ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[jobo]

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?

no,

 

[jobo]

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).

no velocity requires a change of position, angular velocity includes vectors, there is different formula for each.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no,

But you just asserted that something is either the thing or something new - it cannot be a bit of both. So is that shot entirely new (nothing in it derived from his forehand)?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no velocity requires a change of position, angular velocity includes vectors, there is different formula for each.

Speed cannot occur if there is no change in position, either, since distance is part of the calculation.

 

[DaveB]

Gpseymore, my hat is off to you. You are a more patient man than I.

I honestly think Jobo is just trolling now.
A thread about martial arts training has become about Tennis and Newtonian physics all to avoid him saying "I see what you mean."

I wish you and your sanity luck. I'm out until someone has something relevant to add.

 

[jobo]

Speed cannot occur if there is no change in position, either, since distance is part of the calculation.

of course it can, if i throw a punch and pull my hand back to the same position, there has been distance covered but no,change of position, a better explanation is a spining wheel, it covers distance but never changes position as it always returns to the same spot

 

[jobo]

But you just asserted that something is either the thing or something new - it cannot be a bit of both. So is that shot entirely new (nothing in it derived from his forehand)?

no its not new, they have been doing the through the legs shot since at least the 1960s to my knowledge

 

[Gerry Seymour]

of course it can, if i throw a punch and pull my hand back to the same position, there has been distance covered but no,change of position, a better explanation is a spining wheel, it covers distance but never changes position as it always returns to the same spot

Um, no. There were two changes of position in that. Ignoring the movement of the hand doesn't change physics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no its not new, they have been doing the through the legs shot since at least the 1960s to my knowledge

LOL you just can't stand it, can you? I never said it had never happened before. I said it's new when they do it - it's not a practiced motion. They synthesize it as a variation of motions they've practiced.

 

[jobo]

Gpseymore, my hat is off to you. You are a more patient man than I.

I honestly think Jobo is just trolling now.
A thread about martial arts training has become about Tennis and Newtonian physics all to avoid him saying "I see what you mean."

I wish you and your sanity luck. I'm out until someone has something relevant to add.

you brought up physics with your speed formula and he started on about tennis,

 

[jobo]

Um, no. There were two changes of position in that. Ignoring the movement of the hand doesn't change physics.

my hand hast return to where it started, where is the,change of position?

 

[drop bear]

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

You do think when you fight though. Some of it is automated some of it is conscious. Being unpredictable or setting traps requires thinking.

 

[drop bear]

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.

OK so if I have all the elements that are required to fight well. Like I am athletic and am training hard and consistently. I then shouldn't need a style. Because it will basically work itself out.

I could just train myself right?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

my hand hast return to where it started, where is the,change of position?

From where it started, to the point of impact. Then from the point of impact to the finishing position (ostensibly the same as the starting point). If you ignore those changes, there is no distance to calculate with.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You do think when you fight though. Some of it is automated some of it is conscious. Being unpredictable or setting traps requires thinking.

True on fights that last more than a few seconds, at least. In a planned fight (and some unplanned ones), it would be true even in the first few seconds, when you're testing the other person.

 

[Steve]

How might one train this so that it is an effective fighting style?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How might one train this so that it is an effective fighting style?

I'm not sure, but I think it has to include Stan Lee.

 

[Steve]

I'm not sure, but I think it has to include Stan Lee.

So then, where does that leave us in regards to the assertion that any style can work if trained correctly?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So then, where does that leave us in regards to the assertion that any style can work if trained correctly?

Where we started, IMO. If by "system", we mean a set of reasonably useful techniques, then the assertion is reasonable. If by "system", we mean any set of techniques, I can put together a set of actual techniques I've collected that I'm pretty sure, even as an entire system, could not be trained into much usefulness.

Decent tools (techniques) and great training probably beat great tools and decent training. Bad tools and great training gives us people who are great at doing something that won't work well. Great tools and bad training might end up with some useful skills anyway, but not commensurate with the effort involved.

This is very much like the other bit that gets bandied about (the individual or the style). The reality is that the individual matters (genetics, personal disposition, commitment, etc.), and so does the style, and so does the training approach.

 

[drop bear]

How might one train this so that it is an effective fighting style?

Yeah. I did that post two. The counter argument is I am being mean.