This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion. So first to the terms: Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always. The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of. Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive. Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight? A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style. Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you. Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work. Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas. 1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter. 2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights. The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style. Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?". I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge. IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works. And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one). I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work. So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!