ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Charlemagne]

I don't understand why you care if I come or go in this discussion. I've said that I have been willing to educate people on things in which I have experience and they do not. That is relevant to this thread. So if I choose to take part in this or other discussions, why would you find it unusual?

I only find it unusual because it was you that said you didn't care what people though and then it was you who said you were done talking about it. I thought we had been having a cordial discussion prior to that, despite the fact that we obviously disagree.

So....what about the paint story? Should I disregard your advice?

In your example, it would be very easy to demonstrate the effectiveness when the paint was applied property as compared to when it was not. Behr paint is used by millions of people each year.

Likewise, should I disregard outright anything you say about your training, simply because I haven't seen it for myself?

If there were not easy to find examples of how what I do trains, then it would be logical for you to ask for evidence. If I was unwilling to provide it, it would be reasonable for you to doubt. As stands, there are many easy-to-find examples.

 

[Charlemagne]

Why would you feel a need to prove this to me? I am not asking for proof. I have no interest in even watching the videos. I have no reason to doubt the effectiveness of your method. I have no experience with it, so I would be an ignorant fool to declare that I believe it does not work. You train it, so if you claim it is valuable training and it works well for you, why would I ever argue with you? I have no base from which to challenge your claim.

I wasn't responding to you with those videos. Sorry for any confusion.

 

[Charlemagne]

no the question was, can you prove that's what YOU DO, any one can post random vids from the 1970s

Sweet. I'll wait for those random videos from the 1970's showing the willingness of all of those martial arts who have, here to date, never been able to find such evidence of their willingness to train full contact, particularly against persons from other systems.

As for the rest, I will see about trying to record some of our live sparing the next time we do it. I have shard such things in the past on other martial arts forums, mostly in the form of pictures of my bruises from live stick sparring.

At the end of the day, unless given solid reason, I'll stick with my original claim that there some systems which have documented evidence of training against resisting opponents and those who do not. If someone is making a claim about effectiveness of their system, they should not be surprised when people ask for such things. If they cannot show examples of their system being used in that manner, they should not be surprised if people doubt.

 

[Flying Crane]

I only find it unusual because it was you that said you didn't care what people though and then it was you who said you were done talking about it. I thought we had been having a cordial discussion prior to that, despite the fact that we obviously disagree.


In your example, it would be very easy to demonstrate the effectiveness when the paint was applied property as compared to when it was not. Behr paint is used by millions of people each year.

If there were no easy to find examples of how what I do trains then it would be logical for you to ask for evidence. If I was unwilling to provide it, it would be reasonable for you to doubt. As stands, there are many easy to find examples.

In the end, I don't care what someone thinks of my training. But this is a discussion forum, so I engage in discussion. If someone chooses to discard the education that i offer, on a topic in which they have no experience and I do, that is their loss and they choose deliberate ignorance. Sure, it is mildly annoying to me, but it is their loss. But I am here to discuss, and I discuss where and when i choose. I feel like you are trying to tell me to go away. Are you?

Regarding the paint, are you saying that I need to see the paint applied properly and then sit and watch it weather for a dozen years before I might be able to trust your anecdotal advice? Seriously, why can't i trust your advice?

If someone suggests a book that they think you might like, do you research the author's life before you read it? Or can you trust that your friend liked it and perhaps you will to?

 

[jobo]

Sweet. I'll wait for those random videos from the 1970's showing the willingness of all of those martial arts who have, here to date, never been able to find such evidence of their willingness to train full contact, particularly against persons from other systems.

As for the rest, I will see about trying to record some of our live sparing the next time we do it. I have shard such things in the past on other martial arts forums, mostly in the form of pictures of my bruises from live stick sparring.

At the end of the day, unless given solid reason, I'll stick with my original claim that there some systems which have documented evidence of training against resisting opponents and those who do not. If someone is making a claim about effectiveness of their system, they should not be surprised when people ask for such things. If they cannot show examples of their system being used in that manner, they should not be surprised if people doubt.

ok so all the evidence you can provide that you fight other styles is a picture of a bloke with a red mark.
really after baiting others about evidence that's all you have

 

[Flying Crane]

I wasn't responding to you with those videos. Sorry for any confusion.

