ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[DaveB]

I am a 3rd degree master...in snide remarks....

...in the same way as you are 3rd Dan in selective-reading-jitsu.

Evidence this claim please.

 

[DaveB]

As an aside, here's an example of the kind of training one might do to make aikido work consistently.

 

[Flying Crane]

But consider what you are asking. Many expressly train for self defence so to validate their claims they need to get attacked and defend themselves while on film??

Unless you advocate starting street fights it is just not feasible. And ring fights are zero evidence of self defence applicability so what else do you want?

What seems to be overlooked is that when it comes right down to it, in the martial arts there is no evidence of anything beyond what someone did on some particular day. What is on film simply documents one particular event. That person's success, or another person's lack of success, does not indicate what some other person may or may not be capable of, whether or not it is captured on film.

I think that some people like to call for "evidence" in the belief that this somehow elevates their approach to martial training on a scientific level. It does not. The nature of the topic does not lend itself to such demands. I think they honestly believe that it does. But they are wrong.

 

[Steve]

yes, there are things there I could take issue with but let them roll on.

but ymin your statement that doing kata is " something else other than fighting," you have now changed your mind and agree that it ( or something like it where you practise movement patterns) is a prerequisite to developing,a skill.

if you had said that kata will only get you do far, I would have agreed, but you didn't, you said it was " something else" entirely " and that's plainly wrong, as it seems even you admit

Well, hold on now. It's hard to suss that out. I think "prerequisite" is far too strong a word. Many people who do not practice kata do just fine. Kata is one activity among many that are used to teach.

But let's now look at the ladder analogy from the other direction. If you never play a round of golf, and are happy and content going to the range with only your driver, you're doing something else. There are guys who do this. It's called Long Drive competitions. They might be mediocre golfers or never play golf at all, but what they do is hit golf balls as far as they can. Call it being a specialist. Call it whatever you want, really. But you aren't actually a golfer. You are a guy who has stopped somewhere short of that, and started off in a new direction, with a different goal.

 

[jobo]

Well, hold on now. It's hard to suss that out. I think "prerequisite" is far too strong a word. Many people who do not practice kata do just fine. Kata is one activity among many that are used to teach.

But let's now look at the ladder analogy from the other direction. If you never play a round of golf, and are happy and content going to the range with only your driver, you're doing something else. There are guys who do this. It's called Long Drive competitions. They might be mediocre golfers or never play golf at all, but what they do is hit golf balls as far as they can. Call it being a specialist. Call it whatever you want, really. But you aren't actually a golfer. You are a guy who has stopped somewhere short of that, and started off in a new direction, with a different goal.

I said that movement training like kata was a prerequisite, for gaining movement patterns

 

[Charlemagne]

All I will say is to reiterate the point that training and fighting style are independent. There is no "how a style trains" only how a school trains, unless your talking about really tiny styles with like 2 schools globally.

I disagree. There are training methods that are specific to certain styles, and they tend to show up regardless of which school one is looking at.

In addition, there are martial arts which tend to train with a great deal of aliveness and there are ones which don't. There might be some differences there between individual schools or between organizations, but the trend is still there.

And as I pointed out in one of the many wing chun threads, even when video evidence exists its not enough to silence those with a fixed idea of what effective looks like.

I am one of the people who are sincere about being interested in seeing WC performed against a resisting opponent who does not also train in that same system. If you have video of that, I appreciate you pointing me in that direction.

 

[Charlemagne]

But consider what you are asking. Many expressly train for self defence so to validate their claims they need to get attacked and defend themselves while on film??

Unless you advocate starting street fights it is just not feasible. And ring fights are zero evidence of self defence applicability so what else do you want?

No. I am suggesting that people spar, and not always against people who train exactly what they do.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Steve]

What seems to be overlooked is that when it comes right down to it, in the martial arts there is no evidence of anything beyond what someone did on some particular day. What is on film simply documents one particular event. That person's success, or another person's lack of success, does not indicate what some other person may or may not be capable of, whether or not it is captured on film.

I think that some people like to call for "evidence" in the belief that this somehow elevates their approach to martial training on a scientific level. It does not. The nature of the topic does not lend itself to such demands. I think they honestly believe that it does. But they are wrong.

