ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[drop bear]

Ah, gotcha. Yes, a recurring problem.

And look if we put a 10 an 0 street fighter vs a 10 and 0 ring fighter anywhere. Where would the smart money be?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How does a street fighter develop his skill, ability, and experience?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And look if we put a 10 an 0 street fighter vs a 10 and 0 ring fighter anywhere. Where would the smart money be?

Depends how we define 10 and 0, I suppose. In general, if we're talking about a 10 among all ring fighters, that's an elite athlete, so that's the safe money.

 

[DaveB]

OK. So originally the idea is boxing ,in this case,is a manufactured environment. And so when you throw a system that is not meant to be chained down by rules into an environment that is. They are so hampered by this that they perform badly. This is not because they fundamentally perform badly. But because that is not the environment they are designed to perform in.

Imagine putting a shark in a running race with a turtle. The shark while being way more awesome. Looses due it being out of water.

But a street fighting system is also chained by the small amount of exposure that has been used to develop its system. So if I go out to the pub and bash ten guys. The chances of those ten guys being of an ability that developed me as a fighter is pretty slim.

Then when I then think I can win a boxing match because I am harry hardass down at the pub and get flogged.

It is more likely that the boxer beat me because he has a fundamentally better tool set.

This is also why we see styles like boxing do OK outside their manufactured environment.

Actually that's not really what I was trying to say.

It's not that they perform badly because they are hampered at all.

This comparison came up because Jobo couldnt see the wing chun style in Alan Orr's student when he won his boxing match.

What i was saying was that the structure of the environment as determined by the rules, makes certain tactics optimal.

Since any fighter should adapt what he does to his environment (you wouldn't try and high kick if you were waist deep in a river) a boxing match necessitates adaptation towards those optimal tactics ie boxing.

How much adaptation is dependent on the style and the fighter I suppose.

Does the change in environment hamper the fighter? Probably... hence all the clips I've seen of pro boxers in mma are of them getting beat down and very few people are putting money on Connor McGregor.

However I would argue that the embarrassment that occurs in most wing chun beat down videos is due to a lack of core skills plus a lack of experience and understanding with fighting outside the class.

I also believe that it's not the toolset in terms of techniques that let boxers do well when fighting at the pub, but rather the development of those core skills like timing, distancing, accuracy, spotting and reacting to attacks, balanced movement etc.
Not to mention the fast and powerful punches developed in the gym.

 

[drop bear]

Depends how we define 10 and 0, I suppose. In general, if we're talking about a 10 among all ring fighters, that's an elite athlete, so that's the safe money.

Sorry ten fights zero losses. It is in part how a fighters ability is determined.

In ring terms you are getting pretty good by that stage.

 

[drop bear]

Actually that's not really what I was trying to say.

It's not that they perform badly because they are hampered at all.

This comparison came up because Jobo couldnt see the wing chun style in Alan Orr's student when he won his boxing match.

What i was saying was that the structure of the environment as determined by the rules, makes certain tactics optimal.

Since any fighter should adapt what he does to his environment (you wouldn't try and high kick if you were waist deep in a river) a boxing match necessitates adaptation towards those optimal tactics ie boxing.

How much adaptation is dependent on the style and the fighter I suppose.

Does the change in environment hamper the fighter? Probably... hence all the clips I've seen of pro boxers in mma are of them getting beat down and very few people are putting money on Connor McGregor.

However I would argue that the embarrassment that occurs in most wing chun beat down videos is due to a lack of core skills plus a lack of experience and understanding with fighting outside the class.

I also believe that it's not the toolset in terms of techniques that let boxers do well when fighting at the pub, but rather the development of those core skills like timing, distancing, accuracy, spotting and reacting to attacks, balanced movement etc.
Not to mention the fast and powerful punches developed in the gym.

OK. But if I can stop a fast punch. I really should be able to stop a slow punch. Developing a system to handle competent fighters should handle less competent ones by default.

Who were the fighters wing chun was designed to handle? And how does that effect their adaptation?

I put it to you Alan Orr's guys had to become basically better because their level of opponent became better.

 

[DaveB]

OK. But if I can stop a fast punch. I really should be able to stop a slow punch. Developing a system to handle competent fighters should handle less competent ones by default.

Who were the fighters wing chun was designed to handle? And how does that effect their adaptation?

I put it to you Alan Orr's guys had to become basically better because their level of opponent became better.

That first part is absolutely true.
The second part is a valid question and certainly something not often considered. I think the who is less important than the overall culture. If we believe that wing chun was designed to defeat the martial arts prevalent in and around Southern China, then it seems reasonable to need to adapt what your doing for the modern global martial environment. But to do that you'd have to understand both the art you want to change and the environment your in.

