Sport vs. Combat revisited yet once again (new perspective)...

Great posts Umar.

“	That's how, even as limited as boxing is, it's still a good training method and boxers are dangerous.	”

Good point, also, Robin.

Fu-Pau-

ALL self contained styles, whether adapted to sport or not, are replete with techniques that will either flat out not work (against skilled opponents) or techniques that are simply inferior to the similar techniques (devised with the same outcome in mind) form other styles.

OK... I have just seen another disclaimer that I must make.

Think I will add these to my signature...

1.) All my posts, unless otherwise specified, are addressing scenarios contained in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat and do not take into consideration weapons, multiple attackers, broken glass littered alleys and bars or molten lava pits.

2.) All my posts concerning the application of skill and technique, unless otherwise specified, are assuming that the opponent (the one who the technique is directed against) has a high degree of skill and experience in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat.

Peace-
Cam

__________________
Rock On!
Cam
"Raise up your mind....."

okay... but I don't think you answered my question

Or are you saying that: 98% of what is taught in traditional styles such as Hung Gar, Wing Chun, Chow Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Black Tiger, Aikido, Silat, Savat etc, "in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat", "would NEVER work against anyone with any modicum of skill (being someone who "has a high degree of skill and experience in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat")...

Hey Cam, don't forget Natural disasters.

disclaimer.
lol thats funny.

__________________
One hit, see blood.

It's not enough to just not get hit

“	Originally posted by Fu-Pau okay... but I don't think you answered my question Or are you saying that: 98% of what is taught in traditional styles such as Hung Gar, Wing Chun, Chow Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Black Tiger, Aikido, Silat, Savat etc, "in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat", "would NEVER work against anyone with any modicum of skill (being someone who "has a high degree of skill and experience in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat")...	”

I think you're grasping straws there. Even if it's 89% that's still bad.

How so I'm grasping at straws All I want is an answer to the question from Cam.

Migo, are YOU saying then, or supporting what appears to be Cam's proposition, that 80% 89% 98% (hard to keep pace with these figures) of what is taught in traditional styles such as Hung Gar, Wing Chun, Chow Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Black Tiger, Aikido, Silat, Savat etc, in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat, would NEVER work against anyone with any modicum of skill (being someone who has a high degree of skill and experience in hand to hand, one on one unarmed combat)...

__________________
"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter." - Sir Winston Churchill

Not to that extreme. However I do support that a majority of the moves taught in most styles (especially traditional/classical/etc) would have a limited success rate against a skilled opponent to an extent that would make them useless.

How many of you actually use more than a small portion of what you've learned in sparring

Besides, if Cam answers a plain No, (thinking maybe 99% or 97% in reality ) will you feel validated

I don't use the internet to validate my martial arts. Do you

__________________
"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter." - Sir Winston Churchill

No, but that wasn't my question.

Your question incorrectly presupposed that I was seeking validation. Whereas my question to Cam was an attempt to distil from all the rambling posts in this thread exactly what point he was trying to make. Therefore your question has been answered.

__________________
"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter." - Sir Winston Churchill

It has now....

I have a question to all...
How can you say a percentage of techniques dont work in classical/traditional or nontraditional styles....if you dont know those styles

Ie...me saying 90% of hung ga techs dont work....
I know next to nothing about hung ga....so wouldnt I be assuming too much

__________________
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.
-Zen proverb

From the pine tree
Learn of the pine tree.
And from the bamboo
of the bamboo
-Basho

I know all about Hung Low!

*juvenile snicker*

LOL....how old are we now

__________________
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.
-Zen proverb

From the pine tree
Learn of the pine tree.
And from the bamboo
of the bamboo
-Basho

“	Originally posted by x893 I have a question to all... How can you say a percentage of techniques dont work in classical/traditional or nontraditional styles....if you dont know those styles Ie...me saying 90% of hung ga techs dont work.... I know next to nothing about hung ga....so wouldnt I be assuming too much	”

Well i would think so but i guess i would be wrong.

There is no way anyone can make a statement like that! Someone learning Hung Gar could never make that statement. So for someone outside the style to make that statement means next to nothing.

I agree that there are fluff techniques within TCMA. But people outside of TCMA have it twisted. The fluff techniques are done for demos and such.The problems come when someone does'nt know the differenmce between the two. Like a phoenix eye knuckle strike. The way it's displayed for ppl to see is never the way it's actually done. But some ppl don't know this simple bit of advise.

You can't blame the style for this. It's the person teaching that has to point this out to the student. Some techniques are changed to make them easier for a new person to be able to apply them. That is a no no that gets done too often. Because if noone adjusts that persons technique. Then they will have techniques that are useless to them when needed.

Is this a problem

Yes!!

It's a very big problem with fakes and fruads and teachers not skilled enough to teach in TCMA. That gives all of us in CMA a bad name not just those ppl. Until we find a way to clear those ppl and get everyone training properly. It will never change anything. I can sit here and go back and forth with anyone on this forum about CMA being applicable in combat. But until you show ppl that! They will never change their minds about TCMA.

The problem is that because they've seen bad TCMA or low level skilled TCMA ppl. They feel that all TCMA are like what they've seen.When infact those of us involved know better. The guy i posted the thread on about Hung Gar stylist wins in UFC is now posting on here. I'm hoping that "O" gets involved in some of these discussions.

Although i doubt that he will and i don't blame him for it. It's a tired argument that most TCMA ppl don't want to get involved with. Infact most true TCMA ppl don't post on forums for this same reason.




jeff

__________________
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it ~ Sir Winston Churchill