ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[DaveB]

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

No the counter was I laid out specific details as to what my assertion applied to and you had ignored that so you could post your yellow bamboo video.

As to frog kungfu, I simply don't know enough about it.
However if your following the thread you should know that the outward appearance of forms isn't necessarily linked to application. So yes we can all laugh at the crazy kungfu antics, but until we know what the application principles of the style are, which form elements are literal, which are symbolic and which are exercise we have no base with which to discuss the style.

An example might be that the height changes where he ends up on all 4s are symbolic of double leg takedowns; the jumping from couched symbolic of/training the legs for dumping throws where you pick up the opponent from beneathe their centre of gravity; the kicking from the the floor just exercise for throwing the whole body into short sharp kicks and the running punch bit a literal technique.

In application that might then look like a style that used a lot of height change, including jumping kicks and superman punches and flying knees, to hide tackles and takedowns and dumping throws, followed up with stamps. That defends primarily by just getting out of the way and uses a lot of shirt jumps to regain balance or to land strikes while dodging.

The success of such a style will be in the core skills, just like any other style. Can you move well and avoid being cut off. Can you entice the opponent to chase and judge distance to counter hit. Can you sell your high faints and get down fast enough for a takedown... etc.

The now I could be entirely wring about this style and it is just showy nonsense without guiding principles. It could he that there is a genuine less showy frog style that this is related to and study of that reveals pretty effective fighting methods and what we see here is the Chinese gov approved non martial wushu demo form (which would preclude it from this discussion). But without further information the fact that you can look at a video out of context and scoff at it doesn't do anything to the proposition at hand.

And frankly I'm disappointed. It's no wonder Britain keeps voting Tory and America voted trump if we think laughing at out of context footage somehow constitutes an argument. Do better.

 

[jobo]

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.

if they do the through the leg shot whilst practising, they are practising the through the leg shot, are you claiming that it never happen during a practise match?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

if they do the through the leg shot whilst practising, they are practising the through the leg shot, are you claiming that it never happen during a practise match?

No, it happening during practice is not the same thing as practicing it. You are attempting to change definitions to fit your argument, after attempting to ignore parts of a physics equation for the same purpose.

I believe we are done here.

 

[Steve]

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.

And isn't that really the problem? You're post above is bashing this style. You're dismissing the techniques as unreasonable. You suggest that these would be bad tooLs to use in a fight, and therefore no amount of training will help.

How is that different than someone else dismissing aikido or some other style? According to the prevailing wisdom around here, you are not aloud to be critical of this style unless you've trained in it. It's kung fu.

I should say, it depends on who you are. Some folks are called out for this behavior. Some are not. ,Depends on how well liked you are, I think.

 

[jobo]

No, it happening during practice is not the same thing as practicing it. You are attempting to change definitions to fit your argument, after attempting to ignore parts of a physics equation for the same purpose.

I believe we are done here.

of Couse it is , every thing you do in a practise match is by defintion practise.
nb I'm coming back to the physics after ive. Done my work

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And isn't that really the problem? You're post above is bashing this style. You're dismissing the techniques as unreasonable. You suggest that these would be bad tooLs to use in a fight, and therefore no amount of training will help.

How is that different than someone else dismissing aikido or some other style? According to the prevailing wisdom around here, you are not aloud to be critical of this style unless you've trained in it. It's kung fu.

I should say, it depends on who you are. Some folks are called out for this behavior. Some are not. ,Depends on how well liked you are, I think.

Actually, I'm reacting to the form, which doesn't appear to even be fighting technique. What is in that form (not what's under it - it would have to be deep under) is not going to become highly useful in a fight by being trained better. It may be (as someone suggested) a training tool, but is not fighting technique. The same could be said of knitting technique. Also of shrimping, if viewed as a form. Put that shrimping in context, and it becomes something useful, but isn't without the other techniques.

I don't bash the form in the video. I assume it is either something entirely esoteric, or a training tool I don't like. If someone wants to assert that's effective in direct application, I'd need to see something to demonstrate it.

The difference with Aikido is we can see some of the techniques happen in fight videos (includig an MMA video posted recently in MT) and some which appear in other arts (Judo, BJJ, etc.), where we can see them used. There are training methods some (sometimes including myself) don't like. But those training techniques are not universal, nor is their dismissal as ineffective.