That being said, TMA incorporate adaptability by being built on principles rather than concrete and sacrosanct techniques. So long as you are following the principles of the style you are using said style regardless of the outward form. Hence Alan Orr and his students (and his teacher too) are adamant that wing chun simply does not look the same in application.

I can't dispute your last statement because it's an obvious truth, better opponents necessitate our own improvement, but I think it's a more generic point than you are trying to make it. Just because someone is boxing doesn't mean they are a good fighter.

What makes Alan Orr's students effective is their training that both stresses alive practice, develops core skills and allows adjustment for different environments.

 

[Martial D]

That first part is absolutely true.
The second part is a valid question and certainly something not often considered. I think the who is less important than the overall culture. If we believe that wing chun was designed to defeat the martial arts prevalent in and around Southern China, then it seems reasonable to need to adapt what your doing for the modern global martial environment. But to do that you'd have to understand both the art you want to change and the environment your in.

That being said, TMA incorporate adaptability by being built on principles rather than concrete and sacrosanct techniques. So long as you are following the principles of the style you are using said style regardless of the outward form. Hence Alan Orr and his students (and his teacher too) are adamant that wing chun simply does not look the same in application.

I can't dispute your last statement because it's an obvious truth, better opponents necessitate our own improvement, but I think it's a more generic point than you are trying to make it. Just because someone is boxing doesn't mean they are a good fighter.

What makes Alan Orr's students effective is their training that both stresses alive practice, develops core skills and allows adjustment for different environments.

"Does not look the same in application"

This comes up a lot, but seems to be properly understood as 'my stuff doesn't work so it had to be so heavily modified as to be unrecognizable'

Look at styles that are proven to work

Boxing looks like boxing. BJJ looks like BJJ. Mui Thai looks like Mui Thai. 5 seconds of observation tells you what it is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

"Does not look the same in application"

This comes up a lot, but seems to be properly understood as 'my stuff doesn't work so it had to be so heavily modified as to be unrecognizable'

Look at styles that are proven to work

Boxing looks like boxing. BJJ looks like BJJ. Mui Thai looks like Mui Thai. 5 seconds of observation tells you what it is.

I think it depends upon when you look at it. There's some stuff in NGA that, if you look at the light drills, it's unlike what real application will look like. Why? Because there's nothing messing up. Things get messy once people start acting unpredictably. Now, if you look at the heavier, more "live" drills, you'll see something that's more like what you're likely to see from us when we spar, even when we mix with other styles.

If a style doesn't have anything in their training that looks like application, that (IMO) suggests they're leaving out some of the heavier drilling, especially the "live" component.

Here's a very simple example. Think of a standard one-hand knife edge block (shuto block) that exists in many JMA. The least "live" drill for that (without losing a partner) is a simple, predictable pattern of punches from a partner who stands still, squared up. You block each one in turn (knowing what is coming) without needing to step, etc. I teach this to beginners to help them work on things like keeping elbows in and getting some structure into the block so it doesn't collapse. There's a huge range of drills that can progressively approach functional use (I use whichever ones the student needs, and skip those they don't). If you compare that first drill to a live use, you probably won't spot something that looks like it. They shouldn't be standing still. They will probably change their body structure to protect themselves better. Since they'll be moving, they won't be squared up. In some cases, the shuto contact will be almost impossible to see, as they'll transition to a grip or trap if it's available.

None of that will look much like the first, lightest drill. But it will look a lot like even some of the mid-range drills where the blocks are incorporated into grappling techniques and sparring.

 

[DaveB]

"Does not look the same in application"

This comes up a lot, but seems to be properly understood as 'my stuff doesn't work so it had to be so heavily modified as to be unrecognizable'

Look at styles that are proven to work

Boxing looks like boxing. BJJ looks like BJJ. Mui Thai looks like Mui Thai. 5 seconds of observation tells you what it is.

I can see why you might think that but there are a couple of issues with that statement.

First and foremost is the culture.
Many Southeast Asian martial arts (and I'm led to believe non martial pursuits too), practice an idealised form for learning. I have books from the turn of the 20th century where notable karate masters (all of whom were disciples to kungfu sifu) explain that form and application are separate things. It is not some new idea being used to excuse bad performance it is a fact of the culture of these martial arts. Its also a very common point of contention where schools have proliferated quickly there are often misconceptions about what is idealised and what is practical. Karateka have been arguing over kata application for the last 20 years, but the progression from mimicking the form to free fighting with the principles (shu-ha-ri) is well documented.

Second I thoroughly dispute the idea that boxing in the gym looks like boxing in application. To watch any average Joe boxer shadow box or work a heavy bag you would think the likes of Lomanchenko or Tyson were the norm. Yet put them in the ring and the story is markedly different. Some trainers don't even believe in "fancy stuff" like that, but their fighters can all look the part in front of the floor-ceiling ball or shadow boxing etc. I imagine the same is true for the other arts you mentioned (think Muay Boran forms in Ong Bak vs the ring fight scene).
Idealised form vs reality.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can see why you might think that but there are a couple of issues with that statement.

