ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

DaveB

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
291
This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!
 
Last edited:

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,505
Location
Manchester UK
This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!
you neglected the strength, balance. Co ordination speed of the guy using the style, if all those are in good order it doesn't matter what the style is, your very likely to have a positive result. If all those are poor, it doesn't mater what the,style is, you likely going to lose.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
3,429
Location
New York
This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!
What are you considering a style here? You did a lot to describe what isn't a style, or what is needed to make a style, but (unless I'm missing it) you don't actually describe what you consider a style to mean.

Is it using your favorite sets of techniques? Is it being defensive/counterpunching/aggressive/wearing the other person down? Is it the range that you prefer to fight at?
 

Charlemagne

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
691
Reaction score
240
Location
Texas, USA
I can't agree with all styles working, and probably not even most, but I would probably stipulate the following: Many more fighting styles then are commonly seen to work in a real situation, when trained properly, will work for their intended purpose.
 

Midnight-shadow

3rd Black Belt
Joined
May 29, 2016
Messages
928
Reaction score
242
What are you considering a style here? You did a lot to describe what isn't a style, or what is needed to make a style, but (unless I'm missing it) you don't actually describe what you consider a style to mean.

Is it using your favorite sets of techniques? Is it being defensive/counterpunching/aggressive/wearing the other person down? Is it the range that you prefer to fight at?

Well that is an entire discussion in itself. What is a style? It it the physical techniques you use? Or the principles you employ behind the techniques? Or is it the preferences you take when you fight (defensive vs offensive)? Or is a combination of all three together? In my own personal opinion, what differentiates one style from another is the principles behind the techniques. Just for example, Wing Chun, Karate and Boxing all have a straight punch, but each style uses the technique in a different way based on the principles of the style.
 

Monkey Turned Wolf

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
9,399
Reaction score
3,429
Location
New York
Well that is an entire discussion in itself. What is a style? It it the physical techniques you use? Or the principles you employ behind the techniques? Or is it the preferences you take when you fight (defensive vs offensive)? Or is a combination of all three together?

I agree with all of this, but it needs to be discussed before determining if any style would work. Since the OP started the discussion, whatever definition he uses I'm fine with using for the purpose of the discussion.

In my own personal opinion, what differentiates one style from another is the principles behind the techniques. Just for example, Wing Chun, Karate and Boxing all have a straight punch, but each style uses the technique in a different way based on the principles of the style.

See, I think of that as two different philosophies, but to me the style would be more of the tactics and general intent of your movements in the fight.
 

Buka

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
11,759
Reaction score
8,422
Location
Maui
This to me is self evident but many disagree, so what better topic for discussion.

So first to the terms:
Fighting style: method of conducting fights. For most this includes trying to "win" but not always.
The key point here is that a fighting style is NOT the traditionally associated training. There may be a few closed minded Grand Masters who ban anything but their own handed down by the gods syllabus, but such poor quality teachers aren't really representative of any martial arts community I have heard of.

Training, changes from club to club, not style to style. Most instructor go to seminars to get new training methods to add, so if the training is changing it can't be definitive.

Not to mention the fact that nobody ever confuses a football team doing ball control drills with a football match, so why would we confuse sparring drills with a fight?

A style "works" when the fighter is able to make valid credible steps towards his goal and has the potential to reach it within the confines of the style.

Fighting is dependent on an uncontrolled variable called "the other guy". Winning fights only proves that on that day you weren't facing somebody better than you or less lucky than you.
Still, if there's no possible way for a fighting style to counteract whatever caused the loss, then I will concede That said style does not work.

Training it "right": So my argument hinges 2 key ideas.
1. on the notion that a fighting style is nothing but abstract thoughts until you get a person to make use of it. Therefore success with a style is dependent on the talent and genetics of the person. The only way to influence these base stats, is by training the fighter.

2. The fact that the ability to avoid being hit whether by evasion or interruption, the ability to avoid being controlled through grappling or any other tactic and the ability to reach and apply your own methods on your opponent, are what wins fights.

The training in concept 1 is to develop the universally neccessary skills in concept 2, IN ADDITION TO the core methods of the style.

Fundamentally it comes down to, "What does it take to hit with x, apply y and make use of z?".

I'm a big fan of the Dark Souls video games. They are renowned for being hard and when people ask how to beat this or that the only answer to come back is "git gud" (GET GOOD!). Learn when to dodge, when to hit, when to run and when to charge.

IMO This same idea is the essence of fighting and it is universal; the thread that links all martial arts and the reason my argument works.

And yes, pendants, a style based on tickling people with a feather or any other expletive excrement methods are going to be the exceptions. But since arguing about things that don't exist is pointless can we accept that this idea is based on known accepted martial arts or combat sports that use striking and grappling as combat tools. (I suppose this is the definition of Any, for those that needed one).
I suppose I am also saying here that if a style has no methods that could possibly be applied to an opponent to gain victory then I would also concede that style does not work.

So what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Disagree with the terms? Let's hear it!

By "work" I take it to mean in a fight, or in competitive contact sparring, yes?
 

