ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

I would think that, like other systems, this is only as true as we make it. The movement patterns are the starting point, a way to learn the principles and one possible set of applications. Within the principles are other approaches. I see this a lot in TMA, somewhat less in boxing, and even see it in sports like soccer and basketball. I refer to it as "playing in the grey areas" - the area between the "techniques".

 

[Martial D]

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?

Apples and oranges it seems. Speed bag work is for developing timing, it's not properly a punching drill.

I honestly would have to see what you mean to properly argue, but it seems odd you would drill an incomplete defensive movement only to alter it after it's already been committed to muscle memory by the student.

 

[jobo]

I would think that, like other systems, this is only as true as we make it. The movement patterns are the starting point, a way to learn the principles and one possible set of applications. Within the principles are other approaches. I see this a lot in TMA, somewhat less in boxing, and even see it in sports like soccer and basketball. I refer to it as "playing in the grey areas" - the area between the "techniques".

yes and no, as we touched on in another thread, you become proficient when and only when you have drilled a movement pattern so its an instinctive reaction. Once you have made it an instinctive reaction, it is the devils own job to do something else, even if the something else is better.

as i have been told there are no belts for making up your own Ma that works in the grey area ie my insistence of using boxing footwork and moving instead of blocking whilst doing karate,

 

[DaveB]

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

Why would I keep answering questions based on a misrepresentation of my argument. You are the only person who has talked about a wing chun boxing style. You make errors and refuse to be corrected so talking to you becomes a waste of time.

The level of opponent is about the level of training and the skill of the individual. Why should the level of opponent be restricted based on ma style? If you train like a pro you will fight like a pro.

As to the elements of wing chun in the boxing vid, I told you that Alan Orr's videos answer the question better than I could. I've sat through about half an hour worth of vids to learn about his method but because your too lazy to look for yourself I should explain it to you, probably so you can then question me more in the version of the discussion that's in your head.

No thanks.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Apples and oranges it seems. Speed bag work is for developing timing, it's not properly a punching drill.

I honestly would have to see what you mean to properly argue, but it seems odd you would drill an incomplete defensive movement only to alter it after it's already been committed to muscle memory by the student.

You admit to not knowing the drill, then proceed to extol its detriment. Perhaps you see the problem in that approach.

 

[DaveB]

yes and no, as we touched on in another thread, you become proficient when and only when you have drilled a movement pattern so its an instinctive reaction. Once you have made it an instinctive reaction, it is the devils own job to do something else, even if the something else is better.

as i have been told there are no belts for making up your own Ma that works in the grey area ie my insistence of using boxing footwork and moving instead of blocking whilst doing karate,

What kind of karate are you doing where they don't let you use footwork?

1. Not sure I agree with the instinctive reaction part, especially for a progressive model of learning like what is being discussed. The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything.

2. If the plan is to progress beyond something two things must obviously be the case.
First, were not going to drill that thing until you can't do anything else.
Second, the movements we progress onto must bear enough of a relationship to the initial moves that learning them is a development of an idea rather than a rewrite.

Think of it like this. In primary school you learn that speed = distance over time.

Then you go on to study physics or engineering and find that no one ever uses that simple formula, instead you have 3 more complicated equations of motion that you need to learn to convert between.

Was learning the first equation pointless?
Only if you go on to do drama instead of physics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes and no, as we touched on in another thread, you become proficient when and only when you have drilled a movement pattern so its an instinctive reaction. Once you have made it an instinctive reaction, it is the devils own job to do something else, even if the something else is better.

as i have been told there are no belts for making up your own Ma that works in the grey area ie my insistence of using boxing footwork and moving instead of blocking whilst doing karate,

That's accurate to a point, but only to that point. Beyond a certain level of expertise, a good deal of generalization occurs. Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles. I do still often use the exact sequences, but also use the variants. This is part of normal skill development. This is why elite tennis athletes can make odd return shots (behind the back and between the legs, for instance) without thought when they can't reach for a more conventional return.

 

[jobo]

Why would I keep answering questions based on a misrepresentation of my argument. You are the only person who has talked about a wing chun boxing style. You make errors and refuse to be corrected so talking to you becomes a waste of time.

The level of opponent is about the level of training and the skill of the individual. Why should the level of opponent be restricted based on ma style? If you train like a pro you will fight like a pro.

As to the elements of wing chun in the boxing vid, I told you that Alan Orr's videos answer the question better than I could. I've sat through about half an hour worth of vids to learn about his method but because your too lazy to look for yourself I should explain it to you, probably so you can then question me more in the version of the discussion that's in your head.

No thanks.

because wing chun will work against a great % of the general population and not very well at all against a skilled fighter. To keep insisting that any style will work with out specifying against who, is meaningless

I'm not sitting through half an hour of dribble, your. Making this case, you should be able to support it with out just refering to vids

 

[jobo]

That's accurate to a point, but only to that point. Beyond a certain level of expertise, a good deal of generalization occurs. Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles. I do still often use the exact sequences, but also use the variants. This is part of normal skill development. This is why elite tennis athletes can make odd return shots (behind the back and between the legs, for instance) without thought when they can't reach for a more conventional return.

yes there are amazingly talent people playing sports that can do original high precisions movement with out having practised them, they earn millions because they are very special.

if you are using sequences that are superior to the ones you trained, then the training was wrong, or you are doing something less good,it has to be one or the other

 

[jobo]

What kind of karate are you doing where they don't let you use footwork?

1. Not sure I agree with the instinctive reaction part, especially for a progressive model of learning like what is being discussed. The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything.

2. If the plan is to progress beyond something two things must obviously be the case.
First, were not going to drill that thing until you can't do anything else.
Second, the movements we progress onto must bear enough of a relationship to the initial moves that learning them is a development of an idea rather than a rewrite.

