ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[DaveB]

You did define it...

...but that hardly gives us a definitive cut-off. It's a good conceptual definition, but we can't really measure against anything in that, as it changes with every individual and every style. In fact, it almost makes it impossible for a style to "not work", unless someone chooses the wrong style for themselves. The definition doesn't actually allow for what the style's intention is.

Let me clarify. If I went into boxing to improve my cardio, it wouldn't matter whether I ever was able to fight or not. But fighting ability appears to be the intent of boxing, so if boxing couldn't deliver fighting ability, we should be able to say it "doesn't work". But we can't, because of my goal.

Likewise, if I go to a standard aerobics class to learn to fight, aerobics will fail that test no matter how it is trained, since it contains precisely no actual fighting techniques. But if I go in to improve my cardio, it "works". And we shouldn't assess aerobics' effectiveness at something it's not intended to cover, so the fact that it actually doesn't work for learning to fight is not an issue.

First thank you for discussing the propositions in the OP.

I see where you are coming from, but you've neglected the word that was supposed to keep the discussion on track. It is the Fighter' s goal. The fighters goal in using the fighting style.

Remember I have been adamant that the fighting style is NOT the training. Fighting style is the use of the fighting art.

I am happy to concede I may have communicated this badly, but it helps when people read and discuss the posts made.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

First thank you for discussing the propositions in the OP.

I see where you are coming from, but you've neglected the word that was supposed to keep the discussion on track. It is the Fighter' s goal. The fighters goal in using the fighting style.

Remember I have been adamant that the fighting style is NOT the training. Fighting style is the use of the fighting art.

I am happy to concede I may have communicated this badly, but it helps when people read and discuss the posts made.

That was kind of my point. The definition shifts so quickly when we use an individual's goal. Even if we assume the individual is someone wanting to fight, there still a huge range to cover - from being able to score in super-light point fighting to no-holds-barred illegal fights to the death. What "works" for the first will fail long before it gets to handling a boxer, a semi-experienced street fighting thug, or an experienced Jiujitero.

I don't think you communicated it badly. You got the concept across - it just doesn't give any real guidelines as to how we could measure effectiveness for anything beyond that individual. And with that fluidity, everyone can argue their own stance. You can show how it fits, by aligning it with the individual's goal (so, anything that could be a reasonable goal makes something "work"). I could argue from a "likely to serve in 'the street' or not" standpoint. DB could argue from a "likely to work in a ring or no" standpoint. And so on. I think that's what's got folks saying there's no definition of "works" - because the definition depends upon the practitioner.

 

[DaveB]

That was kind of my point. The definition shifts so quickly when we use an individual's goal. Even if we assume the individual is someone wanting to fight, there still a huge range to cover - from being able to score in super-light point fighting to no-holds-barred illegal fights to the death. What "works" for the first will fail long before it gets to handling a boxer, a semi-experienced street fighting thug, or an experienced Jiujitero.

I don't think you communicated it badly. You got the concept across - it just doesn't give any real guidelines as to how we could measure effectiveness for anything beyond that individual. And with that fluidity, everyone can argue their own stance. You can show how it fits, by aligning it with the individual's goal (so, anything that could be a reasonable goal makes something "work"). I could argue from a "likely to serve in 'the street' or not" standpoint. DB could argue from a "likely to work in a ring or no" standpoint. And so on. I think that's what's got folks saying there's no definition of "works" - because the definition depends upon the practitioner.

You are kinder than I to most people.

But fair enough, I can see the issue with the definition, so how about something more simple.

How about, fight successfully against other styles in any limited rules sub pro sparring competition that scores with the use of the arts primary tools/Or defend ones self from the proscribed level of threat in a street altercation (for those arts like Aikido that have no sparring ability.

Or could be successfully employed as a component of an mma arsenal?

Any suggestions? What would you be happy with?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are kinder than I to most people.

But fair enough, I can see the issue with the definition, so how about something more simple.

How about, fight successfully against other styles in any limited rules sub pro sparring competition that scores with the use of the arts primary tools/Or defend ones self from the proscribed level of threat in a street altercation (for those arts like Aikido that have no sparring ability.

Or could be successfully employed as a component of an mma arsenal?

Any suggestions? What would you be happy with?

Okay, so you're thinking a striking art should be able to compete (sub-pro) with other striking arts, for instance. That makes sense. There's an inherent advantage to competitive training approach in that (only training what's allowed by the rules), but that's covered pretty well, since any art could choose that approach.

I wouldn't exempt Aikido from that measure. IMO, a complete version of an aiki art either contains enough striking and in-close (what I refer to as "Judo-style") grappling, or is intended as an add-on to an existing base. In the latter case, it doesn't have to meet the measurement - it's for sharpening someone who already has a functional base and giving them some new tools to play with. In the former case, it should be able to adapt (theoretically) by spending little or no time on the techniques that wouldn't be applicable to the competition.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Fighting style is the use of the fighting art.

