ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Gerry Seymour]

Your style bashing is still baloney.

My style bashing?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

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.

What was the step before your clinch or under hook?

I will do the following:

wrist -> elbow -> shoulder (or head)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What was the step before your clinch or under hook?

I will do the following:

wrist -> elbow -> shoulder (or head)

That entirely depends upon what they do. Sometimes I can go directly to clinch. Other times, I have to use an arm drag to get there (like your progression). The same applies for an underhook, except that an over-commitment of weight can make it easier to achieve.

 

[drop bear]

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

It would be a start if any definition of those terms were used.

I mean yes it is easy to do with competition and hard to do with self defence.

But the responsibility isn't mine to validate everyones war stories.

 

[DaveB]

Verifiable consistent evidence of success.

Ah, but now your definition is subject to all the pitfalls that mime fell into.

What is evidence? What is success? Is 100 students who successfully lowered their blood pressure a style that works? Etc etc.

Even if we go the obvious route, this definition wipes out your whole bjj argument. Since varified success asks nothing of how much of the fight is the style in question to be used for.

A single knockout punch after 2.5 rounds spent hugging on the floor in an mma match counts towards whatever fighting style the punch is from.

Also any pure style tournament gives you verifies success. Boxing works in boxing tourneys all the time. So does wing chun on wing chun tourneys.

 

[DaveB]

S

My style bashing?

Clearly not, just forgot to whom I had hit reply.

 

[DaveB]

It would be a start if any definition of those terms were used.

I mean yes it is easy to do with competition and hard to do with self defence.

But the responsibility isn't mine to validate everyones war stories.

No, but you are only being asked to define terms for the statement you made.

You want to argue that no style works or some styles work and others don't, so we need a definition of "works".

So far your own definition kills your argument if taken as I believe it is meant, so further clarification is necessary.

 

[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.

No, he added bjj training for people who wanted to compete in mixed martial arts. Ground fighting is not a requirement of making an effective striking art. Knowing how to counter ground fighting is. And yes you can counter ground fighting with striking and sprawling, it's been happening in mma matches for years.

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.

No system was added to for an environment that it wasn't designed for. Same as every other martial art that goes into mma. Hence the name mixed martial arts. Deciding you are better off knowing ground work than not doesn't change whether or not you can effectively hit an opponent.

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.

The boxing match I posted says otherwise.

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.

I wholeheartedly disagree and refute your argument thusly:
Punch to the face while standing.
Knee to the face during takedown attempt.
Sprawling as a reinterpretation of the standard evasion principles of the art.
All are ways for wing chun to fight a ground fighter.

Lots of modern mma fighters will keep ground specialists on their feet and win with striking.

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.

Orr's wing chun is simply an advancement from idealised training to practical training, and training is not the fighting art.

So even if we accept the idea that the bjj is a change to their training, if when they fight they are still using chun principles and fighting successfully as strikers then you are seeing wing chun working.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or i
nterruption, 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.

Which of the things I listed does Alan Orr's system not posses?

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.

Ground fighting is not a core skill for landing or avoiding strikes. Nor is it useful for anything but mma. As a kungfu system the appropriate tourney to test wing chun in is sanshou. No ground work allowed.

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.

The answers are universal and while a style might exist that is so rigid it only allows use of its own methods even for landing shots, We would still need to check to see if it's rules were incorrect or unworkable which I think is unlikely.

I don't believe such a style exists, but I'll be happy for you to prove otherwise.

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.

False comparison. Getting good with the long sword in DS3 doesn't make you a master with the great sword but the skills do cross over.

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?

Yes it is.

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?