Ok, but I hold to my statements. If you say your training is good, I trust your word. I have no reason to doubt you. It may not be the right thing for me, but I have no reason to doubt your experience or your judgement on it, for yourself.

 

[Charlemagne]

In the end, I don't care what someone thinks of my training. But this is a discussion forum, so I engage in discussion. If someone chooses to discard the education that i offer, on a topic in which they have no experience and I do, that is their loss and they choose deliberate ignorance. Sure, it is mildly annoying to me, but it is their loss. But I am here to discuss, and I discuss where and when i choose. I feel like you are trying to tell me to go away. Are you?

Not in the slightest.

Regarding the paint, are you saying that I need to see the paint applied properly and then sit and watch it weather for a dozen years before I might be able to trust your anecdotal advice? Seriously, why can't i trust your advice?

I really don't think that's a good comparison, but OK.

If someone suggests a book that they think you might like, do you research the author's life before you read it? Or can you trust that your friend liked it and perhaps you will to?

Because if someone reads a book that they don't end up liking they are only out a few bucks and some time. If someone invests years into training a martial art and it fails them when put to the test, they are likely out much more. Liking a book is a matter of taste and personal preference. Whether or not a martial art has verifiable evidence of effectiveness against other systems is a matter of objective reality.

 

[Charlemagne]

ok so all the evidence you can provide that you fight other styles is a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark.
really after baiting others about evidence that's all you have

No, I have many videos of the styles I train being used against persons from other systems. And a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark.

And, in case you are confused, I don't expect every single personal martial artist to put out videos of what they do. But, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a particular martial arts system would have evidence of what they do.

 

[jobo]

No, I have many videos of the styles I train being used against persons from other systems. And a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark.

And, in case you are confused, I don't expect every single personal martial artist to put out videos of what they do. But, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a particular martial arts system would have evidence of what they do.

you lead me to believe that YOU train,against other styles, I've simply asked you to verify that, . Pictures of someone from a style you claim you do fighting doesn't really come close to that. You told us it was easy to prove

 

[Flying Crane]

Not in the slightest.

I really don't think that's a good comparison, but OK.

Because if someone reads a book that they don't end up liking they are only out a few bucks and some time. If someone invests years into training a martial art and it fails them when put to the test, they are likely out much more. Liking a book is a matter of taste and personal preference. Whether or not a martial art has verifiable evidence of effectiveness against other systems is a matter of objective reality.

I'm not telling you that you need to train my system. I only claim that I find my training useful and effective for me. If you speak up and say that what I do is no good, I am likely to tell you that, well I actually have experience with this method and I find it useful. Then you tell me that I have to prove it. Well no I don't, you don't want to train it anyway and I'm not trying to convert you, so why would I need to prove it to you?

Why can't I take your advice on paint at face value? I am willing to believe you, why do you tell me I cannot believe you?

 

[Steve]

No, I have many videos of the styles I train being used against persons from other systems. And a picture of a fat bloke with a red mark.

And, in case you are confused, I don't expect every single personal martial artist to put out videos of what they do. But, I don't think it is unreasonable to think that a particular martial arts system would have evidence of what they do.

You have the patience of a saint.

 

[DaveB]

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.

1. A backyard fight club isn't a fighting style. The fighting style is indeed the something that works and I already stipulated that this discussion is based on those that use striking and grappling as combat tools. Not psychic powers like yellow bamboo.

2. Training hard with resistance is only one part of training properly. Look at the aikido training video: not yet fighting hard but doing drills that develop skills that are necessary to fight.

If your training develops core skills like balanced movement, evasion, landing blows and building combinations then the fighting style has what it needs to do what it does.

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

The particulars of the style are a negligible impact on the importance of core skills.

I know it's fun to bash styles but is it really so hard to see that ones ability to time a punch is far more important than what that punch looks like???

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.

Show me the style capable of cognition and I will show you a new and undocumented life form worth more than all the champions belts combined.

