core WC Principles and how do I tell them from say lau gar principles

 

[geezer]

agreed, but that doesnt support your original point

yes the words are more or less interchangable, style tends to get used for older systems,and,system gets used for newer styles

On the other hand, sometimes "style" really describes just that--a fashion, appearance or set of mannerisms associated with a particular martial art. Many TCMAs have an identifiable "style". By contrast, the term "system", properly used, describes an organized, interrelation of parts or principles yielding an integrated whole. A truly systemic fighting method is far more than just a "style" of movement.

To your point, modern competitive fighting arts do, by their very nature, evolve into into systems. If a boxer, wrestler, or MT fighter is just training random techniques and not all the essentials of the system, he will not succeed. Older, traditional arts that are not regularly tested for functionality are far more likely to devolve into a mere decorative "style".