First and foremost is the culture.
Many Southeast Asian martial arts (and I'm led to believe non martial pursuits too), practice an idealised form for learning. I have books from the turn of the 20th century where notable karate masters (all of whom were disciples to kungfu sifu) explain that form and application are separate things. It is not some new idea being used to excuse bad performance it is a fact of the culture of these martial arts. Its also a very common point of contention where schools have proliferated quickly there are often misconceptions about what is idealised and what is practical. Karateka have been arguing over kata application for the last 20 years, but the progression from mimicking the form to free fighting with the principles (shu-ha-ri) is well documented.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this being culturally driven. It might explain why some of the early training drills in NGA seem so stylized to me.

Second I thoroughly dispute the idea that boxing in the gym looks like boxing in application. To watch any average Joe boxer shadow box or work a heavy bag you would think the likes of Lomanchenko or Tyson were the norm. Yet put them in the ring and the story is markedly different. Some trainers don't even believe in "fancy stuff" like that, but their fighters can all look the part in front of the floor-ceiling ball or shadow boxing etc. I imagine the same is true for the other arts you mentioned (think Muay Boran forms in Ong Bak vs the ring fight scene).
Idealised form vs reality.

So, would you say that (in the boxing example you give) the more skilled the fighter, the more likely they are to execute in sparring/competition closely to their drills? And if that's true, would you expect the same from a high-level karateka (for instance), when you look past the forms (for the reasons you gave)?

 

[jobo]

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this being culturally driven. It might explain why some of the early training drills in NGA seem so stylized to me.


So, would you say that (in the boxing example you give) the more skilled the fighter, the more likely they are to execute in sparring/competition closely to their drills? And if that's true, would you expect the same from a high-level karateka (for instance), when you look past the forms (for the reasons you gave)?

i agree,dave keeps ignoring awkward question, the method to get good is large amounts of practise, the more you practise the more the movement patterns are establish, the harder it is to do something else, when the pressure is on

 

[Martial D]

I think it depends upon when you look at it. There's some stuff in NGA that, if you look at the light drills, it's unlike what real application will look like. Why? Because there's nothing messing up. Things get messy once people start acting unpredictably. Now, if you look at the heavier, more "live" drills, you'll see something that's more like what you're likely to see from us when we spar, even when we mix with other styles.

If a style doesn't have anything in their training that looks like application, that (IMO) suggests they're leaving out some of the heavier drilling, especially the "live" component.

Here's a very simple example. Think of a standard one-hand knife edge block (shuto block) that exists in many JMA. The least "live" drill for that (without losing a partner) is a simple, predictable pattern of punches from a partner who stands still, squared up. You block each one in turn (knowing what is coming) without needing to step, etc. I teach this to beginners to help them work on things like keeping elbows in and getting some structure into the block so it doesn't collapse. There's a huge range of drills that can progressively approach functional use (I use whichever ones the student needs, and skip those they don't). If you compare that first drill to a live use, you probably won't spot something that looks like it. They shouldn't be standing still. They will probably change their body structure to protect themselves better. Since they'll be moving, they won't be squared up. In some cases, the shuto contact will be almost impossible to see, as they'll transition to a grip or trap if it's available.

None of that will look much like the first, lightest drill. But it will look a lot like even some of the mid-range drills where the blocks are incorporated into grappling techniques and sparring.

If you train your body to move a certain way, to strike a certain way, to stand a certain way, and that all goes out the window when things get real to the point you are no longer moving,striking, or standing that way, you probably want to reevaluate your training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you train your body to move a certain way, to strike a certain way, to stand a certain way, and that all goes out the window when things get real to the point you are no longer moving,striking, or standing that way, you probably want to reevaluate your training.

Agreed. That was my point. If you looked at early drills, you'd get that impression about the blocking I teach (only part of the movement is there, so hard to recognize). If you look at the later drills, you'd see the training matches what gets used in live sparring.

 

[Martial D]

Agreed. That was my point. If you looked at early drills, you'd get that impression about the blocking I teach (only part of the movement is there, so hard to recognize). If you look at the later drills, you'd see the training matches what gets used in live sparring.

Why would you train something that only needs to be unlearned later? Why not just teach what can be used, right off the bat?

Seems like a way to needlessly(and counter productively) extend learning time. Is it about the $$$?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why would you train something that only needs to be unlearned later? Why not just teach what can be used, right off the bat?

Seems like a way to needlessly(and counter productively) extend learning time. Is it about the $$$?

