ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Steve]

I'll just say this. Defining "what works' matters. In BJJ, for example, deep half guard works. It's works very, very well... in competition. It works, but not as well, in MMA. I've seen some high level MMAists use deep half guard effectively, but they have been wrecked in that position, too. Deep half guard would not work well at all for a cop.

I agree that how the training is set up is very important. But there are two other elements that are equally important.

Training --> Testing --> Applying

Each one of these should be a direct progression. You learn techniques, you test your ability to perform the techniques and then you apply the techniques in context. Testing can be formal or it can be informal. Sparring is a form of testing. Promotion ceremonies can be a different form of testing.

Most, if we're being generous, martial arts styles do a good job training technique.

Some schools do a pretty good job testing techniques, although a common pitfall is failing to remember that the test needs to be a direct link from the technique to the application. It's an essential piece of the puzzle.

Application is all over the board. Some schools and even some entire styles make no effort to link application to anything they do.

Relating this to the idea of the OP, I don't think we can say for sure that any style can work if you train it right (presuming "works" means improving fighting skill). However, we can say that, if the training is sound, things that don't "work" in the system will be exposed. And in some systems, this will be more things than in others.

 

[DaveB]

LOL, ok you missed my point. Fair enough.

Different styles, and even lineages within styles we're downright hostile to one another long before "the internet and mma".

In fact, it was worse because everyone still believed in the mystical and unrealistic ****(as opposed to a smaller number of you with those beliefs today), as nobody was realistically verifying anything.

As per your OP ..it's a smoking wreck, what's left to argue against? Until you can use those mental gymnastics of yours to account for the fact that certain ways of fighting have been shown to work while others have been shown not to(ie if all styles can be effective we should expect to see a more egalitarian distribution of what effective fighters use), there's nothing to really argue. Your just tossing off.

Unless you are saying all these decades deep masters don't know how to train their styles properly? And you know better?

In reality, the scope of what 'works' is rather narrow compared to the myriad of existent styles. This is what the evidence tells us.

Finally, an argument. Well done.

You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.

So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.

But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.

Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.

Once more for the people at the back...

Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.

The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.

They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.

There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.

Meanwhile boxing was benefiting from protective gear, lots of practitioners and lots of safe well monitored sparring.

MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.

If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.

For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.

Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many. Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.

Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.

But let's look at karate for a moment.

You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.

So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.

High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.

And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.

Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).

I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:

Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.

If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.

 

[DaveB]

Duplicate

 

[jobo]

Duplicate

Finally, an argument. Well done.

You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.

So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.

But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.

Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.

Once more for the people at the back...

Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.

The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.

They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.

There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.

Meanwhile boxing

MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.

If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.

For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.

Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many. Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.

Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.

But let's look at karate for a moment.

You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.

So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.

High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.

And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.

Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).

I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:

Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.

If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.

but then we have come full circle, if a wing chunner goes and,spars with MT fighters, they will over a few months learn how to fight MT fighters. That should indeed have made them a more effective fighter, but what they are now doing won't be recognised at wing chun, particularly by other wing chunners.

so the effectiveness of the fighter will have improved, but he is no longer a chunner,

 

[DaveB]

but then we have come full circle, if a wing chunner goes and,spars with MT fighters, they will over a few months learn how to fight MT fighters. That should indeed have made them a more effective fighter, but what they are now doing won't be recognised at wing chun, particularly by other wing chunners.

so the effectiveness of the fighter will have improved, but he is no longer a chunner,

Sparring with others doesn't change the style you use.

 

[jobo]

Sparring with others doesn't change the style you use.

it will have to or they will be beaten to a pulp every time, self of preservation will take over and they will change how they fight.
if ecery time they,stand there with their arms out they get kicked in the thigh, they will stop it very quickly

 

[DaveB]

it will have to or they will be beaten to a pulp every time, self of preservation will take over and they will change how they fight.
if ecery time they,stand there with their arms out they get kicked in the thigh, they will stop it very quickly

Bģvtŕèqzxxďçxççģģvģbgťbhgh

 

[Martial D]

Finally, an argument. Well done.