Not true for all. Only true for some. We have ample evidence that cop training benefits cops, for example.

 

[Steve]

I said that movement training like kata was a prerequisite, for gaining movement patterns

Prerequisite isn't accurate. Prerequisite, by definition, is something that is required.

 

[jobo]

No. I am suggesting that people spar, and not always against people who train exactly what they do.

Pretty simple really.

but that has the same unreality issues as drills, as a general rule you can't smash you sparing partner in the nose with your knee, nor do they take kindly to having their cheek bone broken or indeed biting of a finger, its just play fighting, much as you see 8 yo up doing

 

[jobo]

Not true for all. Only true for some. We have ample evidence that cop training benefits cops, for example.

why do they keep getting killed then

 

[drop bear]

I think your looking at it the wrong way, the styles that are the most effective are the ones that are the most demanding physically, therefore they have a built in physical advantage that is Impossible to split from the style.

Not really. Fighting is physical. But we can separate effective fighting method with hard work.

Technically we are trying to achieve a technical proficiency and a physical standard to get the best of both worlds.

You have to split them to achieve the potential of both of them.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, I am happy to accept that people might doubt the effectiveness of the system that I study. That is fine with me. In the end it matters not, what some ignorant people on the internet might think, about something for which their only experience is YouTube. Anyone who holds up YouTube as the ultimate source of information, needs to get a real education.

Evidence is better than people's say so. And martial arts has been skating by on peoples say so for too long.

 

[jobo]

Prerequisite isn't accurate. Prerequisite, by definition, is something that is required.

well yea, footballer practise football movement golfer practise golf swings and fighter practice footwork and movement.

it is indeed a prerequisite of getting good at anything. I can't tell you how many hours I've dedicated to being good at pool

 

[jobo]

Not really. Fighting is physical. But we can separate effective fighting method with hard work.

Technically we are trying to achieve a technical proficiency and a physical standard to get the best of both worlds.

You have to split them to achieve the potential of both of them.

but each is completely useless with out the other, how do you suggest you separate them

 

[drop bear]

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.

OK. You still need something that works. Before you go out and train hard with resistance. So if me and my friends put on some gloves and fight club in the back yard we will not have the same effect as someone who has learned to box. The difference is the style.

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.

This is a variable. But it does not change style as a variable.

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?

Because a lot of styles only do drills. And are lead by an instructor who only does drills. Their style does not understand fighting and what is required to make it work.

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.

Street fights have those variables. Sports fights have a progression.

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 abstract system can help or hinder before we worry about training we need a base that will work. A style is not just one person it is a trend. Some styles just do these base elements better.

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.

The style in video games is fixed. You move in a predetermined way. If I put yoshi from Mario Kart in there. Their may be elements of that game that all the "get better" cannot be achieved.

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.

Yellow bamboo looks like the exception but it is not. Yellow bamboo relies on trained in compliance from the people doing the style. You see elements of that in a lot of styles. And that is where my definition of doesn't work fits in. So quite often the argument comes about that Krav will work better for an old frail person than MMA. But you need to know why that is. If it is because(exactly like yellow bamboo) everyone is making it work for you.

Then it doesn't really work.

The litmus test for if a style works is not a bunch of bendy logic about all styles working in some meta concept.

It is the style working against someone who does not want it to work.

And the reason for this very simple definition of working is why you want martial arts to work. Which is at some point a person may try to use force to do something you don't want them to do. And then it is your head on the block.

 

[drop bear]

but each is completely useless with out the other, how do you suggest you separate them

Train against bigger stronger guys is one method.

 

[jobo]

Train against bigger stronger guys is one method.

how does that seperate techneque from fitness, its impossible to know if something worked because of your techneque or your fitness

 

[drop bear]

how does that seperate techneque from fitness, its impossible to know if something worked because of your techneque or your fitness

Well if they are fitter than you. Then it is probably your technique.

 

[jobo]

Well if they are fitter than you. Then it is probably your technique.

no, that's not a valid comparison, if you punch them and they fall over, was that due to you punch or your strength, ? There is no way of knowing if the punch would have worked if you hadn't done all those press ups