Physical prowess and athleticism vs. skill

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Re: Physical prowess and athleticism vs. skill

Postby wiesiek on Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:29 am

if I may add to - natural vs. "unnatural" move ,
as I recall one of Xing I Masters words:

..." Xing I is based on natural human moves , it has much more useful martial potential, than system based on "unnatural" m...."

Xing I is one of the >internal< style, isn`t it?
joyful usefullnes of the effords
User avatar
Posts: 3688
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 12:38 am
Location: krakow

Re: Physical prowess and athleticism vs. skill

Postby marvin8 on Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:42 pm

Wuyizidi wrote:There are three separate issues here.

One, empty hand vs weapons fighting. In empty hand fighting, physical conditioning is the most decisive factor. In weapons fighting, skill is the most decisive factor. In empty hand fight, even if we land a punch on Mike Tyson, how much effect would it have on him? But if we're fighting with knives or guns, he can't afford to be touched by our attack... It's a completely different game. So in regular sports we never have men vs women, whereas in war, no one thinks he can relax because the soldier aiming the AK-47 at him from the other side is a woman.

Two, layers that makes up martial ability. Georges St-Pierre recently gave a succinct summary - one's martial prowess is like a building with 3 layers:
1. athletic: are you a good athlete, how well can you control and move your body
2. skill: a multiplier of your body's natural capabilities
3. tactic: how you apply your level 1+2 abilities in a particular situation. He gave a great example: Mike Bisping was slower than him, and cannot get him with a direct hit, so he retreated, making GSP chase him, and when GSP came in too close, he almost knocked GSP out.

Georges St-Pierre says the Tactical layer is "where you make the difference between the champion and the average competitor," not physical conditioning.

From “UFC's Georges St-Pierre Tells Us How to Prepare Like A Champ (@ :49),“ ... ke-a-champ and "JRE MMA Show #28 with Georges St-Pierre (@ 27:23),"
Georges St Pierre wrote:1. Physical: "physical shape, conditioning, vo2 max, athleticism"
2. Technical: "If you know for example do an arm bar, kicks, punches, counters, chokes, triangles, leg locks, etc." "Your knowledge: do you know an arm bar, defense to a triangle choke, or how to counter a jab. Technical aspect in terms of knowledge of fighting.
3. Tactical: "That's where you make the difference between between the champion and the average competitor." “I will know where I can take you out of your comfort zone. And, I can bring the fight where I am the strongest. And, fight you to eliminate the odds where the fight will stack the odds of me winning to my advantage. “

My attempt to paraphrase and simplify:
1. Physical — physical condition
2. Technical — techniques
3. Tactical — strategy, fight IQ

Wuyizidi wrote:The other is skill vs gongfu. Gongfu means level of execution for a particular skill.
Here someone with very high level gongfu on a low level skill (basic punch, kick) can defeat someone who is studying high level but has very low level gongfu in it. For example, the objective is to lift as much weight as possible. Person A decides to practice lifting it with just the strength of his own body. After 5 years of hard practice, he can deadlift 500 pounds. Person B says, I'm going study a different skill, I'm going to be physicist. I will eventually design machines that can lift tons of weight. First of all that's a high level skill. By definition 1) very few from the general population can get there, 2) it takes longer to get there. So until Person B becomes one of the very few who masters the skill, he can't do anything. He won't even be able to lift 250 pounds. If you have a competition between your average 4 year Crossfitter vs 4th year physics student, who's going to be able to lift more weight by their chosen approach?

That's essentially the gamble for people pursuing internal martial art: if we can become one of the very few who master this radically different skill, we can do higher level things (fight people bigger, stronger, faster than us) the older approach can't. But until we get there, half-baked skill is very ineffective against someone training in the other approach (which is more immediately usable).

Given your description of high level IMA skills, do you disagree with GSP on the Tactical layer and believe the Physical layer (e.g., more power) and Technical layer (e.g., higher level "basic punch, kick") are "the most decisive factors in fighting?"
Last edited by marvin8 on Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Posts: 1158
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm


Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests