To Win or Not to Lose?

[isshinryuronin]

To win, we need be clear of mind to execute sound MA principles, concepts and skills taught.

Many times, the victor is simply the one who made less mistakes. Maybe this was in Matsumura's mind when he said he tried not to lose. Not defeating yourself. Use sound technique and execute it well, don't screw up and things should turn out OK.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Many times, the victor is simply the one who made less mistakes.

A and B are fighting in a tournament. A has strong offense and B has strong defense. In 3 rounds of fight, A's attack was blocked/deflected by B's strong defense. In all 3 rounds, B didn't throw even 1 punch/kick. After 3 rounds, the score is 0-0, 0-0, 0-0.

If you don't attack, you won't make mistake. B was "not lose". But did B win?

 

[isshinryuronin]

A and B are fighting in a tournament. A has strong offense and B has strong defense. In 3 rounds of fight, A's attack was blocked/deflected by B's strong defense. In all 3 rounds, B didn't throw even 1 punch/kick. After 3 rounds, the score is 0-0, 0-0, 0-0.

A couple of ways to look at this. In one sense, since A's offense was ineffective and B's defense was quite effective, B could be said to have won. Alternatively, in ties/very close calls, the win usually goes to the offense as they showed more initiative. It's not much, but it's better than showing no spirit. I've noticed this happens more frequently in pee wee sparring divisions. Two seven-year-olds jumping around, circling each other with no contact for 2 minutes. Sometimes the best kiai screamer wins, that being the only observable criteria.

In real life, though, given enough offense without having to defend, eventually the aggressor will score a hit.

If you don't attack, you won't make mistake.

This reminds me of myself when I started out - shy, non-confident, worrying about leaving myself open during an attack. But I got hit anyway and eventually learned my lesson. Not attacking or at least countering is the mistake.

 

[marvin8]

What do you mean when you say, "I know kick/punch/lock/throw, but I have no technique"?

"No technique" to me mean a person who has never trained MA.

Even in striking art, you still need training time to develop your punch. Do you call a simple punch "technique"?

You can't apply a hip throw without going through hip throw training. If you have gone through hip throw training, you have developed hip throw technique, you cannot say that you have "no technique".

AI is helpful in these philosophical discussions. So, I will start with that. But, AI is not that helpful in telling one how to technically fight.

ChatGPT:
Bruce Lee’s famous quote — "I have no technique; my highest technique is to have no technique" — captures the essence of his martial philosophy, especially as it evolved into his personal art, Jeet Kune Do.

What it Means:​

This quote reflects the idea of ultimate adaptability. Bruce Lee believed that rigid systems and fixed techniques could limit a fighter. Instead, a martial artist should be fluid, like water — able to adapt instantly to the moment, the opponent, and the environment. Here's a breakdown:

• "No technique" doesn’t mean you’re untrained — it means you're not bound by any one style or method.
• He advocated for formlessness, drawing from Taoist philosophy — like “Be water, my friend.”
• By having "no technique," you are free to use whatever works, regardless of its origin — boxing, fencing, kung fu, jiu-jitsu, etc.

In Practice:​

In combat, having no technique means:

• You are not predictable.
• You can flow from one move or range to another seamlessly.
• You’re not confined to the “rules” or dogmas of one martial art.

Philosophical Core of Jeet Kune Do:​

“Absorb what is useful, discard what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.”
— Bruce Lee

That statement, along with “having no technique,” was Lee’s way of rejecting tradition for tradition’s sake. He urged martial artists to think critically, test everything, and keep only what’s effective for the individual.

​

 

[isshinryuronin]

AI is helpful in these philosophical discussions. So, I will start with that. But, AI is not that helpful in telling one how to technically fight.

ChatGPT:
Bruce Lee’s famous quote — "I have no technique; my highest technique is to have no technique" — captures the essence of his martial philosophy, especially as it evolved into his personal art, Jeet Kune Do.

What it Means:​

This quote reflects the idea of ultimate adaptability. Bruce Lee believed that rigid systems and fixed techniques could limit a fighter. Instead, a martial artist should be fluid, like water — able to adapt instantly to the moment, the opponent, and the environment. Here's a breakdown:

• "No technique" doesn’t mean you’re untrained — it means you're not bound by any one style or method.
• He advocated for formlessness, drawing from Taoist philosophy — like “Be water, my friend.”
• By having "no technique," you are free to use whatever works, regardless of its origin — boxing, fencing, kung fu, jiu-jitsu, etc.