Thanks

You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.

Says you. Save the condescending attitude for your mom.

So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.

If their 'styles' work and they are the ones transmitting said styles through said training, we should expect to see very different results.

But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.

Yes. It's proven that there are complete bullshido out there in the world. Chi balls and no touch ko artists are an extreme end of the spectrum, but it is a spectrum.

Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.

I'm not sure hipocrisy means what you think it means.

Once more for the people at the back...

Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.

The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.

They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.

There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.

Meanwhile boxing was benefiting from protective gear, lots of practitioners and lots of safe well monitored sparring.

MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.

Ok, not arguing against that.

If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.

I'm not sure who these hypothetical people are, but it doesn't seem relevant. Certainly not to me.
I'd be delighted if all MAs worked as advertised.

For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.

Apologetics don't change the reality.

Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many. Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.

Sure, some karate guys started cross training and learned how to use some of their karate weapons in mma. You could hardly call what Machida, Wonderboy, or even sage are doing in the UFC as pure karate. Influenced by, yes. Borrowed from, yes. But the styles they do are heavily modified, infused with boxing, BJJ, and wrestling...which they wouldn't have had to do if their karate style was enough.

Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.

If you say so.

But let's look at karate for a moment.

You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

Addressed above. Calling Conor a karate guy because he likes a wide stance is quite the stretch though isn't it?

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.

I'm sure it's quite useful for staying in shape.

So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.

High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.

No inconsistency here. Also, who proved those techniques don't work? That last bit is a straw man of your own creation.

And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.

LOL!

Yes, you can train in whatever you like for years, but of course it won't work if someone tells you it doesn't work. Are you waiting for me to tell you your karate works so it will start working? 50 bucks!

Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).

Ahh, you are revealing your youth again. There was actually a time before mma, when TMA clubs were full of believers. Worked then about the same as it does now.

I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:

Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.

If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.

Right, so to make a style work, you must change it to more closely resemble real fighting...which destroys the style and leaves something else(something infinitely more valuable) in it's place.


Do you really find this argument of yours to be convincing?

 

[jobo]

Bģvtŕèqzxxďçxççģģvģbgťbhgh

a bit childish there?
you have locked yourself in to a self defeating argument.

traditional ma can't modernise or they will no longer be traditional, wing Chun that doesn't have static silly stances is no longer wing Chun and that the chunners making that rule .
up

and its not just the style that's stuck in a time warp, to improve the effectiveness of any of them you would need to look at the physical fitness they train, as that to is a 100 years out of date

 

[DaveB]

Thanks

Says you. Save the condescending attitude for your mom.

If their 'styles' work and they are the ones transmitting said styles through said training, we should expect to see very different results.

Yes. It's proven that there are complete bullshido out there in the world. Chi balls and no touch ko artists are an extreme end of the spectrum, but it is a spectrum.


I'm not sure hipocrisy means what you think it means.

Ok, not arguing against that.

I'm not sure who these hypothetical people are, but it doesn't seem relevant. Certainly not to me.
I'd be delighted if all MAs worked as advertised.


Apologetics don't change the reality.


Sure, some karate guys started cross training and learned how to use some of their karate weapons in mma. You could hardly call what Machida, Wonderboy, or even sage are doing in the UFC as pure karate. Influenced by, yes. Borrowed from, yes. But the styles they do are heavily modified, infused with boxing, BJJ, and wrestling...which they wouldn't have had to do if their karate style was enough.


If you say so.


Addressed above. Calling Conor a karate guy because he likes a wide stance is quite the stretch though isn't it?


I'm sure it's quite useful for staying in shape.


No inconsistency here. Also, who proved those techniques don't work? That last bit is a straw man of your own creation.


LOL!

Yes, you can train in whatever you like for years, but of course it won't work if someone tells you it doesn't work. Are you waiting for me to tell you your karate works so it will start working? 50 bucks!


Ahh, you are revealing your youth again. There was actually a time before mma, when TMA clubs were full of believers. Worked then about the same as it does now.


