ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[DaveB]

... And, since we are talking about martial arts, where there is potential for harm if someone is full of it, or if the system is ineffective, it is prudent to seek out confirmation of the usefulness of a particular style or system before buying in.

If you cannot see the logic of what I wrote above, I'm honestly not sure we have much left to discuss on this topic.

Except it's not the style it's the training.

 

[Paul_D]

Person a says, I train X system, and it's very effective for SD and fighting.

Person b says, I've sparred with many people that do x system and they all sucked at it, and I've further witnessed , either in person or on film, a good deal more people doing X system and they also sucked at it. Do you have evidence that there is a type of X system that works in actual sparring or combat?

Person A says I find it surreal that you would ask that, why don't you just believe me? Oh and I'll never provide that evidence btw because I shouldn't have to.

Person b backs away slowly....

Any evidence you are given you dismiss as not actually being evidence so that you don't have to admit you are wrong

 

[jobo]

Any evidence you are given you dismiss as not actually being evidence so that you don't have to admit you are wrong

and yet the most vocal in requiring evidence from others won't provided any at all if asked nicely to do so. Funny that

 

[DaveB]

Person a says, I train X system, and it's very effective for SD and fighting.

Person b says, I've sparred with many people that do x system and they all sucked at it, and I've further witnessed , either in person or on film, a good deal more people doing X system and they also sucked at it. Do you have evidence that there is a type of X system that works in actual sparring or combat?

Person A says I find it surreal that you would ask that, why don't you just believe me? Oh and I'll never provide that evidence btw because I shouldn't have to.

Person b backs away slowly....

Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.

Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..

Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?

Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.

Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.

Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of whichever from the 19th century or older.
The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.

But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art.
Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's.

All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.

I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.

 

[Martial D]

Any evidence you are given you dismiss as not actually being evidence so that you don't have to admit you are wrong

You keep saying that, even after I completely destroyed and debunked your two lonely examples.

Quit lying.

 

[Martial D]

Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.

Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..

Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?

Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.

Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.

Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of whichever from the 19th century or older.
The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.

But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art.
Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's.

All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.

I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.

You continue to ignore the fact that style, too, is a variable. For someone that likes to makes constant jabs at people rather than focus on what is said in regards to their thinking ability, yours seems to be not without it's deficiencies.

 

[DaveB]

You continue to ignore the fact that style, too, is a variable. For someone that likes to makes constant jabs at people rather than focus on what is said in regards to their thinking ability, yours seems to be not without it's deficiencies.

Except that, like now, I quote and directly refute every point made against my arguments (which are very few) as well as all the analogies and assertions which completely ignore my arguments (which are many) even though as long as they're unrefuted my arguments demolish your position before you've begun.

For example, I addressed style as a variable twice already. I examined in what capacity it affects fights, which you haven't. Then I pointed out why it pales in significance to training (the whole universal elements of combat like timing and distancing, skills required by everyone regardless of style that are critical to success in combat).

So I guess it's your turn to stop lying. Maybe instead you could actually consider the arguments I've made, or just read my posts so you can lie more effectively.

Repeating the same tired line of "Style is a variable too" doesn't really work if the point has been examined already.

 

[drop bear]

I have no clue what you are talking about?

I got the "Style plays a role" bit.

When considered in the context of the opponent style can determine how easy or difficult victory is.

Style is your strategy and your tactics and your mechanics. For traditional aikido the strategy is draw the attack and neutralise, the tactic is turn the attack energy against itself by x technique and I presume their mechanics are around proper posture but I don't know.

Is that a more difficult road than punch in the face? Sure. But what determines if it works or fails? The only answer to that is the training.

Not really. Boxers and wrestlers train pretty evenly in terms of effectiveness. They both have talented individuals and they both have good and bad days.

If style was not a factor they should be able to achieve the same results.

Except boxers can't wrestle and wrestlers can't box. (Mostly)

Their style determines what works and what doesn't.

A boxer can't train harder and be able to wrestle his style does not give him the tools.

If your style does not start with the right tools. The training is going to have a limited effect.

The style matters.