In Practice:​

In combat, having no technique means:

• You are not predictable.
• You can flow from one move or range to another seamlessly.
• You’re not confined to the “rules” or dogmas of one martial art.

Philosophical Core of Jeet Kune Do:​

That statement, along with “having no technique,” was Lee’s way of rejecting tradition for tradition’s sake. He urged martial artists to think critically, test everything, and keep only what’s effective for the individual.

​

I don't like the basic premise - it equates "technique" with the idea of a limited restrictive style. This article basically puts JKD into the MMA category. But even MMA uses technique, albeit drawn from a variety of styles. Punches, kicks, throws, submissions, etc. are all techniques as are fencing moves such as binding or beating the blade as a prep or the fleche attack. An MA technique is simply a move that accomplishes some combat purpose to be drilled and practiced. Claiming to have no technique is just a mysterious sounding marketing hook.

Lee rejected tradition for tradition's sake, which in a pragmatic art like MA, is normally a good idea. But some effective tradition may be tossed as well just because its application in real life combat is not properly understood. Many traditions have their roots in practicality - one needs to dig back into those roots to judge their relevance and true intent.

The article defines "having no technique" as unpredictability, flow and no restrictions on tools used. The first two are possible only because of technique. Technique (both in terms of the physical move as well as the skill employed) is what allows these qualities to be expressed. Restrictions are simply a function of one's training and what one knows.

Lee could have said, "I have no particular techniques" meaning he doesn't rely just on a few moves/skills. This would be a more accurate statement. But all this is off-topic of this thread.

 

[Same Trick]

Have some tea and a story, what makes aggressors flee and win you glory

The Samurai and the Tea Master - Storynory

 

[Prince_Alarming]

Lee could have said, "I have no particular techniques" meaning he doesn't rely just on a few moves/skills. This would be a more accurate statement. But all this is off-topic of this thread.

A very insightful post, but since when have we given a monkey's cuss about going off topic?

 

[Badhabits]

Having no technique I think just means letting go of specific techniques as examples of principles. In other words, the techniques you learn are themselves just varying examples of how to apply the same principles. You can learn 5 different ways to "break" an elbow. But all 5 of those are just different examples of how to overextend an elbow. Once you have learned this to where it's second nature, you're no longer limited to those 5 techniques as ways to break an elbow. You might not have been taught to pull an arm across your chest and just hit the elbow with your shoulder- but you know that'll accomplish the same thing as those 5 techniques. That's having no technique.

 

[HighKick]

In FMA with its initial emphasis on weapon training, if you can’t avoid, ya really want to win.

How do you win if you cannot avoid?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Gichin Funakoshi was taught by Itosu Anko, "Do not think of winning - Think rather of not losing." But Itosu got this from his teacher, Bushi Matsumura. When asked by a defeated foe what his key to victory was, Matsumura answered, "You were determined to win while I was determined not to lose."

Before one discounts this as philosophical nonsense, consider its source. Matsumura was a trained warrior, adept in jigen-ryu kenjutsu, chuan fa, te, goi-ryu (combat from horseback) sai and bo-jutsu. There was no "do" at this time (b. 1797). These disciplines were learned to be used (and were) in deadly combat. He was Chief of Security at the palace and personal bodyguard to the last three Okinawan kings. His students (or their students) were the founders of shorin ryu, shito ryu, and Yamani kobudo.

We have to accept this guy knew what he was talking about. Whether we know what he was talking about is another matter. This seems contradictory to the mindset most of us have in fighting. How does one reconcile Matsumura's viewpoint with his experience in combat and ability to defeat his opponents? Just what does his statement really mean?

I may have the same mindset. I rarely think of winning. Winning is just a by product of my plan working. I think this may be an issue off Offensive mindset vs Defensive mindset. Offensive mindset says "I beat you by taking advantages of your weakness. " Defensive mindset says "I beat you by preventing you from taking advantage of my weakness"

For example when I spar against Tony's grappling. I'm not thinking that I'm going to out wrestle him. I'm thinking more of preventing my loss by preventing him from taking advantage of my weakness so I defend by using clinch defense skills to deny his advantage. My focus is not to lose. If I lose the Tony will gain the advantage.

The win mindset is more dominating. It focuses more on what I will will do to you to win. One can have an offensive mindset while focusing on not losing.

Sort of like every fight has it's mini battles within the fight. Like fighting for position.