- A Judo guy is not going to do well against a wrestler in no-jacket wrestling.
- A wrestler is not going to do well against a Judo guy in jacket wrestling.
- As far as an Aikido guy against a wrestler, or against a Judo guy in both jacket and no-jacket wrestling, there is not enough data to draw any conclusion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

- A Judo guy is not going to do well against a wrestler in no-jacket wrestling.
- A wrestler is not going to do well against a Judo guy in jacket wrestling.
- As far as an Aikido guy against a wrestler, or against a Judo guy in both jacket and no-jacket wrestling, there is not enough data to draw any conclusion.

A Judoka training no-gi has enough tools to compete (not necessarily win, but be competitive) with a wrestler. We have several Judo-derived techniques, and we rarely use the jacket as part of the technique (since there may not be an analog available "in the street").

An Aikidoka trained in close grappling techniques (using Judo-style training methods) will be at a disadvantage (fewer tools in that range), but should still be able to make a reasonable showing (similar counters learned, for one thing). For styles of Aikido that don't have close-in techniques or strikes, they don't fit this model, as outlined in my earlier post.

 

[drop bear]

I'm running low on time, so didn't watch the video, but I'll take a stab. Because cross-training fills gaps. An effective system is not a foolproof system (I wish one of those existed - let's work on that one). Bringing in an outside expert is not necessarily an indication of a problem in a system.

I assume you knew that already, but I gotta answer the question, since it was asked.

You are looking at this the wrong way. The example is not designed to determine whether a system is effective or not. This is because works is so unclearly defined as to be argued anything works within its own scope.

But these are examples of systems cut and dried not working. Systems needing change to function rather than working though the system to find an answer or correct training or better individuals.

So if the system does not have all the answers in this very obvious example. Then all systems dont magically work.

And this has been my basic and consistant argument through the whole coversation.

 

[drop bear]

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

So Alan Orr is not a poor quality instructor he did not seek better instruction. He sought out a different system to make his style work.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

There wasn't a training difference. They did not just start doing wing chun or MMA on the ground. That is not what an expert BJJ or MMA instructor does. See system change to make work.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

They can chi sau all they want. They are still also doing BJJ.

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Well that didnt happen did it.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

There is no wing chun method to deal with ground work. The reason Alan Orr's guys counteract ground work is with BJJ.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

There was no genetically advanced wing chun guy, system, method of training that worked. Adopting a new system worked.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion orinterruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

Unless like Alan Orr your system does not contain those tools.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

If skills were universally taught. Alan Orr would not need a BJJ expert. He would just use his own system.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

Which some systems just dont have the correct answer to.

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.

And regardless how good I get at mario kart I will not succeed at Dark Souls. Because the system matters.

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
Exept it is not universal is it?

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

Like chun and ground work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!


Does that address your terms specifically enough?

 

[drop bear]

That was kind of my point. The definition shifts so quickly when we use an individual's goal. Even if we assume the individual is someone wanting to fight, there still a huge range to cover - from being able to score in super-light point fighting to no-holds-barred illegal fights to the death. What "works" for the first will fail long before it gets to handling a boxer, a semi-experienced street fighting thug, or an experienced Jiujitero.

I don't think you communicated it badly. You got the concept across - it just doesn't give any real guidelines as to how we could measure effectiveness for anything beyond that individual. And with that fluidity, everyone can argue their own stance. You can show how it fits, by aligning it with the individual's goal (so, anything that could be a reasonable goal makes something "work"). I could argue from a "likely to serve in 'the street' or not" standpoint. DB could argue from a "likely to work in a ring or no" standpoint. And so on. I think that's what's got folks saying there's no definition of "works" - because the definition depends upon the practitioner.

The issue is I think he is trying to say there is some sort of intelligent design inherently behind martial arts systems. And that is not always the case. Like when people try to discern the meaning behind obscure song lyrics. There may be no meaning sometimes the writer is just on acid.

Stairway To Heaven by Led Zeppelin Songfacts

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are looking at this the wrong way. The example is not designed to determine whether a system is effective or not. This is because works is so unclearly defined as to be argued anything works within its own scope.

But these are examples of systems cut and dried not working. Systems needing change to function rather than working though the system to find an answer or correct training or better individuals.

So if the system does not have all the answers in this very obvious example. Then all systems dont magically work.

And this has been my basic and consistant argument through the whole coversation.

By the definition you're using, I think I'd agree. But if we use the updated definition Dave has given, a standing art bringing in tools from a ground-heavy art doesn't really have any bearing. And I kind of like that distinction, because a system can "work" and still have big holes - boxing is my best example of this. Nobody would reasonably say boxing doesn't work, just because they have no grappling or ground game. They might say it's flawed, but that would be measuring it against something it's not (so far as I can tell) intended to be.