 

[jobo]

Not really. Boxers and wrestlers train pretty evenly in terms of effectiveness. They both have talented individuals and they both have good and bad days.

If style was not a factor they should be able to achieve the same results.

Except boxers can't wrestle and wrestlers can't box. (Mostly)

Their style determines what works and what doesn't.

A boxer can't train harder and be able to wrestle his style does not give him the tools.

If your style does not start with the right tools. The training is going to have a limited effect.

The style matters.

they can achieve the same result, ie victory, they just do it in different ways

 

[Martial D]

Except that, like now, I quote and directly refute every point made against my arguments (which are very few) as well as all the analogies and assertions which completely ignore my arguments (which are many) even though as long as they're unrefuted my arguments demolish your position before you've begun.

For example, I addressed style as a variable twice already. I examined in what capacity it affects fights, which you haven't. Then I pointed out why it pales in significance to training (the whole universal elements of combat like timing and distancing, skills required by everyone regardless of style that are critical to success in combat).

So I guess it's your turn to stop lying. Maybe instead you could actually consider the arguments I've made, or just read my posts so you can lie more effectively.

Repeating the same tired line of "Style is a variable too" doesn't really work if the point has been examined already.

Well, good luck arguing your points into reality. I'll just be over here waiting for these fantasy people you are trying to argue into existence to show up at my club and prove you right.

I'll be holding my breath.

 

[drop bear]

And by the way who blames their students for their crap system anyway.

 

[drop bear]

they can achieve the same result, ie victory, they just do it in different ways

So a boxer could somehow pull of a wrestling comp. Just in his different manner?

 

[jobo]

So a boxer could somehow pull of a wrestling comp. Just in his different manner?

that's not really a rational argument, but yes a boxer could quite easily put a wrestler to sleep, if he is allowed to do that in a wrestling comp is a different point than is being discussed here

 

[drop bear]

that's not really a rational argument, but yes a boxer could quite easily put a wrestler to sleep, if he is allowed to do that in a wrestling comp is a different point than is being discussed here

No. We are discussing if style plays a role in making martial arts work. This is the easiest to understand example.

People will try to make it about something else because it is a very hard argument to refute.

A style gives you certain defined skills. That has an effect on what works and what doesn't.

 

[DaveB]

Not really. Boxers and wrestlers train pretty evenly in terms of effectiveness. They both have talented individuals and they both have good and bad days.

If style was not a factor they should be able to achieve the same results.

Except boxers can't wrestle and wrestlers can't box. (Mostly)

Their style determines what works and what doesn't.

A boxer can't train harder and be able to wrestle his style does not give him the tools.

If your style does not start with the right tools. The training is going to have a limited effect.

The style matters.

What are you talking about?

How do we go from a discussion about fighting to getting sportsmen to play different sports???

Your last 3 sentences were the only parts that made sense, and I agree, but your forgetting I stipulated talking about styles that use standard striking and grappling methods. The tools are there. A punch is a punch, a kick is a kick. Whether or not they land is based on how well you train.

 

[jobo]

Person c shakes his head sadly at the lack of critical thinking on display.

Funny thing is this has happened over and over again but some people refuse to learn the lesson..

Anyone remember when high kicks were totally impractical and couldn't work in a if like fight?

Karate was the ma community whipping boy for decades. Totally impractical... before Machida.

Nobody stops to think why people got these "common sense" assumptions wrong. Or how come despite the endless "evidence" of these things not working, suddenly they work for every Tom Dick or Harry.

Ultimately this issue of which systems work is about traditional arts most of whichever from the 19th century or older.
The thing with these systems is they were put together when there was no safe way to practice hitting so you couldn't learn from hundreds and hundreds of matches plus thousands of practice fights the way we can with modern combat sports.

But the fact is if you aim to win fights with punches then any victory by punching validates your art.
Old battlefield arts like jujitsu were validated on the battlefield or the art died with its student's.

All that needs to happen is adaptation of training methods and with that adaptation a greater insight into the science of fighting. Insight that was not available to past generations.

