Sorry playing catch up, in your opinion, how much of the above statement would you say is
A) down to the actual techniques
B) down to the students phyche in a high pressure situation?
My response is going to be kind of long because sometimes the simple answer I give get taken out of context by some of the jokers in this group. So I'm trying to add some context to it.
So for A I'm going to make the following assumptions.
1.
The system has a minimum of foundation of basic function. Meaning you have to have something in the system that can be made functional if it's not already functional. This is not a functional fighting system here, but you can do some fine tuning and fixing structure and you'll have some solid stuff to work with. It sounds crazy, but when you look at their structure for throwing punching it's a lot better that what we see from some of that TMA vs MMA stuff from China. Stick a pad in front of these people, make some minor corrections and you'll have a nice little workout for building punching foundations and footwork foundations.
So my assumption is that the system has the bare minimum structure in which function can be built in some sort of shape or form,
2.
The system must have some techniques that will look similar to techniques or mechanics found in other systems. No matter what we do, we are al limited by the mechanics of the human body. 2 arms 2 legs a spine and a head. There's only so many variations of body mechanics that are available before things start looking the same or similar. If the system is totally unique in everything, then there is a 99% chance that it not real. It's like walking, there's a specific structure that must be maintained for efficient walking.
This may seem silly as well, but it's very practical, which is why these animals walking looks familiar to us. We all operate within similar mechanics and structure.
And some structures of punching and kicking is going to be more efficient than others, but the functional stuff will pretty much follow the same rules of body mechanics, structure and balance for animals with A head, 2 arms, 2 legs and a spine. Again, this is why we see jabs, sprawls, foot sweeps, single leg take down attempts, in foot work in this video.
This is the sweep (screenshot from video above)
This is the single leg take-down attempt (screen shot from video above)
So above is the context of how I see martial arts. Now the short answers based on a system having the characteristics of what was stated above.
.
A) down to the actual techniques. - My thought is that a technique just needs to be functional and efficient which will determine it's effectiveness. People get beat downs from basic kicking and punching When it comes to more advanced techniques, these techniques are designed to exploit specific human mechanics, structure, and human behavior. The more a technique exploits these areas the more important the technique becomes. When you start exploiting specifics then the technique needs to be solid, as that technique is only designed for s specific timing and body position. You can't just "thow stuff on the wall and hope it sticks." This would be about 30% of what's required for using a technique. I've shown examples of fighting between animals that resembles some of the stuff we do in marital arts. Their stuff is functional and it doesn't look pretty like what we see in the movies. Looking fancy is not a requirement for something to be functional. Nor is it a good marker of functionality. Pretty forms do not make, Pretty fights.
B) Down to the students phyche in a high pressure situation? This is 70% or maybe even higher at 90% depending on what type of technique you are trying to pull off. The more basic the technique the less it plays on your phyche and the less it will be affected by pressure. My guess is that it's because basics are what people are comfortable with doing and is something that we generally trust more than anything else. The more advance a technique is the more you have to trust that technique no matter if you think you are going to get pounded in the face for trying it. You have to trust it 100% without doubt. And you have understand when and in what position the technique is functional for you. Unfortunately the only way you can determine this is through trial and error.
You literally have to trust the technique 100% even though you know that you will fail at using it the first 20 or 30 times. You have to believe 100% that the the problem isn't the technique but your understanding of it. This is a difficult thing to do, especially if you are doing hard sparring, which is why I don't try to learn new stuff during hard sparring sessions. It's better to make mistakes in light sparring sessions so that it doesn't play on your mind and corrupt your trust in what you are training in.
Sorry I had to be wordy about it, I was just trying to kill some of the nonsense that I might get from others from what I post.