High level vs. low level

[johnwang]

My definition of "high level" vs. "low level"

- If you can use your move against a resist stranger then no matter how ugly it looks, it's high level skill. If you can only use your move on your cooperated demo partner then no matter how pretty it looks, it's still low level skill.

- If you can use your move, even you don't have any theory or principle to support, it's high level skill. If you can't use your move, even if you have all the nice theory and principle to support, it's still low level skill.

What's yours definition on this?

[Interloper]

Same as yours!

[mixjourneyman]

If you can beat your opponent, its skill (or luck sometimes ).
If you can't beat your opponent, then your skills aren't developed enough for that situation.

[Cryptohominid]

High level skills are reflexive and determined by the much more efficient (and fast) sub conscious mind.

Low level skills are controlled by the conscious mind and are slow and rigid (read insensitive and slow to change based on input on the fly).

Low level becomes high level with constant practice.

Dave

[Walk the Torque]

High level skill requires less movement to echieve the same result as low level skill.

[DuYiZhang]

You're just mimmicking and not really understanding it. That's what I get by that.

[Eisenhans]

If you can beat your opponent, its skill (or luck sometimes ).

Luck is a skill, too
Don't ask me where I got this from, please...

[Walk the Torque]

You're just mimmicking and not really understanding it. That's what I get by that.

mimmicking what?

[Bao]

High level skill is what you call something you look up to, a skill you want to reach.

Low level skill is what you look down on, something from other styles (because you don't know better) or something you studied for 5-10 years ago and believe you have allready past.

If you have practiced for some years, you will never think that you have low or high skill, I think you will always believe you are somewhere in between the two, how good you ever become.

. . . if you want to have a humble approach to yourself and others that is . . . And it can be quite dangerous to believe that you are better than others.

[Craig]

If you can beat your opponent, its skill (or luck sometimes ).

Luck is a skill, too
Don't ask me where I got this from, please...

"Just relax, and trust my skill"
"Skill has nothing to do with it...it's going to take pure luck to get through this one"
"Luck is one of my skills!"

oh man I should watch that again, that series was awesome. If that's not what you're talking about then yeah fun I guess I'll look like an idiot.

On Topic: There's some good discussion about high and low levels in Miro's thread about alchemy, I suggest everyone check it out.

[Joe L.]

If you can beat your opponent, its skill (or luck sometimes ).

Luck is a skill, too
Don't ask me where I got this from, please...

"Just relax, and trust my skill"
"Skill has nothing to do with it...it's going to take pure luck to get through this one"
"Luck is one of my skills!"

oh man I should watch that again, that series was awesome. If that's not what you're talking about then yeah fun I guess I'll look like an idiot.

On Topic: There's some good discussion about high and low levels in Miro's thread about alchemy, I suggest everyone check it out.

I want to make a guess about which series its from (being a giant fan of it) but I'd rather wait and not look a fool

[DuYiZhang]

You're just mimmicking and not really understanding it. That's what I get by that.

mimmicking what?

What I meant was that you could be copying beautifully a set of moves but not getting the understanding of them or their applications, or you can't put them to work, obviously you're just mimmicking the person that taught you and that's it.(perhaps I used the term wrong).

[Dmitri]

"skill" implies (a lot of) specific practice (plus talent, etc.) John's definition seems to almost eliminate necessity for practice, e.g. if I practice some MA for 20 years but never fight anyone, and run into a guy who never practiced but is a naturally talented fighter and he beats me up, then his "skill" would be higher than mine?

One would have to ask, "skill in what"? There's no such thing as "just skill", it has to be "skill in something". In that situation, I'm presuming we're talking about a skill in fighting.(?) In that case, there would be little or no skill displayed by either party IMHO -- the guy would have no 'skill' because he hasn't practiced anything of relevance (but has good 'ability' because of his talent/genetics/etc.), and I would have poor skill because I apparently didn't practice well.

[DeusTrismegistus]

You're just mimmicking and not really understanding it. That's what I get by that.

mimmicking what?

What I meant was that you could be copying beautifully a set of moves but not getting the understanding of them or their applications, or you can't put them to work, obviously you're just mimmicking the person that taught you and that's it.(perhaps I used the term wrong).

Children learn to walk by mimicking, then after practicing it they "understand" walking. Learning martial arts is no different. Adults try to think about what tehy are doing or why too much. Kids just do it. A child may not have an intellectual understanding of a movement or technique but that will come with time and practice. If you only mimick and never get to practice doing though, then you run into problems.

High level is anyone who can whip my ass, low level is anyone who can't

Seriously though high level is the shit that makes you go the better I get the more subtle things make me do that.

[Harvey]

To me high level skill is merely low level skill that's been worked at and refined through practice, it goes with my fave translation of kung fu, Effort and Time. Like i say to the newbs when i do stuff with them and they ask why I can do it and they can't can't "simple i've been doing longer"