Shadow Boxing vs Kata fallacy argument.

[Deleted member 39746]

Gun Kata, cimematically speaking....

I have legit seen gun kata in real life. Somone has started up a shooting art based on that koryu for modern weapons. Its quite funny to see. (i dont remmber the word for it) I never understood some of the movements for that koryu as well (relating to the matchlocks)

 

[wab25]

When you learn to play a musical instrument, like a guitar, you start by learning the notes, one string at a time. You are given exercises to practice. These help you learn where the notes are, how to play the notes and how to read the notes. Eventually you start to learn and practice songs like Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. You get to practice scales. You get to learn other songs, that are picked specifically to teach you things like timing or additional notes or a new technique in playing.

Everyone expects that at some point, you will move on to play music outside the method book. Once you have learned the method, you can go into classical music, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass... whatever. You will even move on to songs not included in your method book. You will probably use completely different arrangements of the songs that you once learned in your method book. You will even make up your own arrangements of songs...

This is expected growth and development for a musical instrument. The expectation of the method, and all its exercises is to teach you what the notes are, how to play the notes and read the notes. But, these exercises also teach you how the notes are related, the theory of music and how they all work together. The idea is to create a repeatable process to introduce people to music, so that they can play and arrange and even compose their own music. The expectation is that you go way beyond the method book and its exercises.

Kata (specifically Japanese Kata) is designed the same way. It is to teach you the basics, and introduce you to the theory and how things works together. The idea is for you to eventually understand enough to make changes, to play around with it creating your own arrangements. Eventually, even composing your own. Kata is basically the method exercises used to teach beginners an art, just like you would teach a person to play an instrument. The expectation is that you learn the basics first, understand the theory and then start adapting and changing. You are expected to go beyond.

The problem is that too many people missed that for years. They treat the kata as the dictionary and definition of their art... if its not in the kata, its not in the art. They missed the part about going beyond. They did not understand Shu-Ha-Ri. Shu is the first step, copy exactly... play your scales, play Red River Valley exactly as written in your book. This is where many people stopped. They then put on the fancy pajamas and belt, called themselves Master, Soke, Sensei... and did not allow questions. This is it... scales, Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. Now, we have people that tell you that you cannot play Saints Go Marching In on your guitar, because "my master taught Red River Valley." No, you can't play that scale there or strum that chord, the book says play the note. We have been conditioned to look at the fancy pajamas and belt, and associate a ton of authority and knowledge... to people who do not even understand that what they are teaching is supposed to be changed and adapted. It is supposed to open doors, not close them.

I took the other route to learn guitar. I wanted to play Unforgiven by Metallica. It took me longer to be able to play that song, than it took me to earn a black belt, and start teaching... Sure, I can play a couple of other songs as well. I simply learned to read tabs, got the music for the song I wanted and brute forced my way through. The problem is that I can't play with other musicians, I can't make my own arrangements... as I ended up being able to play a few songs, but have no understanding of music and how it works. To learn a new song, takes me a year or more... because I took the shortcut, and skipped the method.

Yes, there are many methods... many different ways to learn something. However, Shu-Ha-Ri is being judged by many, as being less effective... because it too many of the people who practice part of it... do not realize that they are only practicing part of it. They are stuck under their master's "authority" who is in turn stuck under their master's "authority." This "authority" is what makes the kata stiff and unfluid and useless. This "authority" has been so effective, that you can go in to a random Shotokan school, and explain Funakoshi's view on what a kata is doing... and they will tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. When you show them, that it is Funakoshi's own words, about that exact movement, in that kata... they look sheepish, then admit that it could possibly be looked at that way in specific circumstances, but its not generally accepted.... (for those who don't know, Funakoshi was the creator and founder of Shotokan... he might have an idea on what he was trying to teach with the kata that he included)

I submit that if you take only one part, of any training method... and then not only ignore, but prevent people from doing any of the other parts of that training method, you will get bad results. Especially when you start linking "authority" to it. Kata is not good or bad. It is part of a much larger method for teaching people, in a repeatable fashion. We just keep using it wrong.

There are places that do understand it, and are using it correctly... These are places to train, if you can find them. When kata is used correctly, it can produce very good results.

