ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Flying Crane]

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

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.


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.

If I tell you I had a banana for breakfast, do you believe me? Or do you need to do a fecal analysis first?

I'm not telling you that you need to eat a banana too. I'm just telling you that I had one. Do you believe me?

 

[Steve]

If I tell you I had a banana for breakfast, do you believe me? Or do you need to do a fecal analysis first?

I'm not telling you that you need to eat a banana too. I'm just telling you that I had one. Do you believe me?

No, but if you told me you ate a banana and it allowed you to levitate I would reasonably ask you to provide some evidence that bananas help you do so.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Your arguments only work because you believe in them. If we look at those arguments rationally they fall apart.

So you are trying to say all styles that already work due to a bunch of prearranged expectations work.

Yes if boxers boxed by grabbing people and throwing them they could certainly wrestle.

But styles don't have to meet your expectations of effectiveness.

The boxers ability to wrestle does not change depending on what fight he is in be it a sports fight or a street fight.

 

[drop bear]

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

Because if style did not matter. In a one style only competition. It would not matter what style was trained.

Because style doesn't matter.

They would be interchangeable.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Moving away from the meaningless arguing about evidence for a moment, I'd like to point out that the effectiveness of a style can change over time as our knowledge of fighting expands. As a species we humans are constantly learning more about the world and that can change our perception of it. For example, our knowledge of biomechanics and physics is a lot greater now than it was 100 years ago and this is affecting our fighting abilities. It's not just knowledge either, but physical skill. A greater level of physical skill enables you to do more with a style than you could before.

Anyone who watches E-sports over time knows this, as it generally happens at an accelerated rate compared to Martial Arts (months and years compared to decades). There will be a time where a certain style or unit in a game will be considered very weak and inefficient compared to other styles, until somebody develops the physical skills necessary to be able to make that style effective. Once that happens and the rest of the gaming community sees it, the whole community will slowly gain those physical skills in order to use the style and it becomes mainstream. Then something that seemed impossible to use is suddenly seen everywhere. This phenomenon also works the other way around. There may be a style within a game that appears to be completely unstoppable until someone develops the knowledge and physical skill to defeat it. Once that happens, again the game's community will raise their skill level and their perception of that unbeatable style will change.

 

[DaveB]

Your arguments only work because you believe in them. If we look at those arguments rationally they fall apart.

So you are trying to say all styles that already work due to a bunch of prearranged expectations work.

Yes if boxers boxed by grabbing people and throwing them they could certainly wrestle.

But styles don't have to meet your expectations of effectiveness.

The boxers ability to wrestle does not change depending on what fight he is in be it a sports fight or a street fight.

That's not even close to my position or to a sensible argument.

The thing is as you go off on these tangents you confuse the argument with the points being made to refute your nonsensical analogies.

1. The argument is that training determines effectiveness in fighting. It has mothing to do with expectations of effectiveness. That was never said anywhere.

2. Wrestling is a game with its own set of rules. You cannot apply any fighting style in a wrestling match other than wrestling.

Let's see a ufc champion be effective when they are only allowed to hit after solving complex physics equations. Since were placing game restrictions on fighting styles to determine effectiveness this makes total sense. My new nuclear physics fighting style will be supreme.

3. If you really want to get into it, wrestling and boxing aren't fighting styles, they are games shaped and determined 100% by a set of rules and objectives. Yes they are great ways to train a fighter, but they are not solutions to the problem of combat.

 

[DaveB]

It's also the style.

Yeah people keep saying that, but how?

What impact does a style have that is greater than the impact of universal core skills that are built up by training?

 

[DaveB]

Your arguments only work because you believe in them. If we look at those arguments rationally they fall apart.
.

It seems you only feel that way because you don't read my actual arguments. Like here your talking about expectations???

I am happy to be proven wrong, but to do that you need to look at what I say and find a reason it's not true.

Your best attempt has been suggesting style is also a variable. A point I accepted, but why do you think the shape of a punch or preference for in-fighting is more important than core skills that everyone has to have to hit or grapple???

The boxers ability to wrestle does not change depending on what fight he is in be it a sports fight or a street fight.

No it doesn't, but if he trains right he will be able to hit the wrestler before he is grappled. And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.

 

[DaveB]

Because if style did not matter. In a one style only competition. It would not matter what style was trained.

Because style doesn't matter.

They would be interchangeable.

This is a classic straw man argument. Exactly the same one Martial D tried in the chun thread.

The argument is any fighting style can work.
Work was specified to achieving It's objectives or showing the significant potential to if not for superior opposition (not in those exact words but that's the gist).

I never said your style doesn't shape your specialisms. That would be a stupid thing to say.

I even went as far as to say that style can limit your potential against other styles with incompatible specialisms. But this is a different argument. It is a style v style argument not a does x style work argument.

I feel I should say something about reading posts, but what's the point?

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Yeah people keep saying that, but how?

What impact does a style have that is greater than the impact of universal core skills that are built up by training?

In my personal opinion we shouldn't be splitting the 2, as the universal core skills are influenced by the style, and vice versa. Again I'm going to refer back to competitive video gaming in this. In the gaming world we have players known as One-Trick Ponies (OTPs for short) who exclusively practice a single unit, and other players who use many different units (generalists). But regardless of all of this, all players still develop the same core set of physical skills and knowledge in their gameplay, they just use them in different ways. What's interesting here is that the OTPs will use the core skill set to enhance their favoured unit and take it to the next level, whereas the generalists will take the core skills that they learned with one unit and adapt them to play the others. This allows the generalists to quickly pick up new unknown units and learn them more quickly, as well as being able to adapt to unfamiliar situations on the fly.

To bring this back to fighting, let's say a Boxer is our OTP, and an MMA fighter is our generalist. Both types of fighters practice a simple palm block, but the difference is that a Boxer will train that palm block exclusively to defend against punches to the head, whereas the MMA fighter will use the principles of the palm block and apply them to the other types of attacks, thus being able to use the palm block in a variety of situations. This may appear to give the MMA fighter the advantage, but the flip side is that the Boxer will likely have a higher skill level at blocking strikes to the head than the MMA fighter, and be able to block attacks that may seem impossible.

So as you can see, style and core skills are intertwined as both are influenced by the other.

 

[DaveB]

In my personal opinion we shouldn't be splitting the 2, as the universal core skills are influenced by the style, and vice versa. Again I'm going to refer back to competitive video gaming in this. In the gaming world we have players known as One-Trick Ponies (OTPs for short) who exclusively practice a single unit, and other players who use many different units (generalists). But regardless of all of this, all players still develop the same core set of physical skills and knowledge in their gameplay, they just use them in different ways. What's interesting here is that the OTPs will use the core skill set to enhance their favoured unit and take it to the next level, whereas the generalists will take the core skills that they learned with one unit and adapt them to play the others. This allows the generalists to quickly pick up new unknown units and learn them more quickly, as well as being able to adapt to unfamiliar situations on the fly.

To bring this back to fighting, let's say a Boxer is our OTP, and an MMA fighter is our generalist. Both types of fighters practice a simple palm block, but the difference is that a Boxer will train that palm block exclusively to defend against punches to the head, whereas the MMA fighter will use the principles of the palm block and apply them to the other types of attacks, thus being able to use the palm block in a variety of situations. This may appear to give the MMA fighter the advantage, but the flip side is that the Boxer will likely have a higher skill level at blocking strikes to the head than the MMA fighter, and be able to block attacks that may seem impossible.

So as you can see, style and core skills are intertwined as both are influenced by the other.

Thanks for the considered response, but I disagree.

A palm block is not what I consider a core skill, it is a style specific technique.

The core skill is the coordination and reaction timing necessary to intercept a blow whether it's with a simple boxing cover or a karate intercepting forearm block.

So the style is the form the defence takes, but the skills necessary to get in position and react and balance and spot threats, these are general skills that are/can be trained in non style specific ways. They are also what determines your effectiveness.

 

[drop bear]

This is a classic straw man argument. Exactly the same one Martial D tried in the chun thread.

The argument is any fighting style can work.
Work was specified to achieving It's objectives or showing the significant potential to if not for superior opposition (not in those exact words but that's the gist).

I never said your style doesn't shape your specialisms. That would be a stupid thing to say.

I even went as far as to say that style can limit your potential against other styles with incompatible specialisms. But this is a different argument. It is a style v style argument not a does x style work argument.

I feel I should say something about reading posts, but what's the point?

So it is just a vague undefined concept of work.

It makes your whole premis even sillier.

 

[drop bear]

It seems you only feel that way because you don't read my actual arguments. Like here your talking about expectations???

I am happy to be proven wrong, but to do that you need to look at what I say and find a reason it's not true.