Right, so to make a style work, you must change it to more closely resemble real fighting...which destroys the style and leaves something else(something infinitely more valuable) in it's place.


Do you really find this argument of yours to be convincing?

So you ask a question.
I answer.
You read the answer and assume I'm talking about something else, missing the point.

Try rereading my post but remember that training makes effectiveness.

So when you ask how come the masters haven't trained right and I explain why their training is as it is, that actually is a reason why your not seeing a lot of victorious fighters from said arts.

Similarly if I say "guys like you tell the world x art doesn't work so people interested in fighting go elsewhere" I'm clearly not saying that your comments make an art ineffective because training is what makes arts effective.

And if I say spar with other people and look for solutions within your style, I'm not saying change the art because training is desperate from fighting style.

You see if you remember the argument your trying to counter you'll at least understand my posts and the discussion can move forward.

What confuses me is why you think sparring with other styles, or learning when to enter or retreat remodels a fighting style?

 

[DaveB]

a bit childish there?
you have locked yourself in to a self defeating argument.

traditional ma can't modernise or they will no longer be traditional, wing Chun that doesn't have static silly stances is no longer wing Chun and that the chunners making that rule .
up

and its not just the style that's stuck in a time warp, to improve the effectiveness of any of them you would need to look at the physical fitness they train, as that to is a 100 years out of date

Sorry about the other reply, I'm on my phone.

Maybe the wing chun people will throw up objections, but all the TMA I've encountered are based upon core principles not fixed positions or movements.

So in karate there are guidelines on how to connect your body and generate power. So long as you are following the principles the strike is a karate strike. TMA are built this way precisely to enable fluidity flexibility and adaptation.

Maybe wing chun is different, but the 1 chun teacher I know says it's the same.

But I reiterate, people are not robots. People choose what they train and how. Training against a boxer won't force you to change unless you want to.

If there is really no answer to a problem in your art that's one thing, but I really doubt that's the case.

 

[drop bear]

Finally, an argument. Well done.

You still haven't refuted any of my positions but we can overlook that in light of your achievement.

So... your saying that there is something implausible about the "deep masters" not having the best training methods.

But at the same time it's totally plausible that they have totally functionless martial arts, including their training.

Ok, ignoring the absurd level of hypocrisy there, I did actually cover this already. Twice.

Once more for the people at the back...

Traditional ma, the real target of your derision, are largely called such because their practice is traditional in transmission, i.e. the techniques and method are passed down in a particular fashion from one generation to the next.

The generations that spawned most of these ma did not have safety equipment that enabled hard practice without injury. Some also had deferential cultures that didn't question the guy above.

They passed down their traditional training methods, some could fight well enough to keep the faith, some just avoided fighting as was and is the ethos of most martial artists.

There wasn't that much cross style interaction because each art valued different skills. Judo took balance, karate looked for the first hit, wing chun did chi sau, etc. There was no reason to doubt what they were doing with all the concessions one had to make to go cross style, creating endless caveats to any loss. My background is karate mainly so I'm very familiar with the excuses.

Meanwhile boxing was benefiting from protective gear, lots of practitioners and lots of safe well monitored sparring.

MMA changed that as the early ufc was the Gracies proclaiming there art to be the best and by your standards proving it. But for some that just didn't matter.

If people like something, like smoking or style bashing or ineffective traditional training, they will make every excuse they can to not admit that the thing they like is not right.

For others they just didn't have the exposure to learn what they could be doing, reinforced by monkey see monkey do training cultures where a prerequisite of deep mystical understanding meant that you needed to be spoon fed by the master.

Karate started going through a renaissance in the 2000s because the internet enabled a small number of people who questioned the disconnect between their forms and their fighting to ignite the curiosity of many. Coupled with ufc seeming calling the old way into question this has made for a lot of change.

Other arts that have less to question about themselves will be slower to adapt but the shelacking their reps are getting will kick in soon enough.

But let's look at karate for a moment.

You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.

So with that inconsistency gnawing at your point consider this: the evidence is actually showing us that the pool of what works is bigger than we realised.

