To Win or Not to Lose?

[marvin8]

Unlimited technique is too much technique. English has only 26 letters, and even that's more than we need to spell any word or communicate most any thought. It's how those letters are combined that counts. Most styles have enough moves to handle most any situation - if they are well executed and put together well with good timing.

English has at least 150K words using those 26 letters, but even educated speakers use only 1/4 of them. How many profound books have been written using just those? Quality over quantity.

However, unlimited includes “not too much.” Therefore, unlimited technique is not “too much.”

A dozen strikes, a score of kicks, another score of blocks/parries, and another score grabbing/immobilization moves yields thousands of two move combinations, and even more three move combos (someone out there can do the math). Then factor in a few takedowns and various tactics and footwork, and one has the tools to respond to most any attack. A good karate-ka has an enormous number of potential "words" to draw upon. No need to go outside the system for even more moves.

The Machidas, TMAists, found a need to change some things in karate for fighting.

What's "unlimited" is the exact way the techniques are applied and this to a large degree is a function of the individual, not the style. But even kata provides a "liberating perspective" as shown in this quote from my earlier post:

isshinryuronin said:
"If one practices kata correctly, it will serve as a foundation for performing any of the infinite number of variations."

Maybe traditional karate is the original "formless form" and "unlimited technique" MA.

"Unlimited" can be applied to practical limitations or boundaries, while "infinite" describes something that extends endlessly in a conceptual or mathematical sense. So, infinite can be too much and your statements may be contradictory.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

JKD and MMA do not limit their techniques to any style(s). They absorb any technique that is useful.

But the JKD guy and MMA guy has to train technique first.

Here is my simple question. If you have never trained

- left arm head lock, when a left arm head lock opportunity appears, will you take it?
- flying side kick, will you suddenly deliver a flying side kick just because the opportunity is there?

 

[isshinryuronin]

The Machidas, TMAists, found a need to change some things in karate for [fighting]

...winning within the rule set of sport MMA against other similarly trained elite professionals. When something is re-purposed, modifications are often needed.

 

[Fungus]

I very strongly try to personalize and train what works for me, meaning my body, my strenght and limiatations. I do not see as a "goal" to get as close to some kyokushin ideal as possible. My heart with kyokushin lines in spirit of not giving up, delivering effect on opponen rather than beeing stylish.

I train the techniques to build the toolbox, but ech technique is tweaked for suit me. Even our instructors say that everyone does the same technique slighlty different, and that is because our contexts are different. To NOT adapt the techniques to ourselves would be stupid I think. Style standards only serves as a starting point for learning and then i trust the process.

I feel I learn more from sparring, in how to put things together. And in particular how I need to change my style depending on the opponent. Until recently I had trouble with getting howto to handle taller opponents in punching range, as they have taller arms (more reach) and the arms come from an upper angle. Just by accident I notice that instead of soto uke, I effectively do elbo strikes either on incoming fist or arme, and that is better when the opponent is taller. It's all these small things that has littel todo with techqnique but application of technique in the moment.

To attain fluidity and improvsation in fighting is sort of my goal, where i will probably train a subset of tweaked techniques more than other things. Wether this is off from visual style standards really doesn't matter to me.

The original question is like analogous to the philosophical question Is beeing right or not beeing wrong more important? For me, neither is fundamental, what is for me most important is coming up with the rational defendable actions. If that leads to success or failure followed by learning or fatal outcome, is not something we know in advance as the future is always uncertain no matter what.

 

[JowGaWolf]

...winning within the rule set of sport MMA against other similarly trained elite professionals. When something is re-purposed, modifications are often needed.

This is my observation. "You" below is general. This comment reminds my that people rarely dig deep into this question "Why do we do things the way we do."

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to understand the chamber. I don't even know why I haven't mentioned this in many years. Low chambers are often used to do the following.
1. To appear open when you are not
2. To hide your punch
3. To invite a punch.

This is even shown in Kata.
1. Posture invites Punch. In TMA it is understood that you are open. No matter what TMA system a person trains. The next move is to address the incoming strike.
2. Punch is hidden. In in Jow Ga we hide punches in similar ways, either close to the body like this or extended, but the concept is the same. "Use your body to hide your attack."
3. Most people will say that you are open. The truth is that you are only open if you do not follow #1 Mose people in this position do not address this issue. From this posture the person should be looking and expecting an incoming strike.

Take note of the time stamp
1. Rising arm deals with the incoming strike.
2. Hiidden punch is ready for a strike or to fill in the open space just like the Rising Arm. In this Kata. It's followed by a strike. The Rising Arm should be used to do 2 things: First deals with an incoming strike. Second Distract your opponent's vision. When I used this technique in the past. I would use is more as an offensive method. Rising Block towards my opponents face. My forearm Rises towards my opponent's nose. If my opponent doesn't move then my forearm will strike under my opponent's nose. If a punch comes in, then the Rising Arm will interfer with the punch. If I'm too early with the rising arm then the strike will land under his nose. If the Rising arm misses then it's because my opponent is now using his time and effort to avoid the forearm strike, instead of using the time to attack me. For me this is a close range technique and not one that is used at the end of a punch like it's often trained.

Here the opponent flees to avoied the strike to the face. If the opponent stirkes then there are two options from here. Use the lower chambered hand to address the strike or to throw the punch. If the punch is not there, then you'll need to recover either by dealing with a movement that protects against and incoming strike or a movement that will prevent your opponent from throwing a counter.

Here's the standing kung fu version of this concept.

