ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[DaveB]

The op assumes that all styles are viable for combat 'if only trained right'

I guess only certain styles 'train right', because lots of them tend to flounder like a fish on land the second it's anything but kata or scripted drills.

I've yet to encounter anyone who has examined the training practices of every school in any one style, nor tested an anywhere near statistically relevant sample of their students fighting ability.

In other words this is a baseless claim.

It's easy to think we know something because we've seen a few examples on YouTube, but there's a big difference between what we've experienced and what is happening outside our little bubble.

 

[drop bear]

This is precisely my point.

Just because there are other variables does not mean style isn't a variable.

If you are suggesting that the variables could under the right circumstance work. Then yeah you are right.

You could get a guy who is big enough and bad enough to make a style work against a smaller weaker person that would not work under more even conditions.

But it is pretty silly from a practical point of view.

 

[DaveB]

Just because there are other variables does not mean style isn't a variable.

If you are suggesting that the variables could under the right circumstance work. Then yeah you are right.

You could get a guy who is big enough and bad enough to make a style work against a smaller weaker person that would not work under more even conditions.

But it is pretty silly from a practical point of view.

Any style comparison has to be made from a base of equally attributed practitioners. So yes, I am going further than the above and arguing that a fighter can give a good accounting of himself if he has trained correctly, not if he is physically superior to begin with.

Style can be a variable in that a given style may be a poor fit against another because of their specific specialisms and martial culture of origin. For example I understand that Japanese sword work is not well equipped to deal with thrusting as compared to European swordsmanship. This is just due to the idiosyncrasies of their respective origins.

But the question being addressed is "does x style work?". Not, "will x style make me invincible in all combat?" Furthermore I argue that the essence of combat is universal making style v style a largely redundant concept, except in the above academic cases.

There were lots of points made to justify the position I've taken. Which in particular do you disagree with?

 

[jobo]

If you don't fight, you're doing something else. Which is totally okay. Just understand that you're getting better at doing what you're actually doing.

this is precisely what you said, you not doing " something else" you learning and practising essential movement patterns

the idea that fighting makes you good at fighting with out any focus on learning the correct movement is clearly nonsense, other wise every kid who had been beaten up a lot would automatically be a good fighter

 

[Martial D]

I've yet to encounter anyone who has examined the training practices of every school in any one style, nor tested an anywhere near statistically relevant sample of their students fighting ability.

In other words this is a baseless claim.

It's easy to think we know something because we've seen a few examples on YouTube, but there's a big difference between what we've experienced and what is happening outside our little bubble.

Lol.

Yes, we can't say for certain Russels teapot is NOT there, can we

 

[jobo]

Just because there are other variables does not mean style isn't a variable.

If you are suggesting that the variables could under the right circumstance work. Then yeah you are right.

You could get a guy who is big enough and bad enough to make a style work against a smaller weaker person that would not work under more even conditions.

But it is pretty silly from a practical point of view.

I think your looking at it the wrong way, the styles that are the most effective are the ones that are the most demanding physically, therefore they have a built in physical advantage that is Impossible to split from the style.

 

[DaveB]

Lol.

Yes, we can't say for certain Russels teapot is NOT there, can we

Sorry I don't get the reference.

Again though if you disagree why not point to the flawed argument and explain what is wrong with it.

Sarcasm may amuse but it is a poor substitute for reason.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Sorry I don't get the reference.

Again though if you disagree why not point to the flawed argument and explain what is wrong with it.

Sarcasm may amuse but it is a poor substitute for reason.

What is Russell's teapot?

 

[Martial D]

Sorry I don't get the reference.

Again though if you disagree why not point to the flawed argument and explain what is wrong with it.

Sarcasm may amuse but it is a poor substitute for reason.

As are ad hominems, red herrings, argumentum ad ignorantium, and the misappropriation of sarcasm.

Sure, maybe somewhere out there someone is doing Tai Chi moves to beat someone up. Maybe. You have your beliefs and convictions, and I have the reality of training with just about every style that trains actual combat over the past 30 years or so. Some **** works, lots of **** doesn't work. The **** that doesn't work tends not to train contact.

Does it not work because there's no contact or did they stop the contact when they realized it didn't work? Who knows, who cares. Chicken/egg

Sure, maybe there are hypothetical exceptions, but that brings us back to Russels teapot. Can't prove a negative.

 

[Jenna]

It's easy to think we know something because we've seen a few examples on YouTube, but there's a big difference between what we've experienced and what is happening outside our little bubble.

