sanjuro_ronin
01-10-2008, 12:41 PM
How many times have we heard it?
In ANY MA as a matter of fact.
But, as the man says, context is everything.
When someone says that a given MA, or even MA technique, works for them, they are saying that passed on the "fact" that they have successfully applied it.
HOW is the question.
Situations in which "it works for me" is related to:
Doing it on a buddy.
Doing it in class under control situations
Doing it in class under semi-controlled situations - sparring
Doing it in competition - no-contact, semi-contact, full contact, limited rules, NHB/VT
Doing it on "the street" - either as part of a self defense situation or work ( LEO, security, bouncer, etc).
If I missed any, bite me.
Now, let us go to the context question.
When we apply a MA or a MA technique on someone, the truly deciding factor is not just OF it worked, but WHY it worked and a good chunck of that why is the context of HOW it was applied ( full contact and "alive" or controlled and "demoed") and the level of experience of the person it was applied on.
EX: Choking out a person with zero or very limited grappling experience VS choking out an experienced grappler.
No one will argue with one is a better gauge of how well our choke works.
On a personal note, I have applied my chosen MA on many people both inside and outside the ring and in both full contact and light contact fighting and even when my ass was on the line.
The results have been mixed, but more positive than negative, yet the only ones I count in terms of "judging" my performance were those in the full contact "ring" environment.
More on why later.
In many ways, this is about how "good enough" the whole "works for me" thing is as a judge of our MA skill.
I know many a person that has done their MA in the real world and done it well, only to get their ass handed to them in a sport combat venue and many the times the "excuse" was the "rules".
Hogwash, in the full contact environment, execution VS a trained opponent is the key factor ( NOTE: its not about winning a full contact match, which is hard to unless you train for one, but about giving a good showing ie: NOT getting your ass handed to you).
The issue is that, on the street, the chance of meeting a trained opponent is slim, very slim.
The situation is reversed in the ring ( though there are chances of fighting a turnip in the ring too obviously).
Being able to apply our MA VS some schmuck is one thing, applying it VS a trained schmuck is another.
Some will argue that since they train for the real world than only those "rules" need apply.
Hogwash.
If you can beat a trained opponent, you are much better equipped to beat am untrained one, period.
Which brings us to context once again.
Doing the "anti-grapple" VS some guys in the gym that have very limited grappling experience is NOT the same thing, nor as good a judge of the effectiveness of your technique, as doing it VS a trained grappler.
Works for me, becomes works for me VS opponents that suck.
Not the best judge of how well something works.
In ANY MA as a matter of fact.
But, as the man says, context is everything.
When someone says that a given MA, or even MA technique, works for them, they are saying that passed on the "fact" that they have successfully applied it.
HOW is the question.
Situations in which "it works for me" is related to:
Doing it on a buddy.
Doing it in class under control situations
Doing it in class under semi-controlled situations - sparring
Doing it in competition - no-contact, semi-contact, full contact, limited rules, NHB/VT
Doing it on "the street" - either as part of a self defense situation or work ( LEO, security, bouncer, etc).
If I missed any, bite me.
Now, let us go to the context question.
When we apply a MA or a MA technique on someone, the truly deciding factor is not just OF it worked, but WHY it worked and a good chunck of that why is the context of HOW it was applied ( full contact and "alive" or controlled and "demoed") and the level of experience of the person it was applied on.
EX: Choking out a person with zero or very limited grappling experience VS choking out an experienced grappler.
No one will argue with one is a better gauge of how well our choke works.
On a personal note, I have applied my chosen MA on many people both inside and outside the ring and in both full contact and light contact fighting and even when my ass was on the line.
The results have been mixed, but more positive than negative, yet the only ones I count in terms of "judging" my performance were those in the full contact "ring" environment.
More on why later.
In many ways, this is about how "good enough" the whole "works for me" thing is as a judge of our MA skill.
I know many a person that has done their MA in the real world and done it well, only to get their ass handed to them in a sport combat venue and many the times the "excuse" was the "rules".
Hogwash, in the full contact environment, execution VS a trained opponent is the key factor ( NOTE: its not about winning a full contact match, which is hard to unless you train for one, but about giving a good showing ie: NOT getting your ass handed to you).
The issue is that, on the street, the chance of meeting a trained opponent is slim, very slim.
The situation is reversed in the ring ( though there are chances of fighting a turnip in the ring too obviously).
Being able to apply our MA VS some schmuck is one thing, applying it VS a trained schmuck is another.
Some will argue that since they train for the real world than only those "rules" need apply.
Hogwash.
If you can beat a trained opponent, you are much better equipped to beat am untrained one, period.
Which brings us to context once again.
Doing the "anti-grapple" VS some guys in the gym that have very limited grappling experience is NOT the same thing, nor as good a judge of the effectiveness of your technique, as doing it VS a trained grappler.
Works for me, becomes works for me VS opponents that suck.
Not the best judge of how well something works.