Think of it like this. In primary school you learn that speed = distance over time.

Then you go on to study physics or engineering and find that no one ever uses that simple formula, instead you have 3 more complicated equations of motion that you need to learn to convert between.

Was learning the first equation pointless?
Only if you go on to do drama instead of physics.

the formula for calculating speed is always distance over time, what other formula and you thinking of that replaces it?

 

[jobo]

What kind of karate are you doing where they don't let you use footwork?

1. Not sure I agree with the instinctive reaction part, especially for a progressive model of learning like what is being discussed. The idea tends to go along with the whole "don't think, react" idea of martial arts, which I think is a very basic level of training and certainly not mastery of anything.

2. If the plan is to progress beyond something two things must obviously be the case.
First, were not going to drill that thing until you can't do anything else.
Second, the movements we progress onto must bear enough of a relationship to the initial moves that learning them is a development of an idea rather than a rewrite.

Think of it like this. In primary school you learn that speed = distance over time.

Then you go on to study physics or engineering and find that no one ever uses that simple formula, instead you have 3 more complicated equations of motion that you need to learn to convert between.

Was learning the first equation pointless?
Only if you go on to do drama instead of physics.

you don't have time to think,if someone is throwing a mighty punch at you, you have perhaps a tenth of a,second to do decided to do something, thinking will put your reaction time up towards half a second, which is to late, it doesn't matter if you block or move as long as you do it as a reaction, it doesn't matter if you hit back with a punch an elbow of a knee as long as you do it very quickly.
that why you practise block/ move strike, so you don't need to think , what comes next?

 

[DaveB]

because wing chun will work against a great % of the general population and not very well at all against a skilled fighter.

I would love to readvthe study you conducted. Is there a link to it? Or is this another example of you pulling something out of your bottom and treating it as a factual part of the conversation?

We're currently discussing wing chun that is trained in a way that you haven't seen before. How do you come to that conclusion and how do you justify going back on your own comments about the importance of training to now say that style fixes the level at which one can fight?

To keep insisting that any style will work with out specifying against who, is meaningless

That's because you've ignored about a third of my posts (especially the last one where I answered this) and are defining "works" as "wins", which is just silly (for reasons already discussed).

I'm not sitting through half an hour of dribble, your. Making this case, you should be able to support it with out just refering to vids

Then I guess you will just have to wonder.

 

[DaveB]

you don't have time to think,if someone is throwing a mighty punch at you, you have perhaps a tenth of a,second to do decided to do something, thinking will put your reaction time up towards half a second, which is to late, it doesn't matter if you block or move as long as you do it as a reaction, it doesn't matter if you hit back with a punch an elbow of a knee as long as you do it very quickly.
that why you practise block/ move strike, so you don't need to think , what comes next?

Then why is one of the most common descriptive phrases about fighting in general and boxing in particular, "a chess game"?

 

[DaveB]

the formula for calculating speed is always distance over time, what other formula and you thinking of that replaces it?

For future reference, this is the kind of question I ignore from you... trying to argue semantics and missing the point.

They are called the equations of motion, look it up.

 

[jobo]

For future reference, this is the kind of question I ignore from you... trying to argue semantics and missing the point.

They are called the equations of motion, look it up.

i think they are called the laws of motion ? But non of them replace speed equals time over distance

 

[jobo]

Then why is one of the most common descriptive phrases about fighting in general and boxing in particular, "a chess game"?

really, what are commonalities with chess?

 

[jobo]

I would love to readvthe study you conducted. Is there a link to it? Or is this another example of you pulling something out of your bottom and treating it as a factual part of the conversation?

We're currently discussing wing chun that is trained in a way that you haven't seen before. How do you come to that conclusion and how do you justify going back on your own comments about the importance of training to now say that style fixes the level at which one can fight?



That's because you've ignored about a third of my posts (especially the last one where I answered this) and are defining "works" as "wins", which is just silly (for reasons already discussed).



Then I guess you will just have to wonder.

no your posting vids of some ma that looks nothing at all like wing chun , whilst claiming it is wing chun, as some bloke on you tube said it was

if a style is incapable of wining a contest , then its pretty clear it doesn't work, to claim that constantly losing equals " works" is nonsense

 

[Gerry Seymour]

yes there are amazingly talent people playing sports that can do original high precisions movement with out having practised them, they earn millions because they are very special.

if you are using sequences that are superior to the ones you trained, then the training was wrong, or you are doing something less good,it has to be one or the other

Actually, most athletes can perform movements that are variations of what they were trained. If they can't they generally don't make the cut when they reach a level where players compete for spots on a team. I referred to elite tennis players, because it's fairly easy to spot the movements they almost certainly don't practice and would be silly to contain in their everyday training.

At what point did I say the other sequences were superior to the trained ones? They fit better for the given situation. I still use the trained ones because they fit better in other situations. We literally cannot reasonably train every sequence of movement that is even likely to be useful - others (like that great tennis shot) are natural progressions of skill development.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you don't have time to think,if someone is throwing a mighty punch at you, you have perhaps a tenth of a,second to do decided to do something, thinking will put your reaction time up towards half a second, which is to late, it doesn't matter if you block or move as long as you do it as a reaction, it doesn't matter if you hit back with a punch an elbow of a knee as long as you do it very quickly.
that why you practise block/ move strike, so you don't need to think , what comes next?

Which is supposed to refute precisely what in his comment?

 

[jobo]

Which is supposed to refute precisely what in his comment?

that don't think, react is very basic ma, when its a requirement of all levels of ma, because otherwise you get punched a lot