Hmmm...let's take this a bit further. If a good Muay Thai gym brings in a boxing coach, is that because there's something wrong with Muay Thai? Not necessarily, I'd argue. They may simply want to expand its ability to deal with boxing, or maybe the head of the gym sees some interesting stuff in boxing he thinks will translate to MT competition, too. So, the presence of an outside expert doesn't necessarily say anything about the system. Now, if that Muay Thai gym ditched their MT clinch for a boxing clinch, swapped their MT guard for a boxing guard, and replaced a strike or two, that would seem to be a flaw of some sort in MT (if those changes turned out superior results). But it still wouldn't necessarily mean it wasn't effective before. Maybe it was, and is now more effective. Perhaps some of that is what's going on with WC boxing. I know too little about WC to make any firm conclusions. I've never sparred a WC guy, and there's too little evidence of WC in competition for me to draw a conclusion. The lack of evidence makes me skeptical, but it doesn't convince me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The issue is I think he is trying to say there is some sort of intelligent design inherently behind martial arts systems. And that is not always the case. Like when people try to discern the meaning behind obscure song lyrics. There may be no meaning sometimes the writer is just on acid.

Stairway To Heaven by Led Zeppelin Songfacts

That is the issue, and it's a problem especially with very old arts, which have almost certainly evolved (purposely or otherwise) from what they originally were. Along the way, it is possible they lost their original designed purpose. I think highly experienced instructors are at risk of helping this happen - the better we know the art, the more we think about tweaking it, and perhaps the more we overthink it.

So, even an art that was originally derived from highly effective civilian defense can possibly turn into a dance of misunderstood movements. IMO, sparring with other styles helps highlight the dancing, so it can be eliminated.

 

[drop bear]

By the definition you're using, I think I'd agree. But if we use the updated definition Dave has given, a standing art bringing in tools from a ground-heavy art doesn't really have any bearing. And I kind of like that distinction, because a system can "work" and still have big holes - boxing is my best example of this. Nobody would reasonably say boxing doesn't work, just because they have no grappling or ground game. They might say it's flawed, but that would be measuring it against something it's not (so far as I can tell) intended to be.

Hmmm...let's take this a bit further. If a good Muay Thai gym brings in a boxing coach, is that because there's something wrong with Muay Thai? Not necessarily, I'd argue. They may simply want to expand its ability to deal with boxing, or maybe the head of the gym sees some interesting stuff in boxing he thinks will translate to MT competition, too. So, the presence of an outside expert doesn't necessarily say anything about the system. Now, if that Muay Thai gym ditched their MT clinch for a boxing clinch, swapped their MT guard for a boxing guard, and replaced a strike or two, that would seem to be a flaw of some sort in MT (if those changes turned out superior results). But it still wouldn't necessarily mean it wasn't effective before. Maybe it was, and is now more effective. Perhaps some of that is what's going on with WC boxing. I know too little about WC to make any firm conclusions. I've never sparred a WC guy, and there's too little evidence of WC in competition for me to draw a conclusion. The lack of evidence makes me skeptical, but it doesn't convince me.

And you see how nuance kind of muddies the waters. When the concept is still. All styles work.

Yes we could argue this in the little detalis. But I wanted to make an obvious point people could grasp.

If there are big issue with striking basically never giving you the tools to grapple. Then it opens the door for striking never giving you the tools to strike well.

Works is still defined by its basic function of working. Not a metaphysical concept of all styles have the tools hidden somewhere inside them if you train it right.

 

[drop bear]

That is the issue, and it's a problem especially with very old arts, which have almost certainly evolved (purposely or otherwise) from what they originally were. Along the way, it is possible they lost their original designed purpose. I think highly experienced instructors are at risk of helping this happen - the better we know the art, the more we think about tweaking it, and perhaps the more we overthink it.

So, even an art that was originally derived from highly effective civilian defense can possibly turn into a dance of misunderstood movements. IMO, sparring with other styles helps highlight the dancing, so it can be eliminated.

Or sport jujitsu. In other words.

 

[DaveB]

Since turnabout is fair play, Drop bear, I can't properly assess your arguments as You have not defined what you mean by "works".

And no I'm not being pedantic, we threw out my definition and you are arguing from a position that as I said before, is far removed from the views you expressed that caused me to create this thread.

If you don't want to stick to your older views of what works that is fine, but please define what it is so that I can understand exactly what we are working with.

 

[DaveB]

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

So Alan Orr is not a poor quality instructor he did not seek better instruction. He sought out a different system to make his style work.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

There wasn't a training difference. They did not just start doing wing chun or MMA on the ground. That is not what an expert BJJ or MMA instructor does. See system change to make work.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

They can chi sau all they want. They are still also doing BJJ.