I didn't start this thread to say that nothing needs to change. Clearly lots of people struggle to make use of their fighting styles in the modern environment. But it is just wrong thinking to believe that the style is making bad fight decisions when it's the person employing the style who gets knocked out.

that's a well thought out post, but id add, that its not really the art of fighting having changed, people are much the same, rather the art of sports fitness has changed and the old school fitness programed originating from a few hundred years ago leave artist woefully unprepared against a person who employed more modern techniques'.

 

[jobo]

No. We are discussing if style plays a role in making martial arts work. This is the easiest to understand example.

People will try to make it about something else because it is a very hard argument to refute.

A style gives you certain defined skills. That has an effect on what works and what doesn't.

but its silly, its like posting a cake maker is better at making cakes than a biker. Duh

if its a one,style only competition, then the person who practices that style has a marked advantage, im not sure how establishing that has move your point forward

 

[newjack2k]

There are no superior martial arts. Only superior martial artists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charlemagne]

Can you understand that? Can you accept that possibility, that something you may dislike, can be useful to others?

Of course I can. Hence the reason that I would ask to see evidence.

Because I will be honest with you here: what you are describing is a level of misinformed distrust that borders on paranoia.

No, it is simple prudence. We are all on an anonymous internet forum. I have no freaking clue who you are. You have no freaking clue who I am. Blind trust to complete strangers is something no one should expect.

I stick to my earlier statement: this is weird and surreal.

What is weird and surreal is your willingness to take complete strangers in an internet forum on blind faith, and that you are shocked that I and others won't do the same. What is also weird and surreal is your amazement that someone might wish to see evidence of the effectiveness of your system and expecting that people will just go along and trust that you know what the heck you are talking about, particularly if they are looking to train for the purposes of defense of themselves or a loved one. Martial artists have been operating this way for way too long, and it is a crock of crap.

 

[Charlemagne]

Except it's not the style it's the training.

It's also the style.

There are really a number of factors here. Specifically,

1. Style/Systems trained
2. Training method (how is a given style trained. Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.)
3. The teacher's ability to transmit the system in an effective way
4. Non-modifiable attributes/anthropometerics
5. Modifiable attributes (strength, conditioning, body mass, flexibility, motor control and learning, nutrition, etc.)
6. Cognitive (Sport psych, drive, tactical understanding, willingness to accept discomfort/pain, reasons for training/fighting, etc.)

All of these things are going to interact to varying degrees depending on the situation.

However, the bottom line that, in situations where some of the other variables have been removed, or at least made a bit more equal (to the extent that they really ever can be), there are some styles which consistently show the ability to perform under a high level of stress, and some which have little to no documented evidence of the same. There are some people on here that don't like to hear that, and some that don't seem to want to accept it, but it is reality nonetheless.

In addition, there are some styles which have documented evidence working when some of the variables I noted above are not equal, particularly some of the modifiable attributes and anthropometrics (aka, size) and there are styles which have little to no documented evidence of the same. Again, there are some people who don't want to hear that, but it is still the truth regardless of personal preference.

As I noted earlier, I do believe that the number of systems that will work is probably higher than often touted by those in the "aliveness" camp. For example, I don't think it is reasonable to believe that Kyokushin is the only form of Karate that can work well against a resisting opponent with full contact. It simply happens to be the system where a charismatic leader decided to make hard contact a regular part of their training and testing, and put themselves out there for others to see doing that in ways that other forms of Karate have done less of, both against each other, and against persons from other styles with documented evidence of aliveness in their training and testing, such as MT, etc.

There are even more that probably have aspects of what they do which will work. The actual numbers and which systems those are is harder to get a handle on, simply because the the type of training and pressure testing necessary to figure that out is either not being done or not being disseminated.

These arguments about which systems might work or might not will not be settled in any meaningful way until persons in those systems without documented evidence of fighting ability against a resisting opponent start showing the desire and ability to pressure test their systems, are successful in doing so, and disseminate it. If they are not willing to do that, then they ought to be prepared to accept that people are doing to doubt the effectiveness of what they do. In other words, if you don't want to test your system in that way, don't get bent out of shape when people vocally doubt the effectiveness of what you do. If you want to silence the critics, you know how to do it.