 

[Steve]

Actually, I'm reacting to the form, which doesn't appear to even be fighting technique. What is in that form (not what's under it - it would have to be deep under) is not going to become highly useful in a fight by being trained better. It may be (as someone suggested) a training tool, but is not fighting technique. The same could be said of knitting technique. Also of shrimping, if viewed as a form. Put that shrimping in context, and it becomes something useful, but isn't without the other techniques.

I don't bash the form in the video. I assume it is either something entirely esoteric, or a training tool I don't like. If someone wants to assert that's effective in direct application, I'd need to see something to demonstrate it.

The difference with Aikido is we can see some of the techniques happen in fight videos (includig an MMA video posted recently in MT) and some which appear in other arts (Judo, BJJ, etc.), where we can see them used. There are training methods some (sometimes including myself) don't like. But those training techniques are not universal, nor is their dismissal as ineffective.

Surely, you aren't reacting to that kata. That's sacrosanct. You just don't understand it and as a result are discounting the fighting style of frog kung fu. How much experience do you have training in kung fu?

And I am sure I can find some videos where people approximate some of the movements we can see in that video, which can be used to validate the form.

We all look at things based on our experience and come to some conclusions. We all do it. The only question is where on the spectrum do we stop presuming efficacy and start presuming inefficacy. Everyone's tolerance is different based on several things. But everyone is on the spectrum somewhere. The problem I see is that folks don't view themselves as being on that spectrum and so use absolute language (all style bashing is wrong... except when I do it).

It's like the gun control debate. Folks view themselves as being either for it or against it. But everyone reasonable person agrees that there are some people who should not be allowed to legally own a firearm. Whether that's a convicted felon, a person who is mentally ill, a child or whatever, the idea of completely unfettered access to any firearm for anyone is not a commonly held view. And most people, including people who are "pro" gun, agree that background checks and some form of control is a good idea. In other words, the discussion is often co-opted by entrenched, absolute positions, when it really should be about where on the spectrum people are, based on their experiences, backgrounds and opinions.

Point is, if we could shift the narrative just a little and stop pigeon holing people into "their team" or "my team" we could maybe start having discussions again. The jersey wearing around here is very destructive.

 

[jobo]

of Couse it is , every thing you do in a practise match is by defintion practise.
nb I'm coming back to the physics after ive. Done my work

here is a vid of badminton players practising the through the leg and other such shots
Badminton World Championships: Marcus Ellis and Chris Langridge show off their trick shots

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Surely, you aren't reacting to that kata. That's sacrosanct. You just don't understand it and as a result are discounting the fighting style of frog kung fu. How much experience do you have training in kung fu?

And I am sure I can find some videos where people approximate some of the movements we can see in that video, which can be used to validate the form.

We all look at things based on our experience and come to some conclusions. We all do it. The only question is where on the spectrum do we stop presuming efficacy and start presuming inefficacy. Everyone's tolerance is different based on several things. But everyone is on the spectrum somewhere. The problem I see is that folks don't view themselves as being on that spectrum and so use absolute language (all style bashing is wrong... except when I do it).

It's like the gun control debate. Folks view themselves as being either for it or against it. But everyone reasonable person agrees that there are some people who should not be allowed to legally own a firearm. Whether that's a convicted felon, a person who is mentally ill, a child or whatever, the idea of completely unfettered access to any firearm for anyone is not a commonly held view. And most people, including people who are "pro" gun, agree that background checks and some form of control is a good idea. In other words, the discussion is often co-opted by entrenched, absolute positions, when it really should be about where on the spectrum people are, based on their experiences, backgrounds and opinions.

Point is, if we could shift the narrative just a little and stop pigeon holing people into "their team" or "my team" we could maybe start having discussions again. The jersey wearing around here is very destructive.

Firstly, my point was the difference between a set of movements that seem ridiculous out of context (and, perhaps, in context, but I don't know that context so I can't know) and the system. That's why I used the shrimping example. If I knew nothing of that movement, it would look ridiculous. Okay, it does, even when you know the purpose. But the ridiculousness goes away when you see it in context of a hip escape.

The same can be easily done with some of the training I do. I think walking stances across the dojo looks stupid, no matter how well it's done. It's really not one of my favorite training tools, and I've heard good arguments that it's too much of an isolation from usage. But I use it when it's appropriate (a current student has neurological issues, and that kind of repetition seems to work for their learning). Out of context, there's nothing inherently useful in someone walking across the floor in a hanmi, but if we look at how the stance and movement can be used for a single-leg takedown, shifting to a leg sweep from the clinch, etc., then it becomes a reasonable training tool.