That is an interesting way to put that.. do you think the little bubble would surround an individual practitioner or a style or an whole art? thank you x

 

[DaveB]

As are ad hominems, red herrings, argumentum ad ignorantium, and the misappropriation of sarcasm.

Sure, maybe somewhere out there someone is doing Tai Chi moves to beat someone up. Maybe. You have your beliefs and convictions, and I have the reality of training with just about every style that trains actual combat over the past 30 years or so. Some **** works, lots of **** doesn't work. The **** that doesn't work tends not to train contact.

Does it not work because there's no contact or did they stop the contact when they realized it didn't work? Who knows, who cares. Chicken/egg

Sure, maybe there are hypothetical exceptions, but that brings us back to Russels teapot. Can't prove a negative.

So what your saying is you can't find a flaw in my arguments but you are sticking to your opinions anyway.

I'd expect nothing less.

But I certainly agree that contact is one of the important elements of "training It right". I just don't get why after 30 years of training you would feel that an idea like that was confined by style lines?

Also I'm quite happy to accept that some styles may have no one training in an effective way, though I think it's unlikely. I just don't think that there is anything stopping them from changing that because style and training are independent.

 

[jobo]

So what your saying is you can't find a flaw in my arguments but you are sticking to your opinions anyway.

I'd expect nothing less.

But I certainly agree that contact is one of the important elements of "training It right". I just don't get why after 30 years of training you would feel that an idea like that was confined by style lines?

Also I'm quite happy to accept that some styles may have no one training in an effective way, though I think it's unlikely. I just don't think that there is anything stopping them from changing that because style and training are independent.

some styles have disappeared down an evolutionary black hole, tai chi being one of them, they are stuck in time and refuse to adapt and so lose any effectives' they might have had.

so if someone adapted the training and techneque to make it effective , then critics will say that's not tai Chi any more, as in tai,chi you stand there like a lemon in a,silly horse stance whilst people kick you. You moved so its not tai chi.

it's the same with wing Chun, if someone does it with effect, it can't be wing chun
its something of a parodox

proving yourself right immediately make you wrong,

 

[DaveB]

That is an interesting way to put that.. do you think the little bubble would surround an individual practitioner or a style or an whole art? thank you x

By bubble I was referring to the sphere of an individuals experiences.

If I watch a hundred wing chun fail videos online I might think I've seen all the art has to offer. But if I consider, I've watched 100 practitioners from videos spanning maybe 20 years, so how many wing chun practitioners have I not seen?

I've heard of single schools with 100 members on their books If not actively practicing.

And of all the practitioners, are the ones fighting the best around? Or just the ones with an interest in fighting. Are the hundred videos a complete competitive history of wing chun?

I started martial arts training in 98. I've been filmed once to my knowledge, after about 6 months of training. My competition days ended by 2000, not for any reason, just never entered again, and i learned sooo much more since that time.

I have sparred with mmaists, kick boxers, Thai boxers, boxers, jkdists, jujutsuka karsteka wing chun exponents.... not one second of it on film. I imagine the relative lack of footage is true for most of us.

But still people act like if there's no video it didn't happen. Like they can judge because of a few minutes of film. It's the definition of a logical fallacy.

 

[Martial D]

So what your saying is you can't find a flaw in my arguments but you are sticking to your opinions anyway.

I'd expect nothing less.
.

Heh.

Is that how you read it?

QED.

 

[DaveB]

Heh.

Is that how you read it?

QED.

Well I didn't read any counterpoints to my argument, so yeh.

QED.

 

[Charlemagne]

There are really a number of factors here. Specifically,

1. Style/Systems trained
2. Training method (how is a given style trained. Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.)
3. Non-modifiable attributes/anthropometerics
4. Modifiable attributes (strength, conditioning, body mass, flexibility, motor control and learning, nutrition, etc.)
5. Cognitive (Sport psych, drive, tactical understanding, willingness to accept discomfort/pain, reasons for training/fighting, etc.)

All of these things are going to interact to varying degrees depending on the situation.

However, the bottom line that, in situations where some of the other variables have been removed, or at least made a bit more equal (to the extent that they really ever can be), there are some styles which consistently show the ability to perform under a high level of stress, and some which have little to no documented evidence of the same. There are some people on here that don't like to hear that, and some that don't seem to want to accept it, but it is reality nonetheless.

In addition, there are some styles which have documented evidence working when some of the variables I noted above are not equal, particularly some of the modifiable attributes and anthropometrics (aka, size) and there are styles which have little to no documented evidence of the same. Again, there are some people who don't want to hear that, but it is still the truth regardless of personal preference.