Flying Crane

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
14,064
Reaction score
3,612
Location
San Francisco
Maybe this is semantics, but I don't really see it as a style that works or does not work. Rather, it is a systematic (ideally) method of training, designed to help you develop useable skills. Whether You are successful in the end depends on a lot of variables. Your teacher may or may not be a good teacher. You may or may not be a good and capable student. You might be lazy and don't train with the diligence needed to develop skill. The method itself may not be a good match for you, even tho it is very useful for others. Some people just don't have a violent or aggressive bone in their body, and would be ineffective no matter what method and what teacher they have. Other people are naturally athletic and aggressive and even tho they have no training they can beat up others who have had extensive training.

So...it really comes down to the individual and how well they used the training they received. Historically, I am sure that every single method has produced competent fighters. But people don't get to rest on history. They still need to act for themselves.

Ones mileage may vary.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,579
Reaction score
5,137
Location
Covington, WA
IF you train to fight by grappling, you will become a better grapple, which might help you fight. Maybe not though. You get better at what you do. If you do a lot of kata, you'll become pretty good at it. If you do a lot of drills, you'll get better at those drills. This is common sense in every human activity except self defense and martial arts, where people think they're going to get really good at one thing by doing another.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,505
Location
Manchester UK
IF you train to fight by grappling, you will become a better grapple, which might help you fight. Maybe not though. You get better at what you do. If you do a lot of kata, you'll become pretty good at it. If you do a lot of drills, you'll get better at those drills. This is common sense in every human activity except self defense and martial arts, where people think they're going to get really good at one thing by doing another.
that's ignoring the fact that kata and drills help you install movement patterns, that do therefore assist in defence/ fighting. You can practise your soccer skills. With out an actual opponent. You can practise your golf driving with out a flag to aim at and you can practise you flying skills with out a real air plane
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,579
Reaction score
5,137
Location
Covington, WA
that's ignoring the fact that kata and drills help you install movement patterns, that do therefore assist in defence/ fighting. You can practise your soccer skills. With out an actual opponent. You can practise your golf driving with out a flag to aim at and you can practise you flying skills with out a real air plane
Maybe. I say this all the time, though. Practicing soccer skills is great, but if you never play soccer, you're missing a critical step. you can practice your drive, but if you don't play at least some golf on an actual course, you're not actually learning to play golf. Look at it this way. Putting your time in at the range isn't the activity. It's preparation for the activity. If you never play golf, you aren't getting better at golfing. Learning to drive at the range only gets you so far.

If you don't fight, you're doing something else. Which is totally okay. Just understand that you're getting better at doing what you're actually doing.
 

jobo

Grandmaster
Joined
Apr 3, 2017
Messages
9,762
Reaction score
1,505
Location
Manchester UK
Maybe. I say this all the time, though. Practicing soccer skills is great, but if you never play soccer, you're missing a critical step. you can practice your drive, but if you don't play at least some golf on an actual course, you're not actually learning to play golf. Look at it this way. Putting your time in at the range isn't the activity. It's preparation for the activity. If you never play golf, you aren't getting better at golfing. Learning to drive at the range only gets you so far.

If you don't fight, you're doing something else. Which is totally okay. Just understand that you're getting better at doing what you're actually doing.
but your point was they don't help you improve,and they do, both kata and dribbling round comes. You have to establish movement patterns before you can play soccer or fight
 
OP
D

DaveB

Master Black Belt
Joined
Jun 19, 2015
Messages
1,243
Reaction score
291
Maybe this is semantics, but I don't really see it as a style that works or does not work. Rather, it is a systematic (ideally) method of training, designed to help you develop useable skills. Whether You are successful in the end depends on a lot of variables. Your teacher may or may not be a good teacher. You may or may not be a good and capable student. You might be lazy and don't train with the diligence needed to develop skill. The method itself may not be a good match for you, even tho it is very useful for others. Some people just don't have a violent or aggressive bone in their body, and would be ineffective no matter what method and what teacher they have. Other people are naturally athletic and aggressive and even tho they have no training they can beat up others who have had extensive training.

So...it really comes down to the individual and how well they used the training they received. Historically, I am sure that every single method has produced competent fighters. But people don't get to rest on history. They still need to act for themselves.

Ones mileage may vary.
This is precisely my point.
 

Steve

Mostly Harmless
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
19,579
Reaction score
5,137
Location
Covington, WA
but your point was they don't help you improve,and they do, both kata and dribbling round comes. You have to establish movement patterns before you can play soccer or fight
I didn't say that at all. go back and try again.
 

Martial D

Senior Master
Joined
May 18, 2017
Messages
3,339
Reaction score
1,088
The op assumes that all styles are viable for combat 'if only trained right'

I guess only certain styles 'train right', because lots of them tend to flounder like a fish on land the second it's anything but kata or scripted drills.
 

webmaster786

White Belt
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
16
Reaction score
2
All these works are matter as long as when you train right and have a tip-top teacher. The size of your body, your body language and the sex have nothing to do with the style you if desire to select. Mostly People think that your size and the body language regulate the style know little to nothing about martial arts, but styles are made to adapt to your body type.
 

Latest Discussions

Top