I would. If you're getting jumped, you WILL be down on the ground whether you kick before that happens or not.
Nah, sometimes you stay standing. But i will leave it at, sometimes when you get ambushed you stay standing, sometimes you fall down, sometimes you see it coming and attack first, to avoid situation pedantcism. Or better worded, coming up with a thousand varibles, and a further thousand counters to said varibles. That also allows some hyperbole.
For clarity sake, my orignal point was in refrence to boxing and ended at the getting jumped point. Just down to what was quoted, has no relation to any argument given.
I'm fairly certain that you can analyze a fighter the same way just as easily - if not MORE easily - and you'll find that, despite figuring out what the fighter does... if he's that good, knowing what he's going to do will mean absolutely nothing when it's time to face him.
Fair enough, but knowing what he does would generally lead to some sort of plan, and some sort of plan is better than no plan. There is always the posibility for the scouting of said fighter they purposely make it look like they are better at one thing to provide some form of counter inteligence.
And before somone replies "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" there is a equal quote/saying of "planning is important". The fundemental point is, you go in with a plan and contiengencies then you alter segements of it on the fly.
I also funnily enough was going to say human individulism is the folly of anyone who tries to bring science to sport, as a joke but opted to leave it out.
The only way i can see you accurately testing combat sport/fighting systems is: getting a large pool of what you would call average people, or the persons you plan to deliver the trainign programe to, take some stats on them, like how much they can lift, run etc. Put them through a course of trainign for how ever long, then take those tests perodicially throughout it, while noting eating habits and any relivent medical conditions.
Or post, like how the military does it review combat reports and the like by soldiers and investigate them to rule out survivour bias etc and make alterations in trainign based on your findings. (this process is usually only a endavour a governemnt can do, at least the most scentific anyway)
Anyway, this is off topic for the thread, i might start another one for ranting about how to mesure martial training systems.
