ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Gerry Seymour]

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

I'll save you the effort you won't put forth to learn: I believe he's referring to the Kinematic Equations (also known as the equations of motion). Speed is fairly frequently replaced with velocity equations once you get past the simplest level of physics, except where a rough estimate will serve.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Which he actually said. You're arguing against a position he didn't take, so far as I can tell:

"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."

 

[jobo]

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.

well yes of course they can, but slight variation of what they were trained is not something completely different, which is what you were suggesting.
ma is a menu of relatively few moves that work and quite a lot that are at best low %.

if you are punched, you either block or move, there isn't another option, what variation are you suggesting could be used instead?

 

[jobo]

I'll save you the effort you won't put forth to learn: I believe he's referring to the Kinematic Equations (also known as the equations of motion). Speed is fairly frequently replaced with velocity equations once you get past the simplest level of physics, except where a rough estimate will serve.

speed and velocity are two completely different concept, speed can never be replaced by velocity , as it not the same thing. If what you want to know is what spped an object is moving then time over distance is what is required

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well yes of course they can, but slight variation of what they were trained is not something completely different, which is what you were suggesting.
ma is a menu of relatively few moves that work and quite a lot that are at best low %.

if you are punched, you either block or move, there isn't another option, what variation are you suggesting could be used instead?

At no point did I suggest the movements were entirely different. I said they were variations. Most (not all) of the muscular movements that tennis pro uses for that odd shot are in her basics. They're combined in a different way and added to a couple of unusual movements to produce a variation. I do the same with some of our takedowns, and certainly with some of our pins.

See, "block" and "move" are basics (you may recall that blocking was the actual example I used earlier in this, where I discussed a progression). You can train a few variations of those (I think we train 6 blocks, off the top of my head). But variations on those movements are useful, too. They'll train some of those variations in drills (as entry to techniques). And some, they'll just "discover", long before they are trained to them. I "discovered" our cross-arm throw while training as a blue belt, I think. I didn't learn until about 2 years later what that thing was. To me, it was a natural variation of a set of upper-body movements from one technique, with the lower-body movement of another. Neither was quite the same as they'd been trained, but when fitted together in this new combination, they worked. It wasn't a discovery of exploration - it was something I just did. And that's not something unusual about me. I had a training partner make the same discovery, at about the same rank, working with me a year or so later, and I assume there have been others who wandered into "new" territory by following the training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

speed and velocity are two completely different concept, speed can never be replaced by velocity , as it not the same thing. If what you want to know is how fast an object is moving then time over distance is what is required

You're examining it backwards. When students first learn the most basic bits of physics, they learn speed. They later learn where it doesn't apply. Speed doesn't replace velocity. It can, however, be used for rough estimates (where we ignore vector lines, because they lead to an unnecessary level of precision) or where all we need is speed.

 

[jobo]

Which he actually said. You're arguing against a position he didn't take, so far as I can tell:

"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."

that pretty clearly say that react don't think is a basic level of ma

 

[jobo]

You're examining it backwards. When students first learn the most basic bits of physics, they learn speed. They later learn where it doesn't apply. Speed doesn't replace velocity. It can, however, be used for rough estimates (where we ignore vector lines, because they lead to an unnecessary level of precision) or where all we need is speed.

no you said velocity is used to replace speed and it clearly isnt

 

[jobo]

At no point did I suggest the movements were entirely different. I said they were variations. Most (not all) of the muscular movements that tennis pro uses for that odd shot are in her basics. They're combined in a different way and added to a couple of unusual movements to produce a variation. I do the same with some of our takedowns, and certainly with some of our pins.

See, "block" and "move" are basics (you may recall that blocking was the actual example I used earlier in this, where I discussed a progression). You can train a few variations of those (I think we train 6 blocks, off the top of my head). But variations on those movements are useful, too. They'll train some of those variations in drills (as entry to techniques). And some, they'll just "discover", long before they are trained to them. I "discovered" our cross-arm throw while training as a blue belt, I think. I didn't learn until about 2 years later what that thing was. To me, it was a natural variation of a set of upper-body movements from one technique, with the lower-body movement of another. Neither was quite the same as they'd been trained, but when fitted together in this new combination, they worked. It wasn't a discovery of exploration - it was something I just did. And that's not something unusual about me. I had a training partner make the same discovery, at about the same rank, working with me a year or so later, and I assume there have been others who wandered into "new" territory by following the training.

you are going to have to be clear, your jumping about all over the place

a variation on a move is still using the pattern of movement established through practise, so its ether that OR its something completely different, which ?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

that pretty clearly say that react don't think is a basic level of ma

Yes, it does. Which is also what you said in your post. How is one a refutation of the other?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no you said velocity is used to replace speed and it clearly isnt

Not what I said. If it read that way, I communicated poorly.

 

[jobo]

Yes, it does. Which is also what you said in your post. How is one a refutation of the other?

i said react don't think is a key requirement at all levels of ma, that different!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you are going to have to be clear, your jumping about all over the place

a variation on a move is still using the pattern of movement established through practise, so its ether that OR its something completely different, which ?

It is both. It uses some established patterns (that's what it's a variation of) and generates some new ones (which is why it's a variation, rather than the original pattern).

This is exactly the same thing I said in my original comment on that: "Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i said react don't think is a key requirement at all levels of ma, that different!

Only if you think basic MA are not a requirement for more advanced MA.

 

[jobo]

Not what I said. If it read that way, I communicated poorly.

it is was you said, nor is speed used as a rough estimate of velocity, as its NOT the same thing, its not rough its just wrong.

 

[jobo]

It is both. It uses some established patterns (that's what it's a variation of) and generates some new ones (which is why it's a variation, rather than the original pattern).

This is exactly the same thing I said in my original comment on that: "Many sequences I use instinctively are not the sequences I trained. They are variants of them, and follow the principles."

?? Something can't be both NEW and a variation of an existing thing. That's an impossibility, it has to be one or the other, it could be a new variation of the old thing,

 

[jobo]

Only if you think basic MA are not a requirement for more advanced MA.

the clear suggestion was that react don't think wasn't done at higher levels, you seem to think it us, so really you should be arguing with Dave b rather than me

 

[Gerry Seymour]

it is was you said, nor is speed used as a rough estimate of velocity, as its NOT the same thing, its not rough its just wrong.

Actually it is a rough analog. Velocity includes direction, speed does not - the principle difference. If I talk about the speed of a ball traveling from a launcher to its landing point (vacuum, no resistance, gravity present - typical physics assumptions for simplicity), I have a single number. Since its fall (result of gravity) is not linear, the ball actually follows a curve between the two points, so it's velocity isn't constant (changing vectors). The speed - as measured between the two points - is a single number, and a rough approximation of the velocity (assumes a single direction, as an approximation of the ever-changing vectors involved).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

the clear suggestion was that react don't think wasn't done at higher levels, you seem to think it us, so really you should be arguing with Dave b rather than me

I read it as a statement that development of this would begin early, so would be present later. Looking at it, I suppose both readings fit the actual statement, as written.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

?? Something can't be both NEW and a variation of an existing thing. That's an impossibility, it has to be one or the other, it could be a new variation of the old thing,

So, you're saying a variation is the same as the thing? So, that tennis player hitting the shot between his legs is really just hitting a forehand shot?