Your best attempt has been suggesting style is also a variable. A point I accepted, but why do you think the shape of a punch or preference for in-fighting is more important than core skills that everyone has to have to hit or grapple???




No it doesn't, but if he trains right he will be able to hit the wrestler before he is grappled. And if boxing were a fighting style rather than a sport it would have some method of coping with grappling attempts or would expand to develop them.

If style is a variable then working or not working is dependent on style.

A boxer can hit wrestlers because the style matters. It is pretty simple. A boxer can hit because of his style.

If a boxer developed a method of grappling it would be a different style. And style would still matter.

You can't just say style doesn't matter because people can train other styles. People train other styles because styles matter.

Reading your actual arguments make no sense.

 

[drop bear]

That's not even close to my position or to a sensible argument.

The thing is as you go off on these tangents you confuse the argument with the points being made to refute your nonsensical analogies.

1. The argument is that training determines effectiveness in fighting. It has mothing to do with expectations of effectiveness. That was never said anywhere.

2. Wrestling is a game with its own set of rules. You cannot apply any fighting style in a wrestling match other than wrestling.

Let's see a ufc champion be effective when they are only allowed to hit after solving complex physics equations. Since were placing game restrictions on fighting styles to determine effectiveness this makes total sense. My new nuclear physics fighting style will be supreme.

3. If you really want to get into it, wrestling and boxing aren't fighting styles, they are games shaped and determined 100% by a set of rules and objectives. Yes they are great ways to train a fighter, but they are not solutions to the problem of combat.

Fighting styles vs games?

Is style vs style.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

Thanks for the considered response, but I disagree.

A palm block is not what I consider a core skill, it is a style specific technique.

The core skill is the coordination and reaction timing necessary to intercept a blow whether it's with a simple boxing cover or a karate intercepting forearm block.

So the style is the form the defence takes, but the skills necessary to get in position and react and balance and spot threats, these are general skills that are/can be trained in non style specific ways. They are also what determines your effectiveness.

Granted, the example I gave wasn't the best but the point still stands that core skills and style are intrinsically linked and as a result neither has a greater impact over the other.

 

[DaveB]

If style is a variable then working or not working is dependent on style.

Yes, but if style determines 2%, training determines 92%. So what's your point?

A boxer can hit wrestlers because the style matters. It is pretty simple. A boxer can hit because of his style.

How? Saying something matters doesn't explain how it works to affect things.

If a boxer developed a method of grappling it would be a different style. And style would still matter.

You can't just say style doesn't matter because people can train other styles. People train other styles because styles matter.

I could say that. I didn't and wouldn't, but I could. Do you have a straw factory or something?

Reading your actual arguments make no sense.

Like boxers can hit because their style is boxing. Not at all a circular argument.

Boxers can hit because they are people with arms and legs who spend time practicing the skills needed to land hits.

How do you think style changes this?

 

[DaveB]

Granted, the example I gave wasn't the best but the point still stands that core skills and style are intrinsically linked and as a result neither has a greater impact over the other.

I don't see how the point stands when my point was that combat skills are universal and independent of style.

Let's try this.
How does style affect the underlying skill of blocking/covering?

 

[Charlemagne]

Yeah people keep saying that, but how?

What impact does a style have that is greater than the impact of universal core skills that are built up by training?

There are tactical implications of style. In other words, it impacts your decision making. It impacts your understanding of range and timing. It impacts the attributes that you believe are important to develop and the manner in which you understand physical altercations

This is not to mention the myriad of physical differences which differing styles present.

 

[jobo]

There are tactical implications of style. In other words, it impacts your decision making. It impacts your understanding of range and timing. It impacts the attributes that you believe are important to develop and the manner in which you understand physical altercations

This is not to mention the myriad of physical differences which differing styles present.

I accept that, but they all give you those attributes but in perhaps slightly different ways

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I don't see how the point stands when my point was that combat skills are universal and independent of style.

Let's try this.
How does style affect the underlying skill of blocking/covering?

Except that I believe that the combat skills directly influence the style, and are in turn influenced by the style. How does style affect the skill of blocking? I'm pretty sure I already covered this. A boxer trains their blocks to defend against punches, mostly to the head and sometimes the upper torso, whereas an MMA fighter will train their blocks not only for punches, but for kicks as well. The style has therefore influenced the blocking skill.

Don't get me wrong, there are certain basic attributes and skills that are required in all Martial Arts, things like balance, hand-eye coordination, fast reaction times, etc but again, these skills are influenced by the activity or style you are using them for.