 

[Steve]

When you learn to play a musical instrument, like a guitar, you start by learning the notes, one string at a time. You are given exercises to practice. These help you learn where the notes are, how to play the notes and how to read the notes. Eventually you start to learn and practice songs like Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. You get to practice scales. You get to learn other songs, that are picked specifically to teach you things like timing or additional notes or a new technique in playing.

Everyone expects that at some point, you will move on to play music outside the method book. Once you have learned the method, you can go into classical music, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass... whatever. You will even move on to songs not included in your method book. You will probably use completely different arrangements of the songs that you once learned in your method book. You will even make up your own arrangements of songs...

This is expected growth and development for a musical instrument. The expectation of the method, and all its exercises is to teach you what the notes are, how to play the notes and read the notes. But, these exercises also teach you how the notes are related, the theory of music and how they all work together. The idea is to create a repeatable process to introduce people to music, so that they can play and arrange and even compose their own music. The expectation is that you go way beyond the method book and its exercises.

Kata (specifically Japanese Kata) is designed the same way. It is to teach you the basics, and introduce you to the theory and how things works together. The idea is for you to eventually understand enough to make changes, to play around with it creating your own arrangements. Eventually, even composing your own. Kata is basically the method exercises used to teach beginners an art, just like you would teach a person to play an instrument. The expectation is that you learn the basics first, understand the theory and then start adapting and changing. You are expected to go beyond.

The problem is that too many people missed that for years. They treat the kata as the dictionary and definition of their art... if its not in the kata, its not in the art. They missed the part about going beyond. They did not understand Shu-Ha-Ri. Shu is the first step, copy exactly... play your scales, play Red River Valley exactly as written in your book. This is where many people stopped. They then put on the fancy pajamas and belt, called themselves Master, Soke, Sensei... and did not allow questions. This is it... scales, Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. Now, we have people that tell you that you cannot play Saints Go Marching In on your guitar, because "my master taught Red River Valley." No, you can't play that scale there or strum that chord, the book says play the note. We have been conditioned to look at the fancy pajamas and belt, and associate a ton of authority and knowledge... to people who do not even understand that what they are teaching is supposed to be changed and adapted. It is supposed to open doors, not close them.

I took the other route to learn guitar. I wanted to play Unforgiven by Metallica. It took me longer to be able to play that song, than it took me to earn a black belt, and start teaching... Sure, I can play a couple of other songs as well. I simply learned to read tabs, got the music for the song I wanted and brute forced my way through. The problem is that I can't play with other musicians, I can't make my own arrangements... as I ended up being able to play a few songs, but have no understanding of music and how it works. To learn a new song, takes me a year or more... because I took the shortcut, and skipped the method.

Yes, there are many methods... many different ways to learn something. However, Shu-Ha-Ri is being judged by many, as being less effective... because it too many of the people who practice part of it... do not realize that they are only practicing part of it. They are stuck under their master's "authority" who is in turn stuck under their master's "authority." This "authority" is what makes the kata stiff and unfluid and useless. This "authority" has been so effective, that you can go in to a random Shotokan school, and explain Funakoshi's view on what a kata is doing... and they will tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. When you show them, that it is Funakoshi's own words, about that exact movement, in that kata... they look sheepish, then admit that it could possibly be looked at that way in specific circumstances, but its not generally accepted.... (for those who don't know, Funakoshi was the creator and founder of Shotokan... he might have an idea on what he was trying to teach with the kata that he included)

I submit that if you take only one part, of any training method... and then not only ignore, but prevent people from doing any of the other parts of that training method, you will get bad results. Especially when you start linking "authority" to it. Kata is not good or bad. It is part of a much larger method for teaching people, in a repeatable fashion. We just keep using it wrong.

There are places that do understand it, and are using it correctly... These are places to train, if you can find them. When kata is used correctly, it can produce very good results.

Really interesting post, and I like the analogy. But it raises a couple of questions. In Shotokan Karate, if kata is the corollary to exercises in a method book, then what in Shotokan Karate correlates to playing music?

Second question is, just to clarify, are you saying that kata and shadowboxing are the same thing because they're both exercises in the method book?