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Well that didnt happen did it.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

There is no wing chun method to deal with ground work. The reason Alan Orr's guys counteract ground work is with BJJ.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

There was no genetically advanced wing chun guy, system, method of training that worked. Adopting a new system worked.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion orinterruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

Unless like Alan Orr your system does not contain those tools.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

If skills were universally taught. Alan Orr would not need a BJJ expert. He would just use his own system.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

Which some systems just dont have the correct answer to.

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.

And regardless how good I get at mario kart I will not succeed at Dark Souls. Because the system matters.

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.
Exept it is not universal is it?

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

Like chun and ground work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!


Does that address your terms specifically enough?

Yes, thank you and well done.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A Judoka training no-gi has enough tools to compete (not necessarily win, but be competitive) with a wrestler.

In jacket wrestling, a Judo guy tries to get sleeve hold and lapel hold ASAP. In no-jacket wrestling, what will be a Judo guy's initial goal?

For Shuai-Chiao, in no-jacket wrestling, the goal is to put both palms on top of opponent's both elbow joints - the mantis arm. This way you can control your opponent's arms temporary. You can then move in and attack whenever you want to.

 

[drop bear]

Since turnabout is fair play, Drop bear, I can't properly assess your arguments as You have not defined what you mean by "works".

And no I'm not being pedantic, we threw out my definition and you are arguing from a position that as I said before, is far removed from the views you expressed that caused me to create this thread.

If you don't want to stick to your older views of what works that is fine, but please define what it is so that I can understand exactly what we are working with.

Verifiable consistent evidence of success.

 

[DaveB]

That is the issue, and it's a problem especially with very old arts, which have almost certainly evolved (purposely or otherwise) from what they originally were. Along the way, it is possible they lost their original designed purpose. I think highly experienced instructors are at risk of helping this happen - the better we know the art, the more we think about tweaking it, and perhaps the more we overthink it.

So, even an art that was originally derived from highly effective civilian defense can possibly turn into a dance of misunderstood movements. IMO, sparring with other styles helps highlight the dancing, so it can be eliminated.

I'm really not arguing any sort of intelligent design.

My position has always been that the skills necessary to land a punch or defend a punch are independent of style.

When you watch two boxers testing each other, gauging distance, seeing what angles open when they draw out a response, knowing when to lean out of punches range and when to move their feet to stay safe etc... You are not witnessing anything unique to boxing as a fighting style, only skills that playing the game of boxing helps you to develop.

Therefore if my art punches and I get good at landing punches it's not because my art is awesome, it's because I trained to land punches well.

So where does style come in?
Mostly on a tactical level.

An art like wc emphasises striking while close but with mostly straight shots. So the question for the student becomes what do I need to do to land my straight shot in close?

Specialisms enable both focus on and mastery of a finite skill set, while also defining clearly where you're weakest and thus letting you know what common counters to expect.

So mastery over a styles specialisms in combination with excellence in core skills should make a wc striker as effective as any other striker, such as a boxer or kick boxer or karateka (who are just as likely to be specialised.

And there have been some good counter arguments made to this point, most notably that if the style is both mechanically unsound and tactically weak, your punch can be both ineffective and leave you vulnerable (I'm paraphrasing).

My answer was to agree in theory but:
The TMA tendency to work based on principles rather than techniques enables pragmatic variation of the form of the techniques, for which Alan Orr and the Aikido training video were both examples.
Second (not sure if I said this yet) mechanical efficiency is mitigated by training and use of other tools. So for example, my wc punch would be weak as anything, but a guy with 5 years of practicing that method will hit pretty hard with it. And where a punch might not land as hard, an elbow will, especially if your core skills have let you maximise impact through timing.

In other words I don't think being the second hardest hitter in the ring is that big a deal.

Now, as I said the goal posts are being moved because those striking arts that were the gold standard are now being said not to work.

So fine if you define a styles ability to work based on that which it was not designed for then no style works. Which while it tanks my proposition it also tanks the argument that this thread was intended to counter: that some styles work better than other's. No style works so all styles suck. Your style bashing is still baloney.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In jacket wrestling, a Judo guy tries to get sleeve hold and lapel hold ASAP. In no-jacket wrestling, what will be a Judo guy's initial goal?

For Shuai-Chiao, in no-jacket wrestling, the goal is to put both palms on top of opponent's both elbow joints - the mantis arm. This way you can control your opponent's arms temporary. You can then move in and attack whenever you want to.

I'm not a Judo guy, so I can't speak to their likely approach to that if they trained no-gi. For me, it would probably be to get to clinch. If I can't get that, I want one underhook.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Verifiable consistent evidence of success.

We'd still have to define "success". And probably agree upon what's allowable "evidence", since you and I have had that discussion before.