Through out the Kata we can see that the pattern of having a chambered fist is followed up with a motion to deal with an incoming strike. If people use kata this way then the application should feel like it's straight out of Kata. Everything related to this concept in the kata is something that I should be able to pull off in application even though I'm not a black belt. The concept is that solid.

As for the other stuff that the Machidas stated. Like the wide blocking / striking movements. The reasons why Kata trains this because "A strike is a block, A block is a strike." The Machidas fail to understand this here. In kung Fu we have this same motion and it's a basic hammerfist. That same striking motion can be used at various ranges. But using it from the distance shown here teaches "Collapsing Power" which is needed in order to do this motion a shorter range like they showed. In the video, it appears that they have not developed collapsing power, because to them this technique is only a block. Ad they trained this method with as a strike then they would have been able to easily demonstrate it even if it's used as a block. Once collapsing power is developed it follows like a bad habit and becomes normal even as breathing. Even when I just block people say their arm hurts even if I'm not trying to strike their arm. It's like hot water. It burns regardless of the amount of water flowing.

But people don't dive as deep into the techniques as they should so we always end up with some video clip of "Making something works."

706

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

One CMA guideline is "your back hand should be next to your leading arm's elbow joint." This way you can apply "switch hand" faster. Some CMA "wash hands" training even emphasize on the back hand should be next to the leading hand wrist joint. IMO, that can be too extreme.

 

[marvin8]

But the JKD guy and MMA guy has to train technique first.

Here is my simple question. If you have never trained

- left arm head lock, when a left arm head lock opportunity appears, will you take it?
- flying side kick, will you suddenly deliver a flying side kick just because the opportunity is there?

They do. Any MAist should train technique before trying to apply it.

 

[marvin8]

...winning within the rule set of sport MMA against other similarly trained elite professionals. When something is re-purposed, modifications are often needed.

MA principles, concepts, techniques, skills and physics used to defeat elite professional fighters do not change against attackers in the street (with adjustment for weapons).

 

[Prince_Alarming]

One CMA guideline is "your back hand should be next to your leading arm's elbow joint." This way you can apply "switch hand" faster. Some CMA "wash hands" training even emphasize on the back hand should be next to the leading hand wrist joint. IMO, that can be too extreme.

Nice, something I can apply right away to my training. Sweet.

 

[isshinryuronin]

MA principles, concepts, techniques, skills and physics used to defeat elite professional fighters do not change against attackers in the street

So, no change is needed? But you first said:

The Machidas, TMAists, found a need to change some things in karate for fighting.

I'm confused by this clear contradiction in your statements.

 

[marvin8]

So, no change is needed? But you first said:

I'm confused by this clear contradiction in your statements.

There isn't a contradiction. The Machidas and you said modifications are often needed. Those modifications don’t change nor...

MA principles, concepts, techniques, skills and physics used to defeat elite professional fighters do not change against attackers in the street (with adjustment for weapons).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Any MAist should train technique before trying to apply it.

To train technique and to develop technique ability are different.

If you spend time to train head lock on

1. both arms. you will get 50% ability on right arm and 50% ability on left arm.
2. right arm only, you will get 100% ability on right arm and 0% ability on left arm.

Will you train 1, or 2? Will you shoot handgun on both hands, or will you shoot handgun on just 1 hand?

If you train 2, when a left arm head lock appear to you, you should not take it because you have not trained it yet.

 

[marvin8]

To train technique and to develop technique ability are different.

If you spend time to train head lock on

1. both arms. you will get 50% ability on right arm and 50% ability on left arm.
2. right arm only, you will get 100% ability on right arm and 0% ability on left arm.

Will you train 1, or 2? Will you shoot handgun on both hands, or will you shoot handgun on just 1 hand?

If you train 2, when a left arm head lock appear to you, you should not take it because you have not trained it yet.

One. UFC’s Khamzat Chimaev trains headlocks and chokes on both sides. It’s not only about 100% brute strength. With a resistant opponent, it’s about setting traps, leverage, position, using opponent’s momentum, etc. Sometimes you release, sometimes you squeeze.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Responding to the OP, have only skimmed the other responses.

Fighting to not lose feels defeatist, but its not. LEO training in the area I was a teen had a similar concept. Essentially, if you get in a fight in uniform, do not lose. You're not always trying to win, but you better not lose. Similarly, in fma if you win but you get slashed as well badly, that win doesnt matter all that much. So long as you dont lose, you can fight another day.


Last concept for this i have is an animal driven in a corner. Theyre not fighting with desperation because they wang to win. Theyre doing it because they dont want to lose, since they know what will happen if they do.

 

[drop bear]

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.

There is a modern drilling vs games debate. Which is the equivalent of style vs no style.

 

[drop bear]

...winning within the rule set of sport MMA against other similarly trained elite professionals. When something is re-purposed, modifications are often needed.

It is a debate almost nobody can have sensibly because there are a lot of conflicting factors.

So yeah. Volkanovski would punch your head off in a fight. He is just better at everything that matters.

But there are ways to make fighting under certain rules sets more comfortable. (And I am going to put street fighting under a rule set)

So the argument becomes efficiency vs raw ability. And which one is more important to develop. Or how much.

And by that. I mean I can train a good boxer to eye gouge someone in about 10 seconds. (Do everything like boxing. But with your fingers straight) and they would be better than a person who spent time doing eye gouging. But never learned to dynamically strike. (So all of them exept John jones)

As a side note I have been playing with handcuffing fools and knife defence. Within those submission wrestling frame works.

I still get beaten by better grappers and strikers.