I think you make an excellent point in this, though. Do we start from a position of assuming efficacy or inefficacy? I tend to enter with what I call trusting skepticism. I accept that there's a lot I don't understand, so I don't quickly assume things are ineffective. I'll take someone's word for it if my experience and logic make it a reasonable claim (like with walking stances), but I'll want more proof before I'd fall on the affirmative side - I'd consider myself too uninformed to contradict. I'll question, and see if they can provide reasonable support for their claims of efficacy, and I'll ask myself if there's inherent bias in their response, etc. But in the end, there's only so much validation I can do without experiencing it, unless something in my past experience gives me special knowledge.

Here's what colors this stance for me: I've experienced things I though were crap, but turned out not to be. I had someone demonstrate a literal no-touch takedown on me, with an explanation that wasn't at all odd. He used a flinch reflex against me, at a moment when I was transitioning and easily set off-balance, and the flinch left me without a base so I fell down. If you'd showed me a video of that, I'd have said it was bunk. But he didn't tell me what he was going to do before doing it. I actually thought I had screwed up, because he never got to throw me. The same kind of experience has happened for me with some of the highly-aiki techniques I've trained in. They seem like crap, and really are until they work (the person learns to let the aiki happen, rather than force it). They sometimes feel like crap when I do them - it feels like the person I'm throwing has cooperated to make it happen. But that happens even when they don't know what's next, so they don't have a chance to cooperate that way.

And to your last point, yes. Unfortunately, we are all human, and tend to respond to people based upon our past experience with them. If they've seemed irrational in a past argument, we are more likely to dismiss their points. And confirmation bias makes us more likely to see agreement as rational.

 

[drop bear]

And isn't that really the problem? You're post above is bashing this style. You're dismissing the techniques as unreasonable. You suggest that these would be bad tooLs to use in a fight, and therefore no amount of training will help.

How is that different than someone else dismissing aikido or some other style? According to the prevailing wisdom around here, you are not aloud to be critical of this style unless you've trained in it. It's kung fu.

I should say, it depends on who you are. Some folks are called out for this behavior. Some are not. ,Depends on how well liked you are, I think.

There is a convention to style bashing. So linage is OK. Self professed expertise is acceptable. Following accepted dogma is OK.

Evidence isn't.

So when I say for example. A street system is more applicable to self defence than sport.

That is OK.

When I say this is so because I know a cop trained a cop was a bouncer got in a fight once. This is OK.

When I say this is because my system is battlefield or born on the streets or I know the full super secret system. That is OK.

When I say there are a lot more YouTube videos of BJJ winning street fights than krav Maga.

Or pensioners who win street fights are most commonly boxers. That is not OK.

That is not OK.

 

[drop bear]

Firstly, my point was the difference between a set of movements that seem ridiculous out of context (and, perhaps, in context, but I don't know that context so I can't know) and the system. That's why I used the shrimping example. If I knew nothing of that movement, it would look ridiculous. Okay, it does, even when you know the purpose. But the ridiculousness goes away when you see it in context of a hip escape.

The same can be easily done with some of the training I do. I think walking stances across the dojo looks stupid, no matter how well it's done. It's really not one of my favorite training tools, and I've heard good arguments that it's too much of an isolation from usage. But I use it when it's appropriate (a current student has neurological issues, and that kind of repetition seems to work for their learning). Out of context, there's nothing inherently useful in someone walking across the floor in a hanmi, but if we look at how the stance and movement can be used for a single-leg takedown, shifting to a leg sweep from the clinch, etc., then it becomes a reasonable training tool.

I think you make an excellent point in this, though. Do we start from a position of assuming efficacy or inefficacy? I tend to enter with what I call trusting skepticism. I accept that there's a lot I don't understand, so I don't quickly assume things are ineffective. I'll take someone's word for it if my experience and logic make it a reasonable claim (like with walking stances), but I'll want more proof before I'd fall on the affirmative side - I'd consider myself too uninformed to contradict. I'll question, and see if they can provide reasonable support for their claims of efficacy, and I'll ask myself if there's inherent bias in their response, etc. But in the end, there's only so much validation I can do without experiencing it, unless something in my past experience gives me special knowledge.