 

[_Simon_]

When you learn to play a musical instrument, like a guitar, you start by learning the notes, one string at a time. You are given exercises to practice. These help you learn where the notes are, how to play the notes and how to read the notes. Eventually you start to learn and practice songs like Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. You get to practice scales. You get to learn other songs, that are picked specifically to teach you things like timing or additional notes or a new technique in playing.

Everyone expects that at some point, you will move on to play music outside the method book. Once you have learned the method, you can go into classical music, Jazz, Rock, Country, Bluegrass... whatever. You will even move on to songs not included in your method book. You will probably use completely different arrangements of the songs that you once learned in your method book. You will even make up your own arrangements of songs...

This is expected growth and development for a musical instrument. The expectation of the method, and all its exercises is to teach you what the notes are, how to play the notes and read the notes. But, these exercises also teach you how the notes are related, the theory of music and how they all work together. The idea is to create a repeatable process to introduce people to music, so that they can play and arrange and even compose their own music. The expectation is that you go way beyond the method book and its exercises.

Kata (specifically Japanese Kata) is designed the same way. It is to teach you the basics, and introduce you to the theory and how things works together. The idea is for you to eventually understand enough to make changes, to play around with it creating your own arrangements. Eventually, even composing your own. Kata is basically the method exercises used to teach beginners an art, just like you would teach a person to play an instrument. The expectation is that you learn the basics first, understand the theory and then start adapting and changing. You are expected to go beyond.

The problem is that too many people missed that for years. They treat the kata as the dictionary and definition of their art... if its not in the kata, its not in the art. They missed the part about going beyond. They did not understand Shu-Ha-Ri. Shu is the first step, copy exactly... play your scales, play Red River Valley exactly as written in your book. This is where many people stopped. They then put on the fancy pajamas and belt, called themselves Master, Soke, Sensei... and did not allow questions. This is it... scales, Red River Valley and Ode to Joy. Now, we have people that tell you that you cannot play Saints Go Marching In on your guitar, because "my master taught Red River Valley." No, you can't play that scale there or strum that chord, the book says play the note. We have been conditioned to look at the fancy pajamas and belt, and associate a ton of authority and knowledge... to people who do not even understand that what they are teaching is supposed to be changed and adapted. It is supposed to open doors, not close them.

I took the other route to learn guitar. I wanted to play Unforgiven by Metallica. It took me longer to be able to play that song, than it took me to earn a black belt, and start teaching... Sure, I can play a couple of other songs as well. I simply learned to read tabs, got the music for the song I wanted and brute forced my way through. The problem is that I can't play with other musicians, I can't make my own arrangements... as I ended up being able to play a few songs, but have no understanding of music and how it works. To learn a new song, takes me a year or more... because I took the shortcut, and skipped the method.

Yes, there are many methods... many different ways to learn something. However, Shu-Ha-Ri is being judged by many, as being less effective... because it too many of the people who practice part of it... do not realize that they are only practicing part of it. They are stuck under their master's "authority" who is in turn stuck under their master's "authority." This "authority" is what makes the kata stiff and unfluid and useless. This "authority" has been so effective, that you can go in to a random Shotokan school, and explain Funakoshi's view on what a kata is doing... and they will tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. When you show them, that it is Funakoshi's own words, about that exact movement, in that kata... they look sheepish, then admit that it could possibly be looked at that way in specific circumstances, but its not generally accepted.... (for those who don't know, Funakoshi was the creator and founder of Shotokan... he might have an idea on what he was trying to teach with the kata that he included)

I submit that if you take only one part, of any training method... and then not only ignore, but prevent people from doing any of the other parts of that training method, you will get bad results. Especially when you start linking "authority" to it. Kata is not good or bad. It is part of a much larger method for teaching people, in a repeatable fashion. We just keep using it wrong.

There are places that do understand it, and are using it correctly... These are places to train, if you can find them. When kata is used correctly, it can produce very good results.

Great post

 

[Flying Crane]

I really love movies, even some outrageous ones. If it's an action movie, especially ones featuring some sort of Martial whatever, I don't care if it's unrealistic, I watch to be entertained.

John Woo rocked. I was entertained.

Check out The Warrior’s Way. It is highly highly entertaining. Kung-fu/ninja flick meets cowboy western meets broken down carnival in the desert, done like a graphic novel. one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.

