agree, rolling a few minutes would be the telling tale.It would be pretty hard to 'fake' being an expert at ground fighting for very long these days.
agree, rolling a few minutes would be the telling tale.It would be pretty hard to 'fake' being an expert at ground fighting for very long these days.
Originally posted by BawangOriginally posted by Bawangi had an old taichi lady talk smack behind my back. i mean comon man, come on. if it was 200 years ago,, mebbe i wouldve smacked her and took all her monehs.i am manly and strong. do not insult me cracker.
You said what it boils down to is fighting principles. I think this is absolutely wrong. It boils down to who is better prepared for the fight. Who is better conditioned, who is better trained, who is the most athletic, and so forth. In other words who is the better fighter. That has nothing to do with fighting principles but with training.
But you train a person or yourself with principles in mind. It's not enough to know each tech, whoever set up the training you underwent to entrain good fighting habits, no matter if we're talking kung fu or boxing or whatever, had to stress habits that are based on understanding certain principles. For boxing, having a good cross, but not being able to sometimes naturally step to your lead side because this lines up the cross, you will always be trying to apply the cross against their strongest defense. If one fighter fights orthodox, and one fights southpaw, if they are not trained to know that the jab does not function at all the same in those conditions, there will be problems. If one doesn't train for fluidity in going from range to range, then in fighting, they will use the wrong tools at the wrong ranges. If one doesn't recognize that kicks at one range transition to trips at another, they will likewise run into problems.
Principles aren't to be applied on the fly, but they are essential in planning one's training. Everyone worth training under has them as the basis of what they do, but they shape the training more than decisions made during sparring or fighting, as deciding during the fight is reserved for either when fighting someone you totally dominate, or facing a situation that your training hasn't specifically engaged.
In a fight, yes of course the bottom line always comes down to who is better prepared. It is why I frown upon which is the best fighting style to learn debates. You can have a shaolin fighter vs a tae kwon do vs a karateka and the argument always arises which style is better not which fighter.
We are talking about being a jack of all trades and master of none in a particular MA style or system. Yes, fighting principles has everything to do with why you train whatever your style is. Jiu jitsu practitioners believe ground fighting is where its at, tae kwon do practitioner place a lot of emphasis on distance and kicks, shaolin practitioners place a lot of emphasis on hand techniques/forms and weapons, MMA fighters kind of mix a lot of things together etc etc. People train in those styles because that's what principles they believe will work for them should they get into a fight.
Is it wrong for an MMA fighter, or any martial artist, to pick a little of each and "put it in their box"? No, of course not. Are they truly a master of a particular MA style? Well, that remains to be answered. Mastering a style sometimes goes beyond learning forms and weapons. There is history and tradition which seem to be fading these days that also define a particular style.
Training at American Shaolin Kung Fu