I'm saying styles don't think. They don't understand things they don't move and do drills. People do those things and people can choose to do different ones. An instructor may not understand fighting, but it only takes one that does to make the style work.

That knowledge gap is not style specific. A few days ago I watched videos of pro boxers who tried to fight in mma. They got destroyed. Boxers don't understand fighting, they understand the "game" of boxing. Does that mean boxing can't work? Or maybe was it the boxers training that was lacking for the new environment?

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

So no sport fighter ever got a lucky hit?
No sport fighter was ever just more talented or had better genes?

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.

It's the training that makes it work not the other way around. To even do a style you need to have trained in it first. You can't just go into a fight thinking about Greco-Roman wrestling and expect to use it if you never trained a day in it.

Training is the only variable that matters.

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.

What you've just argued is that not all fighting styles are suitable for sports competitions as they don't all move in a way conducive to the rules of the sport.

I'm pretty sure you and those like you normally call this a b.s. argument because it let's people of the hook for not winning fights.

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.

No style has trained in compliance as a component of the style. It occurs as a corruption of the training environment. It's a pitfall, not an integral element. It also doesn't fall into the definition of "trained properly", does it?

Did you even read the opening post? I mean I know you didn't originally or you'd never have posted about yellow bamboo, but still?

Your litmus test is the same as my litmus test. I just don't limit the idea of working to winning because that would discount the abilities of the opposition which would be stupid.

The only point I'm really making is that it's not the set of guidelines that blocks andvthrows punches, it is the person. How well that person does that is based on how well trained they are.

This is not rocket science. There is nothing bendy about this logic. You literally said that a set of ideas about moving during a fight is capable of cognitive understanding but you call my logic bendy?

The fact is you want to make it about the style when the thing doing the fighting is a human being. A human being chooses when to punch, when to dodge etc. They do this based on how well they are trained.

Can we argue that some styles rely too heavily on traditional methods that are ineffective. Of course, but that doesn't make the style it's self flawed. It doesn't mean people can't change the way they train to get better results.

 

[drop bear]

Why can't I take your advice on paint at face value? I am willing to believe you, why do you tell me I cannot believe you?

There are two ways people look at this. One is the expectation that if you don't call on my BS I won't call you on yours.

And the other is the expectation that I will be called on my BS and i will call yours.

When you remove honest feedback from your training. You system stops working.

 

[DaveB]

When you remove honest feedback from your training. You system stops working.

At last we agree on something.

 

[drop bear]

1. A backyard fight club isn't a fighting style. The fighting style is indeed the something that works and I already stipulated that this discussion is based on those that use striking and grappling as combat tools. Not psychic powers like yellow bamboo.

2. Training hard with resistance is only one part of training properly. Look at the aikido training video: not yet fighting hard but doing drills that develop skills that are necessary to fight.

If your training develops core skills like balanced movement, evasion, landing blows and building combinations then the fighting style has what it needs to do what it does.



The particulars of the style are a negligible impact on the importance of core skills.

I know it's fun to bash styles but is it really so hard to see that ones ability to time a punch is far more important than what that punch looks like???



Show me the style capable of cognition and I will show you a new and undocumented life form worth more than all the champions belts combined.

I'm saying styles don't think. They don't understand things they don't move and do drills. People do those things and people can choose to do different ones. An instructor may not understand fighting, but it only takes one that does to make the style work.

That knowledge gap is not style specific. A few days ago I watched videos of pro boxers who tried to fight in mma. They got destroyed. Boxers don't understand fighting, they understand the "game" of boxing. Does that mean boxing can't work? Or maybe was it the boxers training that was lacking for the new environment?


So no sport fighter ever got a lucky hit?
No sport fighter was ever just more talented or had better genes?


It's the training that makes it work not the other way around. To even do a style you need to have trained in it first. You can't just go into a fight thinking about Greco-Roman wrestling and expect to use it if you never trained a day in it.

Training is the only variable that matters.



What you've just argued is that not all fighting styles are suitable for sports competitions as they don't all move in a way conducive to the rules of the sport.

I'm pretty sure you and those like you normally call this a b.s. argument because it let's people of the hook for not winning fights.