Not something to be unlearned. A part of a total. It's like a boxer practicing with the speed bag. You won't see that set of motions in that appearance during a boxing match. It's a drill that builds toward something else. Or do you argue speed bag work is also useless?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Is it about the $$$?

Oh, and that's a graceless attack. You can do better.

 

[DaveB]

Interesting. I wasn't aware of this being culturally driven. It might explain why some of the early training drills in NGA seem so stylized to me.

I once spoke to a karate historian who linked it to some Buddhist philosophy of something or other.. But either way I've yet to encounter a traditional art that didn't stress application of it's ideas over external form.

So, would you say that (in the boxing example you give) the more skilled the fighter, the more likely they are to execute in sparring/competition closely to their drills? And if that's true, would you expect the same from a high-level karateka (for instance), when you look past the forms (for the reasons you gave)?

Yes and no. It certainly takes a high level of skill to make the ideal form work, but I'd suggest it was not an objective difference in skill that makes one able to employ such methods as much as specific training regimes.
When Tyson stopped training with Cuss Demato (Sp?) his style changed and his decline began.

As to high level karateka looking like their idealised form, the art just isn't designed that way. The ideal form is taken from the kata and the kata are part symbolic and part exaggerated for exercise. Hence trying to fight with kata is a misinterpretation of the art. As far as I know the same is true for all CMA.

 

[DaveB]

i agree,dave keeps ignoring awkward question, the method to get good is large amounts of practise, the more you practise the more the movement patterns are establish, the harder it is to do something else, when the pressure is on

Ignoring awkward questions?
Like when I asked you to give time references for your misrepresentation of the Alan Orr vids? Or like now when I'm goingvto ask you to quote said awkward questions and you won't be able to?

You say (and Martial D agrees) "the method to get good is lots of practice". So how is that different to me saying training is all important not style?

But by Martial D's argument if you put on boxing gloves and step into a ring but spent everyday eating pizza on a sun lounger you are still better than a dedicated well trained wing chun exponent because boxing rules and styles win fights. You don't question that?

Obviously repetition shapes technique. No one is saying your supposed to go from the commonly seen wing chun drills to looking like a cage fighter. The point is that there are levels of training between the surface form and the final application. I did mention this (Shu-ha-ri).

The stuff we commonly associate with wing chun is the shu stage. Surface application of standard movements.
Ha, is looking deeper into those movements for other uses. From what I can tell this is where a lot if the arguments in wing chun forums happen about the real purpose of movements.
Ri, is the kind of thing Alan Orr does where he highlights the ideas underpinning his movements but the moves themselves take whatever form is practical for the circumstance. So when he shows tan sau his arm isnt extended but rather in a guard position as he's pressed up close to the opponent, but he's turning into it to spread the opponents guard and control their movement.

It boggles the mind that a fellow martial artist would think that talk of different levels of application means you expect a student to do one set of training and then fight a different way. To be clear, each level requires it's own training process.

 

[jobo]

Ignoring awkward questions?
Like when I asked you to give time references for your misrepresentation of the Alan Orr vids? Or like now when I'm goingvto ask you to quote said awkward questions and you won't be able to?

You say (and Martial D agrees) "the method to get good is lots of practice". So how is that different to me saying training is all important not style?

But by Martial D's argument if you put on boxing gloves and step into a ring but spent everyday eating pizza on a sun lounger you are still better than a dedicated well trained wing chun exponent because boxing rules and styles win fights. You don't question that?

Obviously repetition shapes technique. No one is saying your supposed to go from the commonly seen wing chun drills to looking like a cage fighter. The point is that there are levels of training between the surface form and the final application. I did mention this (Shu-ha-ri).

The stuff we commonly associate with wing chun is the shu stage. Surface application of standard movements.
Ha, is looking deeper into those movements for other uses. From what I can tell this is where a lot if the arguments in wing chun forums happen about the real purpose of movements.
Ri, is the kind of thing Alan Orr does where he highlights the ideas underpinning his movements but the moves themselves take whatever form is practical for the circumstance. So when he shows tan sau his arm isnt extended but rather in a guard position as he's pressed up close to the opponent, but he's turning into it to spread the opponents guard and control their movement.

It boggles the mind that a fellow martial artist would think that talk of different levels of application means you expect a student to do one set of training and then fight a different way. To be clear, each level requires it's own training process.

I've asked several times, when you say any art will work, what calibre of fighter will it work against?

the better you get at say wing chun, the more you are restricted by the movement patterns that form part of wing chun, the more difficult it is to fight in a different and more effective way.

if you train extensively in that " wing chun" boxing you keep banging on about, then you will be more effective than plain old wing chun.

but that is so fundamental different from wing chun , that it's a real push to see any wing chun it it at all.

which is the other awkward question, when i asked you to identify any elements of wing chun, in the wing chun boxing you declined to answer