As I noted earlier, I do believe that the number of systems that will work is probably higher than often touted by those in the "aliveness" camp. For example, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Kyokushin is the only form of Karate that can work well against a resisting opponent with full contact. It simply happens to be the system where a charismatic leader decided to make hard contact a regular part of their training and testing, and put themselves out there for others to see doing that in ways that other forms of Karate have done less of, both against each other, and against persons from other styles with documented evidence of aliveness in their training and testing, such as MT, etc.

There are even more that probably have aspects of what they do which will work. The actual numbers and which systems those are is harder to get a handle on, simply because the the type of training and pressure testing necessary to figure that out is either not being done or not being disseminated.

These arguments about which systems might work or might not will not be settled in any meaningful way until persons in those systems without documented evidence of fighting ability against a resisting opponent start showing the desire and ability to pressure test their systems, are successful in doing so, and disseminate it. If they are not willing to do that, then they ought to be prepared to accept that people are doing to doubt the effectiveness of what they do. In other words, if you don't want to test your system in that way, don't get bent out of shape when people vocally doubt the effectiveness of what you do. If you want to silence the critics, you know how to do it.

 

[Steve]

this is precisely what you said, you not doing " something else" you learning and practising essential movement patterns

the idea that fighting makes you good at fighting with out any focus on learning the correct movement is clearly nonsense, other wise every kid who had been beaten up a lot would automatically be a good fighter

Let me try again. If you want to be a good golfer, you need to golf. Other things help develop skills, but that will only get you so far. If you never golf, you aren't a golfer. If you never play on a soccer team, you aren't a soccer player.

We use broad terms like fight or self defense, but those are terms that are hopelessly broad. Think about it like rungs on a ladder. Not a perfect analogy because things aren't as linear, but hopefully it will help illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Each rung represents a skillset you have mastered. As you learn skills, they prepare you to step up another rung. If you never actually step to that rung, you will never progress beyond it.

So, you mention golfer. If you have a driver and get really good at hitting the golf ball 300 yards straight down the range, that's an essential skill. There are others. So, if you never do anything more than drive the ball, you are not a great golfer. You need to learn to hit all the clubs, and also develop a short game, including a lot of practice putting on the green. Now, this might be as far as you go. and if so, there is still a lot you don't know about golf, that you will only learn if you take another step up the ladder. You have to schedule tee times and actually play many rounds of golf. Only by playing golf will you really become adept at golf. You will experience the joys of poor lies, hitting behind trees, lost balls, water hazards and hitting on hills. And there is a stake. You're keeping score, and every bad shot counts. That's another rung.

n the case of martial arts or self defense skills, if you never actually fight, you're on some rung below that. hopefully, if you train well, you're only one rung away and prepared to take a step up. But you might be two or more rungs away and not really know it. Hard to say. But the most important thing to know is that you aren't on that rung. So, like the golfer playing his first round of golf, when you take a step up you will only then understand that there is more to learn.

As I said before, this idea is intuitively understood in every single thing we learn to do as human beings, except martial arts.. Well, not quite true. People around here over the years have demonstrated that they see this gap clearly in how other people train. The trouble I've observed is that they believe what they're doing is the exception.

 

[Charlemagne]

So, you mention golfer. If you have a driver and get really good at hitting the golf ball 300 yards straight down the range, that's an essential skill. There are others. So, if you never do anything more than drive the ball, you are not a great golfer. You need to learn to hit all the clubs, and also develop a short game, including a lot of practice putting on the green. Now, this might be as far as you go. and if so, there is still a lot you don't know about golf, that you will only learn if you take another step up the ladder. You have to schedule tee times and actually play many rounds of golf. Only by playing golf will you really become adept at golf. You will experience the joys of poor lies, hitting behind trees, lost balls, water hazards and hitting on hills. And there is a stake. You're keeping score, and every bad shot counts. That's another rung.

In the case of martial arts or self defense skills, if you never actually fight, you're on some rung below that. hopefully, if you train well, you're only one rung away and prepared to take a step up. But you might be two or more rungs away and not really know it. Hard to say. But the most important thing to know is that you aren't on that rung. So, like the golfer playing his first round of golf, when you take a step up you will only then understand that there is more to learn.

As I said before, this idea is intuitively understood in every single thing we learn to do as human beings, except martial arts.. Well, not quite true. People around here over the years have demonstrated that they see this gap clearly in how other people train. The trouble I've observed is that they believe what they're doing is the exception.