No style has trained in compliance as a component of the style. It occurs as a corruption of the training environment. It's a pitfall, not an integral element. It also doesn't fall into the definition of "trained properly", does it?

Did you even read the opening post? I mean I know you didn't originally or you'd never have posted about yellow bamboo, but still?

Your litmus test is the same as my litmus test. I just don't limit the idea of working to winning because that would discount the abilities of the opposition which would be stupid.

The only point I'm really making is that it's not the set of guidelines that blocks andvthrows punches, it is the person. How well that person does that is based on how well trained they are.

This is not rocket science. There is nothing bendy about this logic. You literally said that a set of ideas about moving during a fight is capable of cognitive understanding but you call my logic bendy?

The fact is you want to make it about the style when the thing doing the fighting is a human being. A human being chooses when to punch, when to dodge etc. They do this based on how well they are trained.

Can we argue that some styles rely too heavily on traditional methods that are ineffective. Of course, but that doesn't make the style it's self flawed. It doesn't mean people can't change the way they train to get better results.

So little Johnny gets caught for stealing and is told what he did was wrong.

His excuse is "But what about all the other kids who steal?"

Just because the individual and the training and the circumstance plays a role. Does not discount that the style plays a role as well.

There is a reason boxers tend to wrestle worse than wrestlers.

 

[DaveB]

So little Johnny gets caught for stealing and is told what he did was wrong.

His excuse is "But what about all the other kids who steal?"

Just because the individual and the training and the circumstance plays a role. Does not discount that the style plays a role as well.

There is a reason boxers tend to wrestle worse than wrestlers.

I have no clue what you are talking about?

I got the "Style plays a role" bit.

When considered in the context of the opponent style can determine how easy or difficult victory is.

Style is your strategy and your tactics and your mechanics. For traditional aikido the strategy is draw the attack and neutralise, the tactic is turn the attack energy against itself by x technique and I presume their mechanics are around proper posture but I don't know.

Is that a more difficult road than punch in the face? Sure. But what determines if it works or fails? The only answer to that is the training.

 

[Charlemagne]

You have the patience of a saint.

Ha! Thanks for that. He's going on my ignore list though. He does the same thing in every thread that I have seen so far.

 

[Charlemagne]

Why can't I take your advice on paint at face value? I am willing to believe you, why do you tell me I cannot believe you?

Because this is an anonymous internet forum where you don't know who I really am, what my real experience may or may not be, and if I even train in the systems that I claim to train in. The same goes for you. I have no idea who you really are, what you really do, and whether or not you know what the heck you are talking about. The reality is:

• There are way too many posers in the martial arts world
• Way too many people that are still buying into the 1970-80's fantasy of what is and is not going to work in real life
• Way too many people are training systems which have never been validated and which have way more show than go in them
• Way too many people that give flawed recommendations as a result of the above

You seem like a decent sort, and I do try to presume good will on the part of other people that I interact with, but sadly, that is not always rewarded. And, since we are talking about martial arts, where there is potential for harm if someone is full of it, or if the system is ineffective, it is prudent to seek out confirmation of the usefulness of a particular style or system before buying in.

If you cannot see the logic of what I wrote above, I'm honestly not sure we have much left to discuss on this topic.

 

[Flying Crane]

Because this is an anonymous internet forum where you don't know who I really am, what my real experience may or may not be, and if I even train in the systems that I claim to train in. The same goes for you. I have no idea who you really are, what you really do, and whether or not you know what the heck you are talking about. The reality is:

• There are way too many posers in the martial arts world
• Way too many people that are still buying into the 1970-80's fantasy of what is and is not going to work in real life
• Way too many people are training systems which have never been validated and which have way more show than go in them
• Way too many people that give flawed recommendations as a result of the above

You seem like a decent sort, and I do try to presume good will on the part of other people that I interact with, but sadly, that is not always rewarded. And, since we are talking about martial arts, where there is potential for harm if someone is full of it, or if the system is ineffective, it is prudent to seek out confirmation of the usefulness of a particular style or system before buying in.

If you cannot see the logic of what I wrote above, I'm honestly not sure we have much left to discuss on this topic.

