ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[drop bear]

And other times it's how a demagogue distracts people from his lack of a point.

Notice how i produced evidence and you didn't?

 

[DaveB]

Notice how i produced evidence and you didn't?

Sorry, I thought I was reminding you of something you were educated enough to have known, not starting a new off topic debate in this thread.

My mistake.

 

[drop bear]

Sorry, I thought I was reminding you of something you were educated enough to have known, not starting a new off topic debate in this thread.

My mistake.

And this obvious attempt to hide that you just made that concept up. With no means to support it is why you get sarcasm rather than argument.

Hey guys sorry I should be educated more. Then Dave B would make more sense.

 

[DaveB]

Distraction Fallacies

Since you speak meme, there's also this:

 

[Martial D]

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.

Nice rhetoric. I challenge you to back it up.

I'm all about rational and productive argument, and I fully admit many members here are more than willing to engage. Unfortunately such people are drowned out by the scarcely literate and emotionally explosive much of the time, which gets piled on to by the fan club that doesn't even read the arguments.
Such is the nature of the fantasy fighting club.

This doesn't bother me much, it's just the reality. Many just don't come here for discussion, they come for reassurance...which makes people like myself, drop bear, and others as the defacto enemy.

 

[DaveB]

I've provided as much proof of position as you have. And frankly I'm bored of the whining.

I don't really see how people can be drowned out on a web forum. Your description doesn't really resonate with me. I experience these discussions quite differently.

The only people I've seen not read posts are Jobo and DropBear (and very occasionally myself, sorry again Steve).

Just ignore those who are emotional and talk with the rational if that's what you are about... but consider your own communication before you dismiss the responses you get.

As to this fantasy fight club, I'm really not sure what it is you want folks to say other than x style sucks. I never see any opposition to the idea that sparring is a necessary component of effective application training. So what makes one a member of the fantasy fight club?

 

[jobo]

I've provided as much proof of position as you have. And frankly I'm bored of the whining.

I don't really see how people can be drowned out on a web forum. Your description doesn't really resonate with me. I experience these discussions quite differently.

The only people I've seen not read posts are Jobo and DropBear (and very occasionally myself, sorry again Steve).

Just ignore those who are emotional and talk with the rational if that's what you are about... but consider your own communication before you dismiss the responses you get.

As to this fantasy fight club, I'm really not sure what it is you want folks to say other than x style sucks. I never see any opposition to the idea that sparring is a necessary component of effective application training. So what makes one a member of the fantasy fight club?

fantasy fight club, well three things as i see it
one) they keep insisting that things work when they have no evidence for that at all, particularly when the things are high risk low % moves that will see them sat on their bum against an averagely capable oppoinent


2) being dismissive of the requirement for,strength and physical fitness believing that the afore mentioned low % techniques will see them through against fitter stronger bigger opponents

3 ) believing that low intensity sparring against a person using the same naff techniques as they are is in anyway like a real fight

 

[DaveB]

fantasy fight club, well three things as i see it
one) they keep insisting that things work when they have no evidence for that at all, particularly when the things are high risk low % moves that will see them sat on their bum against an averagely capable oppoinent


2) being dismissive of the requirement for,strength and physical fitness believing that the afore mentioned low % techniques will see them through against fitter stronger bigger opponents

3 ) believing that low intensity sparring against a person using the same naff techniques as they are is in anyway like a real fight

Anybody feel they fit this description?

 

[jobo]

Anybody feel they fit this description?

are you expecting people to self identify as fantasists, the fact they are fantasists will prevent them from seeing themselves in a true light. Those are all recurrent themes on here, you for instance have spent twenty odd pages insisting that silly things work, if you train them right, even things you have absolutely no knowledge of will work according to you.

every time there is,a,discussion on strengh or fitness people are,queueing up to say that they don't need to get stronger as their techniques are good enough

and as soon as people start complaining that people are going to hard in sparring, its fair to assume that their,sparring is,soft, yet they insist that the same soft sparring is pressure testing them.

 

[DaveB]

are you expecting people to self identify as fantasists, the fact they are fantasists will prevent them from seeing themselves in a true light. Those are all recurrent themes on here, you for instance have spent twenty odd pages insisting that silly things work, if you train them right, even things you have absolutely no knowledge of will work according to you.

Except that after 27+ pages that's still not what I was arguing.

This would be why multiple people end up just ignoring you.

 

[jobo]

Except that after 27+ pages that's still not what I was arguing.

This would be why multiple people end up just ignoring you.

that might not be what's going on in your head, but that is indeed what you keep arguing

you original premise is,deeply flawed, in order to support it you have come out with all sorts of nonsense,

 

[Buka]

28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?

 

[jobo]

28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?

I've asked the same question several times and the answer seems be no, just because it isn't good enough to use successfully in a fight, dave still thinks that it counts as working

 

[DaveB]

28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?

In the OP I wrote works = achieves or credibly approaches the style objective. This is because I do think it's worth considering what a style is designed for. Karate for example had no set fighting guard, because it wasnt primariky designed to be used in duelling.
But I do think most if not all styles can be adapted towards sparring/ring fighting as I view this as a simple progression of the threat level.