Here's what colors this stance for me: I've experienced things I though were crap, but turned out not to be. I had someone demonstrate a literal no-touch takedown on me, with an explanation that wasn't at all odd. He used a flinch reflex against me, at a moment when I was transitioning and easily set off-balance, and the flinch left me without a base so I fell down. If you'd showed me a video of that, I'd have said it was bunk. But he didn't tell me what he was going to do before doing it. I actually thought I had screwed up, because he never got to throw me. The same kind of experience has happened for me with some of the highly-aiki techniques I've trained in. They seem like crap, and really are until they work (the person learns to let the aiki happen, rather than force it). They sometimes feel like crap when I do them - it feels like the person I'm throwing has cooperated to make it happen. But that happens even when they don't know what's next, so they don't have a chance to cooperate that way.

And to your last point, yes. Unfortunately, we are all human, and tend to respond to people based upon our past experience with them. If they've seemed irrational in a past argument, we are more likely to dismiss their points. And confirmation bias makes us more likely to see agreement as rational.

Yes but do you know how much of your training is conformation bias. If you are trained to fall over you will.

You see this with step out escapes from turtle. If the guy is a noob they will generally collapse. The technique is only a throw by the most ambitious of concepts though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes but do you know how much of your training is conformation bias. If you are trained to fall over you will.

Only if you know where the fall is "supposed" to occur. We do occasionally fall when we don't need to (some falls are for the purpose of avoiding injury in a lock). We tell each other when that happened - I'll hop up and say, "I didn't really need to fall that time." Part of the problem folks run into is not knowing when to be cooperative and when to stop that. When a new guy is doing a single-leg, you don't resist. You stand until he makes you fall, but you make it fairly easy to do. But you gotta stop making it so easy after a while, and some folks seem to never take that step. They just keep making it easy, and fall even when they shouldn't. And some, early on, fall because they think they should. I've actually had new-ish students who fell before a throw. I'd ask why they fell, and they'd say, "I thought I was supposed to." I just respond, "You're only supposed to fall when I make you fall, or to avoid injury from a lock." Eventually, they get it.

You see this with step out escapes from turtle. If the guy is a noob they will generally collapse. The technique is only a throw by the most ambitious of concepts though.

I'm not familiar with "step out escapes from turtle" - can you point me to a video so I can see what you're talking about?

 

[drop bear]

Only if you know where the fall is "supposed" to occur. We do occasionally fall when we don't need to (some falls are for the purpose of avoiding injury in a lock). We tell each other when that happened - I'll hop up and say, "I didn't really need to fall that time." Part of the problem folks run into is not knowing when to be cooperative and when to stop that. When a new guy is doing a single-leg, you don't resist. You stand until he makes you fall, but you make it fairly easy to do. But you gotta stop making it so easy after a while, and some folks seem to never take that step. They just keep making it easy, and fall even when they shouldn't. And some, early on, fall because they think they should. I've actually had new-ish students who fell before a throw. I'd ask why they fell, and they'd say, "I thought I was supposed to." I just respond, "You're only supposed to fall when I make you fall, or to avoid injury from a lock." Eventually, they get it.


I'm not familiar with "step out escapes from turtle" - can you point me to a video so I can see what you're talking about?

Sorry sit out.

This one. And he collapsed. Muppet.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry sit out.

This one. And he collapsed. Muppet.

I see what you mean. I see that happen with early students. If it's not nipped in the bud, it becomes what you talked about in your earlier post - people fall because they are "supposed to". I've run into it with training partners, and it can become pernicious in an aiki art - it builds a false sense of competence. That's fine for some demonstrations to speed up the display, and sometimes for teaching (when the instructor/coach is running his mouth and half-doing the technique), but should always be done consciously, and with good reason. Frankly, I get suspicious if I'm successful too often.

 

[DaveB]

There is a convention to style bashing. So linage is OK. Self professed expertise is acceptable. Following accepted dogma is OK.

Evidence isn't.

So when I say for example. A street system is more applicable to self defence than sport.

That is OK.

When I say this is so because I know a cop trained a cop was a bouncer got in a fight once. This is OK.

When I say this is because my system is battlefield or born on the streets or I know the full super secret system. That is OK.

When I say there are a lot more YouTube videos of BJJ winning street fights than krav Maga.

Or pensioners who win street fights are most commonly boxers. That is not OK.

That is not OK.

*Plays the violin for you*

 

[Martial D]

There is a convention to style bashing. So linage is OK. Self professed expertise is acceptable. Following accepted dogma is OK.

Evidence isn't.

So when I say for example. A street system is more applicable to self defence than sport.

That is OK.