 

[Steve]

Check out The Warrior’s Way. It is highly highly entertaining. Kung-fu/ninja flick meets cowboy western meets broken down carnival in the desert, done like a graphic novel. one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.

That is one weird *** movie, and very enjoyable! It's available on Netflix, if you subscribe.

 

[wab25]

Really interesting post, and I like the analogy. But it raises a couple of questions. In Shotokan Karate, if kata is the corollary to exercises in a method book, then what in Shotokan Karate correlates to playing music?

The simple answer is playing music equates to fighting. These are martial arts. This is where MMA and traditional martial arts differ. MMA, and boxing and wrestling... the "fighting" is defined similarly for everyone in the class. It is the competition that they are training for. In traditional martial arts classes... you will have people training for competitions, self defense, law enforcement application and military type application. These are all valid, but different types of fighting.

Second question is, just to clarify, are you saying that kata and shadowboxing are the same thing because they're both exercises in the method book?

I was not saying that they were the same or different. They are different tools. They are different. They are both exercises of a method of training and teaching. They are the same. Its really not important. What is important is that you find the place to train that uses the method that works best for you and has the same goals as you. Find a place that understands the whole training method. And don't rule out schools the use a specific exercise, just because they use that exercise. Any exercise can be used incorrectly and most can be used correctly. Whats most important is that you enjoy / like the way you train and that whatever method is used for training, the instructors fully understand that method... thus allowing the students to grow.

 

[Buka]

That is one weird *** movie, and very enjoyable! It's available on Netflix, if you subscribe.

I was going to try to get through the day without spending any money whatsoever. Then I watched that trailer and said to myself, "that looks like a whole lot fun" and immediately went to Amazon.

 

[Steve]

The simple answer is playing music equates to fighting. These are martial arts. This is where MMA and traditional martial arts differ. MMA, and boxing and wrestling... the "fighting" is defined similarly for everyone in the class. It is the competition that they are training for. In traditional martial arts classes... you will have people training for competitions, self defense, law enforcement application and military type application. These are all valid, but different types of fighting.

Alright. So, fighting is the corollary to playing the songs. What would you think about a person who plays scales and such over and over, but never plays a song? Or maybe they play songs, but only use three notes. Is this person a musician? If so, are they competent? An expert? Qualified to teach others?

Is a cop who never gets into a fight an expert fighter just by virtue of being both a cop and a black belt in an MA? What about a person who has never been a cop, or a soldier, or a bouncer, or a competitor? As you note in the music analogy, training for something isn't the same as performing that thing. Training for music isn't the same as playing a song, and training to fight isn't the same as fighting. FWIW, I agree with you completely.

And hopefully we can also agree that someone who does a thing will always be more skilled than someone who has never done that thing, and someone who does something frequently is going to be more skilled than someone who does that same thing infrequently. Seems like common sense to me. So, why do some folks believe that a person who has never been in a fight can be an expert fighter?

I also really like your point about context. I agree completely that law enforcement, soldiering, bouncing, competition, etc, are all perfectly good examples of various contexts for fighting. But, as you say, if you take the songs out of playing an instrument, it's no longer music. It might be described as "musical," but the application of the skills is missing. So, if you practice playing an electric guitar, it may approximate rock and roll music and make rock and roll-like sounds, but it's not rock music, because (by definition) it's not music at all.

I was not saying that they were the same or different. They are different tools. They are different. They are both exercises of a method of training and teaching. They are the same. Its really not important. What is important is that you find the place to train that uses the method that works best for you and has the same goals as you. Find a place that understands the whole training method. And don't rule out schools the use a specific exercise, just because they use that exercise. Any exercise can be used incorrectly and most can be used correctly. Whats most important is that you enjoy / like the way you train and that whatever method is used for training, the instructors fully understand that method... thus allowing the students to grow.

I agree.

 

[Buka]

Check out The Warrior’s Way. It is highly highly entertaining. Kung-fu/ninja flick meets cowboy western meets broken down carnival in the desert, done like a graphic novel. one of the best I’ve seen in a long time.

I just bought the dvd. Thanks, man.

 

[wab25]

Alright. So, fighting is the corollary to playing the songs. What would you think about a person who plays scales and such over and over, but never plays a song? Or maybe they play songs, but only use three notes. Is this person a musician? If so, are they competent? An expert? Qualified to teach others?

Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. He had a few amateur matches. However, he has taught and trained a few World Champion boxers... and is an excellent boxing coach.

Being a fighter is different than being a martial artist. Being a martial artist would mean understanding the full training method and training in that method. But, as you say, being in a "real fight" is very different. Hence the difference in a martial artist and a fighter. One is not necessarily the other. You can be one, or the other or both. But, you should be honest about what you are... especially if you teach. But you should be pretty honest with yourself as well about that...

 

[Steve]

Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. He had a few amateur matches. However, he has taught and trained a few World Champion boxers... and is an excellent boxing coach.

I'm not talking about pro. Not every competent musician has a record deal. But they've all plays songs... probably a lot of them. Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. But did he box?

Being a fighter is different than being a martial artist.

Sure, but we're not talking about being a martial artist. We're talking about fighting skill as product of martial training. As you said, fighting is the corollary to playing a song.

And once again, I agree with you. There are some styles where you fight... a lot. MMA, boxing, muay thai, kyokushin karate, sambo, wrestling, TKD. You train and then you fight.

But what we're recognizing now is that not all martial artists fight. So, maybe there isn't an intrinsic relationship between martial arts and fighting skill. What you're saying above is that you can be a competent martial artist and never fight another person. You learn a system, become proficient in a system, and then teach the system without ever fighting another person. That's actually not a problem.

Is a person who has studied a koryu art for 30 years but never been in a fight qualified to teach that system? Sure. Why wouldn't he be? But is he qualified to teach someone how to fight? I would say most certainly not, any more than a person who has never played a song is competent to teach someone how to play music.

And if you think about it in this context, the following makes perfect sense:

Being a martial artist would mean understanding the full training method and training in that method. But, as you say, being in a "real fight" is very different. Hence the difference in a martial artist and a fighter. One is not necessarily the other. You can be one, or the other or both. But, you should be honest about what you are... especially if you teach. But you should be pretty honest with yourself as well about that...

Totally agree.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. But did he box?

I don't know about Teddy Atlas, but to the best of my knowledge Angelo Dundee never boxed, even at the amateur level. As far as I know, he never even sparred.

 

[Steve]

I don't know about Teddy Atlas, but to the best of my knowledge Angelo Dundee never boxed, even at the amateur level. As far as I know, he never even sparred.

Exception to every rule, I guess.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Honestly, I'm not sure to what degree Dundee actually taught the technical aspects of boxing. He was trainer to some great champions, but I'm pretty sure that all of them had mastered the fundamentals of the art before they came to work with him. I've read his autobiography and I don't recall any instances of him mentioning teaching specific physical technical details. I suspect his talent may have been in areas such as providing motivation, management, cornering, and strategy.

 

[Steve]

Honestly, I'm not sure to what degree Dundee actually taught the technical aspects of boxing. He was trainer to some great champions, but I'm pretty sure that all of them had mastered the fundamentals of the art before they came to work with him. I've read his autobiography and I don't recall any instances of him mentioning teaching specific physical technical details. I suspect his talent may have been in areas such as providing motivation, management, cornering, and strategy.

Probably had some guys on the training team who were skilled boxers, as well. But your point is a good one.

In years past, we were having a similar discussion and @Tgace (IIRC) said something about how some of the shooting instructors weren't cops, but they were all excellent shooters. To your point, Tony, a coach doesn't have to bring expertise in everything to the table. You can enlist the help of specialists.

 

[wab25]

Teddy Atlas never fought a pro boxing match. But did he box?

He had if I recall right, 30 amateur fights. Amateur fights are very different than Pro fights. Which is not a lot of fights at all. He did teach technical aspects of boxing to many boxers.

I think over all we are in agreement here. Martial Artist does not equal good fighter. Although, they can be. The Shu-Ha-Ri method for training can produce very good fighters... if that system is used correctly. The Shu-Ha-Ri method is the Japanese system that contains kata as one aspect... its very basic beginning aspect.

If you take only kata from that system, it will be hard to produce good fighters with only that aspect. Just as it would be hard to train a good boxer, if the only aspect of boxing training you used was shadow boxing.