High kicks, Judo throws, karate... all "proven" unworkable. Until they weren't.

And this ignorance about what actually works and how to make it work answers your other point. Why don't more fighters use a wider variety of arts? Because guys like you tell them they don't work.

Young people interested in ufc hear the conventional wisdom and go for what "everyone" says works. So your Thai boxing gyms are full of guys wanting to fight ufc while your kungfu clubs are full of more cerebral fellows. (Yes it's a generalisation but in this environment I have to be allowed at least one).

I've accounted for why some styles seem to work more than others since the first post. But for completeness:

Training determines effectiveness. Some styles have traditional training methods that they adhere to. Those methods are not always effective for cross style sparring. We are just waiting for the traditions to change, like Thai boxing did.

If you want to make wing chun, or any ma work, send the student to a boxing gym or kick boxing gym and let him spar. Assess his mistakes and look for answers within the style. Rinse and repeat. Continuous sparring for learning and development against standard attacks is all it takes to develop most people.

The creation argument rehashed.

I dont know does not equal god.

Just because we don't know for sure what works and what doesn't. Does not mean everything works. It means we have to realistically test what works and what doesn't. I am happy with uncertanty. I am not happy with you filling that uncertanty with dogma.

 

[Martial D]

So you ask a question.
I answer.
You read the answer and assume I'm talking about something else, missing the point.

Try rereading my post but remember that training makes effectiveness.

So when you ask how come the masters haven't trained right and I explain why their training is as it is, that actually is a reason why your not seeing a lot of victorious fighters from said arts.

Similarly if I say "guys like you tell the world x art doesn't work so people interested in fighting go elsewhere" I'm clearly not saying that your comments make an art ineffective because training is what makes arts effective.

And if I say spar with other people and look for solutions within your style, I'm not saying change the art because training is desperate from fighting style.

You see if you remember the argument your trying to counter you'll at least understand my posts and the discussion can move forward.

What confuses me is why you think sparring with other styles, or learning when to enter or retreat remodels a fighting style?

Yes yes I know, you think that some styles don't work because evil naysayers like me drive people away from learning them, which is so silly on it's face it deserved a silly answer. Yet, I did point out that things were about the same... actually probably worse because a lot of schools have let mma type stuff slide in under the door...before mma was an acronym for anything.You have to remember, mma evolved out of TMA. If the tma worked mma would never have happened.

Sparring with other styles does not change the style, it changes the fighter. As you realize your big sweeping blocks aren't ever going to work again real punches, or that your karate punch is complete Ineffective against boxing punches, or when you keep getting taken down or punched in the face when you try to flip someone with an extremely low percentage technique like a wrist throw..you evolve or suck forever.

 

[Steve]

Yes yes I know, you think that some styles don't work because evil naysayers like me drive people away from learning them, which is so silly on it's face it deserved a silly answer. Yet, I did point out that things were about the same... actually probably worse because a lot of schools have let mma type stuff slide in under the door...before mma was an acronym for anything.You have to remember, mma evolved out of TMA. If the tma worked mma would never have happened.

Sparring with other styles does not change the style, it changes the fighter. As you realize your big sweeping blocks aren't ever going to work again real punches, or that your karate punch is complete Ineffective against boxing punches, or when you keep getting taken down or punched in the face when you try to flip someone with an extremely low percentage technique like a wrist throw..you evolve or suck forever.

Learning to apply technique takes time. I will say that I'm open to the very real possibility that some styles which may not currently "work" could if the practitioners trained with other styles. I think guys like jowgawolf have the right idea. Train with wrestlers, but train your technique. If you are an aikidoka, train your aikido with a wrestler or a MT guy, and don't abandon it. It will not work at first. It might never work. But I guarantee that if you want to be better at aikido, doing aikido against a lot of other people will get you there.

 

[Martial D]

But I guarantee that if you want to be better at aikido, doing aikido against a lot of other people will get you there.

And if 'doing aikido against a lot of other people' becomes 'getting ragdolled and smacked around by a lot of people while you keep trying stuff that will never work against them', how long do you keep the faith?