When I say this is so because I know a cop trained a cop was a bouncer got in a fight once. This is OK.

When I say this is because my system is battlefield or born on the streets or I know the full super secret system. That is OK.

When I say there are a lot more YouTube videos of BJJ winning street fights than krav Maga.

Or pensioners who win street fights are most commonly boxers. That is not OK.

That is not OK.

People here aren't interested in scientific, or data, or fact, or even true martial arts. They just want status quo, smiles and pat's on the back. I've given up on trying serious discussion with the fantasy fighting club. It's a waste of time.

 

[Steve]

*Plays the violin for you*

That's a bit weird

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's a bit weird

For some reason, I was picturing Gene Wilder playing for The Monster.

 

[DaveB]

That's a bit weird

I was comiserating with him over the deep unfairness of it all. The poor little lamb just can't get us to listen to his actual factual evidence about why every non combat sports practitioner is useless.

The poor persecuted darling. It's all so unfair, how can he live with all these charlatans and fantasists.

My heart is literally bleeding all over the floor...

People here aren't interested in scientific, or data, or fact, or even true martial arts. They just want status quo, smiles and pat's on the back. I've given up on trying serious discussion with the fantasy fighting club. It's a waste of time.

That's hilarious (all my sympathy went on poor little dropbear). The invocation of science in relation to your random YouTube assessments, tickles me.

When someone tries to explain what a scientific approach would look like you call them politically correct. What you do on these forums has nothing to do with science or evidence or data. It is purely your perception with all its biases and cognitive dissonance, exactly the same as those who oppose you. And there's nothing wrong with that. Facts preclude discussion.

The problem you and dropbear (and now it seems Steve) have is nothing to do with whether or not criticism of style is allowed. That's just that old persecution narrative b.s. that gets rolled out by those who feel unheard.

The trouble you have is that all you want to hear is that you are right and all those styles you say are useless, are indeed useless. The thing you actually don't want is discussion, because that is what you get here. Some agreement, some disagreement and some points you just haven't considered (whether rightly or wrongly).

The reason you don't want discussion is that like all personal narratives, you know in your bones it's correct... It's just that everyone else comes up with these excuses (valid arguments) not to listen to you (why you might be wrong in at least part of your view). And you just can't be bothered to keep patiently explaining why they are wrong (snarkily dismissing any arguments you can't answer).

You see, you're not unheard. Your just not always right.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was comiserating with him over the deep unfairness of it all. The poor little lamb just can't get us to listen to his actual factual evidence about why every non combat sports practitioner is useless.

The poor persecuted darling. It's all so unfair, how can he live with all these charlatans and fantasists.

My heart is literally bleeding all over the floor...



That's hilarious (all my sympathy went on poor little dropbear). The invocation of science in relation to your random YouTube assessments, tickles me.

When someone tries to explain what a scientific approach would look like you call them politically correct. What you do on these forums has nothing to do with science or evidence or data. It is purely your perception with all its biases and cognitive dissonance, exactly the same as those who oppose you. And there's nothing wrong with that. Facts preclude discussion.

The problem you and dropbear (and now it seems Steve) have is nothing to do with whether or not criticism of style is allowed. That's just that old persecution narrative b.s. that gets rolled out by those who feel unheard.

The trouble you have is that all you want to hear is that you are right and all those styles you say are useless, are indeed useless. The thing you actually don't want is discussion, because that is what you get here. Some agreement, some disagreement and some points you just haven't considered (whether rightly or wrongly).

The reason you don't want discussion is that like all personal narratives, you know in your bones it's correct... It's just that everyone else comes up with these excuses (valid arguments) not to listen to you (why you might be wrong in at least part of your view). And you just can't be bothered to keep patiently explaining why they are wrong (snarkily dismissing any arguments you can't answer).

You see, you're not unheard. Your just not always right.

I can't really agree with the tone of your post here, Dave. I don't really know Martial D well enough yet, but Steve and DB are not so entirely irrational as you suggest. I've had productive discussions with both. They have strong biases - as you well point out, we all do - but there's some solid thought behind those biases. I actually appreciate them challenging my thoughts, though I wish some folks could let go of an idea when it becomes clear there's evidence on both sides of it. In the end, I think they contribute a lot here. I disagree with DB pretty frequently, and sometimes to the point I don't care to continue the frustration, but he brings an informed viewpoint. And Steve is pretty rational in his arguments - though entirely wrong, whenever he disagrees with me.