So the short answer is yes.

 

[DaveB]

28 pages ago I asked a question about the OP, but the thread ran wild and the question got lost. So again, [talking about the original post and title of the thread]
By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?

Yes is the short answer.

The nuance-phobe is referring to the question, does work mean winning? To which I answer not necessarily. After all you don't decide boxing doesn't work if a boxer loses a fight. Rather you talk about the relative skill of the opponent. Hence a style can work without winning.

However I can see how I might have been unclear before. Yes, across a number of even matches with different practitioners a style that works should have about as many victories as defeats. But if you take one person and train him and send him to be your representative, his victories and defeats reflect only him.

 

[drop bear]

In the OP I wrote works = achieves or credibly approaches the style objective. This is because I do think it's worth considering what a style is designed for. Karate for example had no set fighting guard, because it wasn't primarily designed to be used in duelling.
But I do think most if not all styles can be adapted towards sparring/ring fighting as I view this as a simple progression of the threat level.

So the short answer is yes.

Because a guard isn't really necessary except for dueling. And yes I do get what you mean by dueling as in a fight where you both have a bit of warning. Rather than just being jumped.

Because who would need a guard then?

Rather than they just didn't adopt the method because guard wasn't being utilized.

OK. So in boxing they don't have to win every fight because there are recorded trends and progressions.

So if Connor looses this boxing match. We can judge it based on more than the outcome of one fight.

We can access two peoples recorded fights.

We can judge the two peoples fights on a hundred recorded fights. Between them they have probably a hundred guys.

We can judge these hundred recorded guys on their thousands of fights.

With the absence of that data. How do you define works.

 

[DaveB]

Because a guard isn't really necessary except for dueling. And yes I do get what you mean by dueling as in a fight where you both have a bit of warning. Rather than just being jumped.

Because who would need a guard then?

Rather than they just didn't adopt the method because guard wasn't being utilized.

OK. So in boxing they don't have to win every fight because there are recorded trends and progressions.

So if Connor looses this boxing match. We can judge it based on more than the outcome of one fight.

We can access two peoples recordedfights.

We can judge the two peoples fights on a hundred recorded fights. Between them they have probably a hundred guys.

We can judge these hundred recorded guys on their thousands of fights.

With the absence of that data. How do you define works.

That's one of the points I've been trying to make: you can't. You need data.

Or rather, the definition doesn't change. We just have to settle for not knowing.

Unless someone takes the ideas presented in this forum and does a large study there is no way to check any of this.

So this thread is a thought experiment only.

As for the guard issue, guards were being used both in the southern Chinese arts that karate borrowed from and among karate practitioners when they would duel. But that aspect was never codified as part of the art because the emphasis was on counter offensive, defending from a neutral position.

You may not think it's the right way to do things but that was how they did it.

Shotokan in particular took it's fighting style straight from fencing. All of its strategy, discussion of timing and emphasis on a decisive blow was nothing to do with karate, because the Japanese had never been taught karate for fighting. So once Funakoshi died they created their sport style based on fencing and that was now how karateka fought. Other styles varied it a bit according to their common movement types and with new tournament formats (Kyokushin) came different approaches, but none of these new fighting styles was actual Okinawan karate.

 

[drop bear]

That's one of the points I've been trying to make: you can't. You need data.

Or rather, the definition doesn't change. We just have to settle for not knowing.

Unless someone takes the ideas presented in this forum and does a large study there is no way to check any of this.

So this thread is a thought experiment only.

As for the guard issue, guards were being used both in the southern Chinese arts that karate borrowed from and among karate practitioners when they would duel. But that aspect was never codified as part of the art because the emphasis was on counter offensive, defending from a neutral position.

You may not think it's the right way to do things but that was how they did it.

Shotokan in particular took it's fighting style straight from fencing. All of its strategy, discussion of timing and emphasis on a decisive blow was nothing to do with karate, because the Japanese had never been taught karate for fighting. So once Funakoshi died they created their sport style based on fencing and that was now how karateka fought. Other styles varied it a bit according to their common movement types and with new tournament formats (Kyokushin) came different approaches, but none of these new fighting styles was actual Okinawan karate.

With competition there is plenty of data.

So with Karate. Regardless that having some sort of guard is almost universally accepted as a good thing. They just decided they did not want to have it as part of their style..

Which is fine. But I think that it kind of makes my point that a style can just ignore meta fight concepts and just do its own thing for any or no reason.

 

[DaveB]

As I was watching I thought it might help those less inclined to educate themselves.
The entire series of answers to common questions covers the use and appearance of their wing chun.

Alan Orr echoes my comments regarding the TMA tendency to work based on principles rather than techniques and details how he uses the principles of his art in a practical form.

 

[jobo]

As I was watching I thought it might help those less inclined to educate themselves.
The entire series of answers to common questions covers the use and appearance of their wing chun.

Alan Orr echoes my comments regarding the TMA tendency to work based on principles rather than techniques and details how he uses the principles of his art in a practical form.

yea they all work when you have a slow motion training partner holding his arm out so you can trap it