 

[DaveB]

The creation argument rehashed.

I dont know does not equal god.

Just because we don't know for sure what works and what doesn't. Does not mean everything works. It means we have to realistically test what works and what doesn't. I am happy with uncertanty. I am not happy with you filling that uncertanty with dogma.

13 pages in and your still making up straw men.

Not knowing is not the basis for my argument.

The fact that training (including fitness) is the only fight variable that we can control that has a meaningful impact due to the fact that the relevant core skills needed to win fights are universal to almost all arts, is the basis for my argument.

 

[drop bear]

13 pages in and your still making up straw men.

Not knowing is not the basis for my argument.

The fact that training (including fitness) is the only fight variable that we can control that has a meaningful impact due to the fact that the relevant core skills needed to win fights are universal to almost all arts, is the basis for my argument.

Wait were you not just saying that isn't the case?

Here for example.

You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.

 

[DaveB]

And if 'doing aikido against a lot of other people' becomes 'getting ragdolled and smacked around by a lot of people while you keep trying stuff that will never work against them', how long do you keep the faith?

At last, the one argument that could work as a viable counter. Does a style exist with no combat useable content.

You're on a role!

Well, for the sake of dropbear I did specify arts that used conventionally recognised striking or grappling to achieve their goals, so for the purpose of the discussion the answer should be know. Still it's worth asking the following questions of any martial art.

If a guy stands there and does not defend himself will the core offensive content of the style do him harm?
Will it do him harm if he tries to protect himself?
Will it do him harm if he tries to resist/fight back?

I consider each of these separately because each is a state you can bring a person to in fighting.

Wing chun works by punching and kicking people. If I time my punch or kick right, according to Bruce Lee, there's no defence against it.

Timing your punch is not a skill specific to any one style. The training to develop timing is not style specific either. Once good timing is acquired it doesn't alter the style but it will make you a better fighter.

This is why I said earlier, if your style punches and kicks it's a proven style. You just have to get good at the basics.

Now i could be mistaken but I think that some brands of Aikido dont strike at all. That means the question for those styles is can you escape a self defence scenario without striking and only using their joint locks and balance manipulation?

Well one of the reasons the aikido folk I encountered didn't spend time dealing with boxing combinations is that they believed it was only going to be the fully committed "I'm going to kill you" shots launched in the street and that anything more complex was for the ring or a consensual fight. I think there's a degree of truth to that but that it is complacent.

But it's not that hard to get a boxer to over commit. Lomanchenko uses aikido footwork in his fights. The training video I posted showed how to use aikido tools to get in on a static combo thrower and take his balance/limb. So it looks hard but doable.

 

[DaveB]

Wait were you not just saying that isn't the case?

Here for example.

You state that the evidence shows that what works is quite a narrow segment of styles. Well karate was one that was pretty much accepted as not working. That changed with Machida, now Connor McGregor is holding up the karate rep and a number of others have been recognised as successful karate guys too.

But according to you that's impossible. The style was proven a dud.

The two quotes are not remotely exclusive. They are talking about different things but the together as part of the same argument.

The bold text is me disproving the idea that a style either works or doesn't by highlighting how that changed. The quote box is yet another restatement of the core argument I am making.

So if a style can be made to work after years of being consider a load of junk then there must be some other variable that matters to the successful application of that style. Like how the fighter trains.

 

[DaveB]

And if 'doing aikido against a lot of other people' becomes 'getting ragdolled and smacked around by a lot of people while you keep trying stuff that will never work against them', how long do you keep the faith?

But to your specific point, faith shouldn't come into it.

If there is a way to make the technique work in the dojo there is a way to make it work on resisting opposition.

Head kicks were useless because a bjj fighter would just take you down.

So throw when he's off balance or back pedalling or out of position.

Jujitsu wrist lock not working kick his shin then head butt him so he's not thinking about the wrist anymore, or move up the arm to the elbow or shoulder.

The point of sparring is not to win but to analyse what you are doing and get better.