I forgot to include part of my point in my prior response, MD. It's not only about whether they are skilled or not. It's also about what they know about you. If someone knows I'm trained, and something about my training, they are going to try to take away weapons I'm likely to use. If they don't know that, they can't know to block those specific weapons.
Perfectly stated.
This is what I'm saying.
I expect that's the aim of all arts. Whether the training methods foster it or not is a different question.
No, I meant "most styles". That's why I used that term. Boxing looks somewhat less like what we expect boxing to look like if it adapts to defend against shoot fighters. Judo looks somewhat less like Judo if it adapts to defend against strikes. And so on. If the standard defensive usage already fits what it's facing, a style doesn't have to adapt, so keeps looking like what we expect.
I'd agree about the boxing rotation not being native WC. The rest, I can't speak to, but from what I know of WC (very little), I can see how they would fit with it. See, I don't expect styles to stay neatly confined within where they were - I expect them to adapt as their proponents learn. So, what IS Wing Chun need not be the same as what WAS Wing Chun. The principles are what define the art.
Yep, and so does a condescending attitude.
A boxing jab, cross, or hook looks identical regardless of whether it hits another boxer or a judo guy. The same with every kick, submission, and throw that actually works. You are actually saying styles look less like themselves when defending against something else, which is the opposite of what you wrote initially, and imo only applies to arts that require cooperative partners to 'work'(which is the same as not working)
The truth doesn't care about feelings.
Agreed. My theory is that we recognize styles more (not entirely) by their defensive approach. Since most styles' default defensive approach is for defending against their fellow practitioners (boxers defending against boxers), the look changes considerably when the opponent changes, even if they are still using their standard techniques...if they adapt their defensive approach to the opponent.
That's what I'm looking for. IIRC, you have some boxing exposure, too? Is it possible to use parts of a boxing defensive approach, for instance, without violating the principles of WC? Is an upright posture in WC a principle, or is it a common usage based on principles? Same for the pelvis being forward?
Nor your childish sniping, thankfully. You are capable of cogent argument, but when you result to this condescending approach, folks are less likely to want to share ideas with you. You see, you seem to think my idea needed attacking. It was, as I said, a theory. I'm perfectly open to folks pointing out flaws in it - @Steve and @Tony Dismukes both do that for me on a regular basis. @drop bear does, too, though I feel he sometimes gets lost trying to win a point, rather than communicate. I put theories out to see who else has ideas that either enhance or degrade the theory. Look at your own first response to this - you went right for derision, rather than bothering to make a cogent point - which you sort of get around to in this post.
In general, you are correct, but there are exceptions. When I'm teaching self-defense application, I emphasize escaping the fight as a priority. (It's the same techniques to escape from the bottom, just a different tactical decision about what to do afterwards.)
In WC everything, attack, defense, and movement, is based on and reliant on body structure. Take that away and nothing works. All the 'saus become collapsible, the mother line 'root' gets dispelled, etc etc.
Do you think that exclusion applies to boxing style defenses, too? That would be things like raising the shoulders, using a close guard, etc. This is getting close to my thought here. If boxing's defenses are best suited to defending against boxing attacks (which seems a reasonable premise), and a style cannot adopt boxing defenses without causing problems with their own attacks, then the only option left might be that mode switching. In some arts (again, I'll use my primary art as an example of this), boxing-style defenses aren't as much of a problem. I don't get my shoulders up as much as most boxers, but the close guard works okay, and I can work from the boxer's posture until I get my hands on them for grappling and can settle into a grappling posture. There's always a transition (for me) from striking defense to grappling attack/defense posture, so the boxing posture doesn't disrupt that.
Yeah, there was a time when people knew the difference between frankness and sniping, too. Words mean things, you know?
Well I do tend to shell up in tight if the guy is going apesh#t with two free arms, but other than that I'd say yes.
They do..mean things that is. Its when we lose sight of this communication becomes less effective.