So wait a minute here. If you have no experience with a system beyond what you have seen on YouTube, and yet you have formulated a negative opinion of that system, you are unable to consider the input of a person who has experience with that system? Someone who takes the time to explain some of the background and concepts and methods, to help you understand what you may be seeing on YT, all the while acknowledging that yes, there are some pretty poor examples on YT. But you feel their input means NOTHING? Really?

If you said "XYZ system sucks, I've seen nothing good on YT for that", and I were to chime in and say, "well wait a minute, I've been training in XYZ system for a few years now, and I live on the bad side of town and I've successfully used my training in XYZ 14 times to defend myself" do you assume I am lying to you? Do you discard my testimony as worthless anecdotal evidence, and therefor either the encounters I have described didn't happen, or worse yet I actually got beat up 14 times? Is that your position based on the fact that you didn't like what you saw on YT?

Are you unable to comprehend that even tho you may not understand something, may have no experience with something, may actually dislike something, that there are other people who find it quite useful and have successfully used it?

Can you understand that? Can you accept that possibility, that something you may dislike, can be useful to others?

Because I will be honest with you here: what you are describing is a level of misinformed distrust that borders on paranoia.

If you tell me you've painted nine houses in the last twenty years, all using Behr paints, and they all came out beautifully, and furthermore you describe to me the proper preparation to do the job right, because you can tell that I've never done this before and I may not understand what is required to do the job right, I don't assume you are lying to me. Neither do I feel the need to order the MSDS for the paint formulas or do an extensive survey of all painting done in my city to compare who used what brand and how well the results came out, before I am willing to concede that maybe you know a little bit about this thing with which I have no experience.

I'll accept your word on it, as long as I don't have some solid reason to suspect you are trying to mislead me.

I stick to my earlier statement: this is weird and surreal.

 

[Martial D]

So wait a minute here. If you have no experience with a system beyond what you have seen on YouTube, and yet you have formulated a negative opinion of that system, you are unable to consider the input of a person who has experience with that system? Someone who takes the time to explain some of the background and concepts and methods, to help you understand what you may be seeing on YT, all the while acknowledging that yes, there are some pretty poor examples on YT. But you feel their input means NOTHING? Really?

If you said "XYZ system sucks, I've seen nothing good on YT for that", and I were to chime in and say, "well wait a minute, I've been training in XYZ system for a few years now, and I live on the bad side of town and I've successfully used my training in XYZ 14 times to defend myself" do you assume I am lying to you? Do you discard my testimony as worthless anecdotal evidence, and therefor either the encounters I have described didn't happen, or worse yet I actually got beat up 14 times? Is that your position based on the fact that you didn't like what you saw on YT?

Are you unable to comprehend that even tho you may not understand something, may have no experience with something, may actually dislike something, that there are other people who find it quite useful and have successfully used it?

Can you understand that? Can you accept that possibility, that something you may dislike, can be useful to others?

Because I will be honest with you here: what you are describing is a level of misinformed distrust that borders on paranoia.

If you tell me you've painted nine houses in the last twenty years, all using Behr paints, and they all came out beautifully, and furthermore you describe to me the proper preparation to do the job right, because you can tell that I've never done this before and I may not understand what is required to do the job right, I don't assume you are lying to me. Neither do I feel the need to order the MSDS for the paint formulas or do an extensive survey of all painting done in my city to compare who used what brand and how well the results came out, before I am willing to concede that maybe you know a little bit about this thing with which I have no experience.

I'll accept your word on it, as long as I don't have some solid reason to suspect you are trying to mislead me.

I stick to my earlier statement: this is weird and surreal.

Person a says, I train X system, and it's very effective for SD and fighting.

Person b says, I've sparred with many people that do x system and they all sucked at it, and I've further witnessed , either in person or on film, a good deal more people doing X system and they also sucked at it. Do you have evidence that there is a type of X system that works in actual sparring or combat?

Person A says I find it surreal that you would ask that, why don't you just believe me? Oh and I'll never provide that evidence btw because I shouldn't have to.

Person b backs away slowly....