Well put. Very well put.

 

[jobo]

Let me try again. If you want to be a good golfer, you need to golf. Other things help develop skills, but that will only get you so far. If you never golf, you aren't a golfer. If you never play on a soccer team, you aren't a soccer player.

We use broad terms like fight or self defense, but those are terms that are hopelessly broad. Think about it like rungs on a ladder. Not a perfect analogy because things aren't as linear, but hopefully it will help illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Each rung represents a skillset you have mastered. As you learn skills, they prepare you to step up another rung. If you never actually step to that rung, you will never progress beyond it.

So, you mention golfer. If you have a driver and get really good at hitting the golf ball 300 yards straight down the range, that's an essential skill. There are others. So, if you never do anything more than drive the ball, you are not a great golfer. You need to learn to hit all the clubs, and also develop a short game, including a lot of practice putting on the green. Now, this might be as far as you go. and if so, there is still a lot you don't know about golf, that you will only learn if you take another step up the ladder. You have to schedule tee times and actually play many rounds of golf. Only by playing golf will you really become adept at golf. You will experience the joys of poor lies, hitting behind trees, lost balls, water hazards and hitting on hills. And there is a stake. You're keeping score, and every bad shot counts. That's another rung.

n the case of martial arts or self defense skills, if you never actually fight, you're on some rung below that. hopefully, if you train well, you're only one rung away and prepared to take a step up. But you might be two or more rungs away and not really know it. Hard to say. But the most important thing to know is that you aren't on that rung. So, like the golfer playing his first round of golf, when you take a step up you will only then understand that there is more to learn.

As I said before, this idea is intuitively understood in every single thing we learn to do as human beings, except martial arts.. Well, not quite true. People around here over the years have demonstrated that they see this gap clearly in how other people train. The trouble I've observed is that they believe what they're doing is the exception.

yes, there are things there I could take issue with but let them roll on.

but ymin your statement that doing kata is " something else other than fighting," you have now changed your mind and agree that it ( or something like it where you practise movement patterns) is a prerequisite to developing,a skill.

if you had said that kata will only get you do far, I would have agreed, but you didn't, you said it was " something else" entirely " and that's plainly wrong, as it seems even you admit

 

[Flying Crane]

There are really a number of factors here. Specifically,

1. Style/Systems trained
2. Training method (how is a given style trained. Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.)
3. Non-modifiable attributes/anthropometerics
4. Modifiable attributes (strength, conditioning, body mass, flexibility, motor control and learning, nutrition, etc.)
5. Cognitive (Sport psych, drive, tactical understanding, willingness to accept discomfort/pain, reasons for training/fighting, etc.)

All of these things are going to interact to varying degrees depending on the situation.

However, the bottom line that, in situations where some of the other variables have been removed, or at least made a bit more equal (to the extent that they really ever can be), there are some styles which consistently show the ability to perform under a high level of stress, and some which have little to no documented evidence of the same. There are some people on here that don't like to hear that, and some that don't seem to want to accept it, but it is reality nonetheless.

In addition, there are some styles which have documented evidence working when some of the variables I noted above are not equal, particularly some of the modifiable attributes and anthropometrics (aka, size) and there are styles which have little to no documented evidence of the same. Again, there are some people who don't want to hear that, but it is still the truth regardless of personal preference.

As I noted earlier, I do believe that the number of systems that will work is probably higher than often touted by those in the "aliveness" camp. For example, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Kyokushin is the only form of Karate that can work well against a resisting opponent with full contact. It simply happens to be the system where a charismatic leader decided to make hard contact a regular part of their training and testing, and put themselves out there for others to see doing that in ways that other forms of Karate have done less of, both against each other, and against persons from other styles with documented evidence of aliveness in their training and testing, such as MT, etc.

There are even more that probably have aspects of what they do which will work. The actual numbers and which systems those are is harder to get a handle on, simply because the the type of training and pressure testing necessary to figure that out is either not being done or not being disseminated.

These arguments about which systems might work or might not will not be settled in any meaningful way until persons in those systems without documented evidence of fighting ability against a resisting opponent start showing the desire and ability to pressure test their systems, are successful in doing so, and disseminate it. If they are not willing to do that, then they ought to be prepared to accept that people are doing to doubt the effectiveness of what they do.

Actually, I am happy to accept that people might doubt the effectiveness of the system that I study. That is fine with me. In the end it matters not, what some ignorant people on the internet might think, about something for which their only experience is YouTube. Anyone who holds up YouTube as the ultimate source of information, needs to get a real education.