If you are going to be a martial artist, find the system that you enjoy training in. Embrace the whole system, not just the pieces. Then be honest with yourself and other about what you really trained and what you are ready for or can train other people for. In this case, results do matter.

If you are in a Shu-Ha-Ri method art, like karate, and find you cannot fight your way out of a wet paper bag... the Shu-Ha-Ri method is not to blame. Over the years, it has produced a large number of very capable fighters. It would be your application (yours, your schools, your teachers, your organizations) of that method.

 

[Steve]

He had if I recall right, 30 amateur fights. Amateur fights are very different than Pro fights. Which is not a lot of fights at all. He did teach technical aspects of boxing to many boxers.

Okay. Just to be clear, I'm not making any kind of qualitative statement at all. I'm strictly distinguishing between fighting and not fighting. To revisit the analogy, we can talk all day long about whether Hip Hop or Punk is good music or not. But I think we can all agree that it IS music.

I think over all we are in agreement here. Martial Artist does not equal good fighter. Although, they can be. The Shu-Ha-Ri method for training can produce very good fighters... if that system is used correctly. The Shu-Ha-Ri method is the Japanese system that contains kata as one aspect... its very basic beginning aspect.

I'm unfamiliar with this style. Do they fight?

If you take only kata from that system, it will be hard to produce good fighters with only that aspect. Just as it would be hard to train a good boxer, if the only aspect of boxing training you used was shadow boxing.

If you are going to be a martial artist, find the system that you enjoy training in. Embrace the whole system, not just the pieces. Then be honest with yourself and other about what you really trained and what you are ready for or can train other people for. In this case, results do matter.

You don't know how happy you're making me right now. Particularly the bolded part. I'm genuinely, sincerely happy right now.

If you are in a Shu-Ha-Ri method art, like karate, and find you cannot fight your way out of a wet paper bag... the Shu-Ha-Ri method is not to blame. Over the years, it has produced a large number of very capable fighters. It would be your application (yours, your schools, your teachers, your organizations) of that method.

Looks like I have some reading to do.

 

[wab25]

I'm unfamiliar with this style. Do they fight?

Shu-Ha-Ri is not a martial art. It is a Japanese method for transmitting and art or skill. It has been used for lots of things in addition to martial arts. Its worth looking up, there are quite a few articles about it that google can find.

Shu is the first step. Here you learn kata. Kata is a sequence that is to be learned and practiced exactly. (this is the part, the only part, that many people took in the Japanese martial arts training. I suspect because, its all they got to in their training in Japan, before returning back home.) These sequences are created to teach the basics of the movement, the principles and core ideas of the art being taught.

Ha is the next stage. This is where the student needs to create variations to the kata. Let me repeat that... many folks miss this very important point. The student is encouraged by the instructor to add variation to the kata. The instructor is involved and helps the student to create and evaluate their divergences from the kata. The idea is for the student to express the same principles and ideas, in new ways, while still demonstrating an understanding for the core basics.

Ri is the final stage. In this stage,the kata is thrown away. The student now has an understanding of all the core principles and ideas and has mastered the skills. The student is now free to express those things however they want. This does not mean that they necessarily abandon doing the kata from the Shu stage. If they are to teach, they need to still do that kata. However, when they do that kata, it has much more in it. They can then create their own kata or methods of training. The idea is for them to continue onwards, using the core principles, ideas and skills to help them expand on that art as far as they wish to take it.

What we commonly see from traditional martial arts schools, where they do kata... is completely opposite. Variation is frowned on. Exploration is frowned on. Questions are frowned on. But, the full method actually follows the way music is taught very successfully.

In fact, I would say that even boxing and MMA use very similar systems, just with different names, if named at all. When a new student starts... he is taught drills and exercises to be done exactly. As they learn the skills, they start to adapt. A good coach will help the student adapt the techniques to their abilities. The student will eventually put his own drills together and combinations and find new ways to apply the what he has learned.

Saying kata sucks because kata, by itself, never produced a good fighter is both accurate and the same as saying jumping rope sucks because it, by itself, never produced a good boxer. Both of those exercises can be used to make great fighters and boxers, if used properly in conjunction with a complete system of training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is a discussion forum. Stick to the topic

I don’t think you understand forums. Or discussion.