 

[windwalker099]

Look at it a little differently.
The mental state can be described as mushin (無心, Japanese) or wúxīn (無心, Chinese) “no mind.”
A condition of clarity, free from intention or fixation, allowing spontaneous and appropriate response to whatever arises.

In this sense, it echoes Bruce Lee’s insight:
“I do not hit. ‘It’ hits all by itself.”

While it’s true that one should be formless like water.
Water is still water. It adapts, yet retains its essential nature.

The idea of “no style as style” can be realized after a method has been so deeply embodied
that there is no separation between the practitioner and the practice.
The form disappears, not because it is lost. For the practitioner, it ceases to be an outer form, now an intrinsic part of the practitioner’s nature, the practitioner is the method.

We call boxers “boxers” because their movement reflects their method.
The same is true for grapplers, strikers, or wrestlers, the style is visible through the body, not just in name.

In CMA, however, this is often not the case.
What is practiced is frequently not evident in usage.

Worse still are those who claim mastery in arts like Taiji,
yet show no functional evidence of that mastery in action.

That gap,between claim and embodiment, what many “fail clips” expose
They only reveal, those claiming to represent the art aren’t actually using it.

Not often understood by those posting them...

 

[JowGaWolf]

You don't need to learn any MA to achieve "not to lose".

When I started to learn the throwing art, I loved to use my strong grips to hold on my opponent. If my opponent could not move and apply his throwing skill, he could not throw me. My teacher didn't like my strategy. I asked him why. He said, "Your opponent may not be able to throw you, but you will never learn/develop any throwing skill with that strategy". I then understood that "not to lose" is a bad MA goal to have.

In throwing art, there is a big difference between:

1. A can throw B.
2. A cannot be thrown by B.

You can dodge a bullet. It doesn't mean that you can shoot.

The win mindset is more general I think. It's the ultimate goal. but it will only happen if the person seeks to gain ground.
You can defend the throw but it must be done with the intention that you will gain ground by doings so.

Stand your ground so that you can advance forward vs stand your ground so that you can maintain space. Fighting nit to lose is different than fighting with only defense. Fighting not to lose means that I can hit my opponent first. Fighting defense only means that I cannot fight until my opponent attacks. For example. My opponent has excellent kickboxing skills. Fighting not to lose could be me attacking and denying my opponent kicking space. If I lose the battle to manage to mantle space then I lose the fight.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Look at it a little differently.
The mental state can be described as mushin (無心, Japanese) or wúxīn (無心, Chinese) “no mind.”
A condition of clarity, free from intention or fixation, allowing spontaneous and appropriate response to whatever arises.

In this sense, it echoes Bruce Lee’s insight:
“I do not hit. ‘It’ hits all by itself.”

While it’s true that one should be formless like water.
Water is still water. It adapts, yet retains its essential nature.

The idea of “no style as style” can be realized after a method has been so deeply embodied
that there is no separation between the practitioner and the practice.
The form disappears, not because it is lost. For the practitioner, it ceases to be an outer form, now an intrinsic part of the practitioner’s nature, the practitioner is the method.

We call boxers “boxers” because their movement reflects their method.
The same is true for grapplers, strikers, or wrestlers, the style is visible through the body, not just in name.

In CMA, however, this is often not the case.
What is practiced is frequently not evident in usage.

Worse still are those who claim mastery in arts like Taiji,
yet show no functional evidence of that mastery in action.

That gap,between claim and embodiment, what many “fail clips” expose
They only reveal, those claiming to represent the art aren’t actually using it.

Not often understood by those posting them...

Most CMA practitioners who don't spar have the wrong understanding of what calm means in the context of fighting. Sparring with that one person who has panicked movement is usually our first understanding of fighting with calm.

 

[isshinryuronin]

The form disappears, not because it is lost. For the practitioner, it ceases to be an outer form, now an intrinsic part of the practitioner’s nature, the practitioner is the method.

This is a good way to look at it. If we define form as a set way to do things, as in kata, it outwardly appears kata is restrictive, perhaps as Bruce Lee saw it. But the real purpose of kata is to be able to leave the kata. As Mabuni wrote, "A kata is not fixed or immovable. Like water it is everchanging." (sounds like Lee's JKD, huh?) and "If one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing any of the infinite number of variations."

In a sense, kata can be seen as training wheels on a bicycle, an aid to master the technique. Once this is done (and it takes decades of dedicated practice and study - maybe even a never-reached goal) the wheels can come off and forgotten. Its purpose has been transcended, its lessons being fully internalized. This is one way, I suppose, to interpret "the formless form."