m002 Posted January 10, 2003 Posted January 10, 2003 it isn't just the person: If some1 is a good athlete then they may have an advantage - however when they fight, whichever style they do thay'll revert to a specific style (street fighting etc), a kind of universal one or they will fight with what they know but it would be the specific style(s) which are realistic. SO although it's something like 80% the person, 20% the style the style can, and generally is the deciding factor - if it isn't good they'll put themselves at a substantial disadvantage. To make up for a faultly/ineffective/unrealistic style they will revert to a version of a good, effective style but they'll just be unskillful at it. However because they're using an effective style, however bad they're at it, they can still hurt the opponent - the superior strength and/or cardiovascular factors just add to the fighter. The more skilled person, although weaker may still be at a greater advantage if their overall Health isn't much worse. Even if it is alot worse, the skill of the person or fighter may oevrcome sheer atheletisism. Especially if it suprizers the better conditioned person.
Severe Matburn Posted January 11, 2003 Posted January 11, 2003 I agree somewhat. I don't believe there is a single best style but I do believe some styles are better for different things and in different ways, also some styles might be better for different occurances. I think its really about 70% style/30%person, if not even more dependent on the style. Cardio and strength are largley important tho "razor elbows, killer knees, iron fists and monster kicks""Nice punch!!!, now let's see how well you punch with a broken arm"
monkeygirl Posted January 11, 2003 Posted January 11, 2003 I'm a little confused as to how someone can "revert" to a style they've never trained in, as opposed to the one they've been learning? Are you saying they're going to reach into some instinctual, primitive fighting force? IMO, if someone has been training in a particular style for long enough, however ineffective/impractical, they will continue to use those techniques reflexively. That is, IF they have overcome the adrenaline stress. If not, then they're not going to use any style at all...simple flailing of the arms and freaking out. Perhaps that's what you meant and I misunderstood? 1st dan & Asst. Instructor TKD 2000-2003No matter the tune...if you can rock it, rock it hard.
Kensai Posted January 11, 2003 Posted January 11, 2003 A style is only as good as a person that practices it. Without the human making the movements of the style, then it cant excist as anything. I do agree that some styles are better than others, but that only applies to a practicular person. I know that I can use Aikido better than I can Shotokan. You have to work with your biology, some styles suit some body types better. If we are talking about REAL fights, then that 80% Person influence is really going to make a difference in what you do. Because at the end of the day, its all down to you. Yours in Aiki.
magikchiongson Posted January 11, 2003 Posted January 11, 2003 There are certain motions that just come naturally to the body. If you've ever seen two untrained fighters go at it, you will see a number of things, wild punches, grappling, the person who is less used to taking hits will put their arms out reflexively and start flailing or doggie paddling. I own you.
G95champ Posted January 11, 2003 Posted January 11, 2003 Well comon sense will tell you a 300lbs person will have trouble with an art like Capporeia and a skinny person would have a hard time with Sumo. So to say the art don't mean anything is not ture. However the person does make his or her art the art don't make them. As far as athletic ability well not all are created the same those of us with lesser athletic ability have to make up for that with better training and quicker thinking. (General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory."
Freestyler Posted January 12, 2003 Posted January 12, 2003 I'm in agreeance that the style is much more important than the emphasis people place on it. Everyone says it's the practioner and not the style. Okay, if that's the case. Why do we take so long in choosing a style ? Why do we swtich styles ? Why do some of us cross train ? Why do so many people idolise Bruce Lee who uses no style as 'the style' ? Why have some styles enjoyed much more success than other styles ? - even if it's only in a sporting arena -- the argument that the moves are designed to kill is a load of crap, if you can't practice them in training, it's highly unlikely you'll pull them off in an adrenalin-high situation. If a particular style enjoyes more success in a sporting arena, don't you think they'll be better prepared to gouge eyes & groins, bite, pull hair? Ironically, the people who are having the most success in sporting arenas such as the UFC & NHB are well rounded martial artists (yes, I'm obviously biased here). But, put in a pure striker/grappler against someone who's well rounded, who's going to win? A pure striker is going to have a very hard time keeping that grappler away, and a pure grappler with no take downs is going to have a hard time getting a striker on the ground without getting KTFO. Come to think of it, all so called 'pure' grapplers actually know a little about striking through their training whether they know it or not. There are far too many variables in a street fight, you'll never know what will happen and when anyone who doesn't know how to grapple ends up on the ground, they pack it - just in the same way as someone who doesn't know how to defend themselves at all ends up in a confrontation, they pack it. Let me give an example where I think style is important. A woman has a rapist attempting to rape her - he's at the point where he's got her on the ground. Let's say she's been training in WTF TKD which focuses on point sparring & high kicks to win tournaments (it's a very harsh stereotype, I know, but I want to put my point across). Now she's on the ground with her attacker on top of her, her tournament style guard was easily passed through and she's on the ground and can't kick or punch. She can obviously bite, gouge, etc., but anything she does do is met with superior gouges & bites from her attacker since he's got a dominant position. She's packing it at this point, she's about to be brutally raped. But, let's say she knew BJJ - applying the principle of leverage (the arm bar is a classic example of leverage, you could break the strongest man's arm) she could easily reverse the position despite the size and weight advantage her attacker most likely has over her. Someone who's competent in BJJ can easily reverse someone knows nothing about BJJ and has a dominant position over them, because unless the control is very tight and done with good form, or the person knows what they're doing, the techniques work wonders. There's a very good post by Martial_Artist on this topic. All of this in IMO..
Freestyler Posted January 12, 2003 Posted January 12, 2003 Also, why do most people rule out any techniques over eye gouging, biting, hair pulling as if they're inferior ? If this is the case, surely there must be some styles which have superior techniques over other styles?
G95champ Posted January 12, 2003 Posted January 12, 2003 Im all about fighting dirty I teach it every class. Thats all in Shotokan its called 2 finger spear hands, Tiger Claws, Palm to the groin. etc. (General George S. Patton Jr.) "It's the unconquerable soul of man, and not the nature of the weapon he uses, that ensures victory."
Recommended Posts