the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

wayne hansen wrote:This is my last reply to you
You don’t get it you never will
You try to insult me so what
I don’t care
Then you try to cosy up to doc and John to cover your back
I would love to see some of your stuff to see what a truly deadly man looks like
Churchill on tactics
That will do me
Do you know how many men he used as cannon fodder

Get what you have? No, I'm easily 40 years behind at this point, if I could have EVER understood at all.
Who's trying to cozy? They said things that actually make sense - you started like a prat, waffled, then doubled down.
I only hung your position with the nooses you tied and seeing you butthurt over it makes me chuckle a good bit.

What do you want to see from me? My forms? sparring? randori? competition footage? NHB IN DA STREETZ?? Grow up, I think someone else didn't like your broadsword demo,
you should go find them and tell them about just how real it is.

Let's keep the Churchill-isms going - this one seems relevant.

Lady Astor: “If I were married to you, I’d put poison in your coffee.”

Churchill: “If I were married to you, I’d drink it.”

Give my regards to Pete and your other students.

Quigga wrote:Pressure is the name of the game
You can take it up to a certain point, everybody has their breaking point no matter how tough
This is what separates

Who are you after having been broken
Can you deal with being broken
All fake strength and fake support pillars break away when faced with this

Sort of like tempering iron or steel
Need to get the shock just right - tempering etc

You don't want to fight

Either way, the tool either serves it's purpose or not

A lot of these adages are pertaining to the kind of stresses and rigors that come with a specific encounter over a generalized concept of training for application.
If I trained for application but my target is better trained or has physical attributes that nullify that trainings efficacy then the ability to persevere until the situation changes becomes the skill required. A great example of this is a "fast" fighter that suddenly finds themselves facing someone "faster" - the strategies for coping with an unexpected handicap are often difficult to train given the difficulty finding training partners with suitable superiorities to challenge those limits. I'm a striker meeting a better striker? How is their clinch, wrestling, or ground? I'm a grappler facing a better grappler? how is my striking, counter-wrestling and gnp? Did my training include enough focus on those skills to overcome that gap, all of those skills need to be trained with application in mind to be effective, a persons ability to shift strategies under stress is always down to individual experience and psychology but if they haven't, as john said, gotten to a level of competence with one thing in the first place they are kind of hooped regardless..

I don't shift my strategy

Quigga wrote:I don't shift my strategy

I don't not shift my strategy. It's why I will never dance well.

Sea.Wolf.Forge wrote:A lot of these adages are pertaining to the kind of stresses and rigors that come with a specific encounter over a generalized concept of training for application.
If I trained for application but my target is better trained or has physical attributes that nullify that trainings efficacy then the ability to persevere until the situation changes becomes the skill required. A great example of this is a "fast" fighter that suddenly finds themselves facing someone "faster" - the strategies for coping with an unexpected handicap are often difficult to train given the difficulty finding training partners with suitable superiorities to challenge those limits. I'm a striker meeting a better striker? How is their clinch, wrestling, or ground? I'm a grappler facing a better grappler? how is my striking, counter-wrestling and gnp? Did my training include enough focus on those skills to overcome that gap, all of those skills need to be trained with application in mind to be effective, a persons ability to shift strategies under stress is always down to individual experience and psychology but if they haven't, as john said, gotten to a level of competence with one thing in the first place they are kind of hooped regardless..

Good points. The final outcome of real fighting scenarios is oftentimes influenced by unexpected and unpredictable 'x factors', such as you mentioned above, which can suddenly compromise strategies, techniques and physical assets very quickly.

Even with excellent conditioning and well trained techniques in any fighting method, there will always be someone who is stronger and more powerful, faster and more agile, or who has developed greater proficiency in specific combat specialties.

As such, to stand toe to toe against any opponent essentially places one in a direct comparison of individual proficiency regarding all of those factors. Since appearances are often deceiving, unexpected surprises are not uncommon, and can occur with too little time or space to effectively react to.

Thus, only a fool chooses to contest boxing skills against an expert boxer, contest kicking skills against a kick specialist, contest wrestling skills against an expert grappling and throwing specialist, etc. Unfortunately, if you are fighting an unknown opponent, you won't be aware of their superiority in any of those skills until they're too close and it's too late.

Only fighters who train to develop better than average capabilities in all of those fighting methods, along with the ability to effectively neutralize the efforts of those who possess equal or greater skills, will consistently survive every serious fight with minimal damage.

Doc Stier wrote:

Sea.Wolf.Forge wrote:A lot of these adages are pertaining to the kind of stresses and rigors that come with a specific encounter over a generalized concept of training for application.
If I trained for application but my target is better trained or has physical attributes that nullify that trainings efficacy then the ability to persevere until the situation changes becomes the skill required. A great example of this is a "fast" fighter that suddenly finds themselves facing someone "faster" - the strategies for coping with an unexpected handicap are often difficult to train given the difficulty finding training partners with suitable superiorities to challenge those limits. I'm a striker meeting a better striker? How is their clinch, wrestling, or ground? I'm a grappler facing a better grappler? how is my striking, counter-wrestling and gnp? Did my training include enough focus on those skills to overcome that gap, all of those skills need to be trained with application in mind to be effective, a persons ability to shift strategies under stress is always down to individual experience and psychology but if they haven't, as john said, gotten to a level of competence with one thing in the first place they are kind of hooped regardless..

Good points. The final outcome of real fighting scenarios is oftentimes influenced by unexpected and unpredictable 'x factors', such as you mentioned above, which can suddenly compromise strategies, techniques and physical assets very quickly.

Even with excellent conditioning and well trained techniques in any fighting method, there will always be someone who is stronger and more powerful, faster and more agile, or who has developed greater proficiency in specific combat specialties.

As such, to stand toe to toe against any opponent essentially places one in a direct comparison of individual proficiency regarding all of those factors. Since appearances are often deceiving, unexpected surprises are not uncommon, and can occur with too little time or space to effectively react to.

Thus, only a fool chooses to contest boxing skills against an expert boxer, contest kicking skills against a kick specialist, contest wrestling skills against an expert grappling and throwing specialist, etc. Unfortunately, if you are fighting an unknown opponent, you won't be aware of their superiority in any of those skills until they're too close and it's too late.

Only fighters who train to develop better than average capabilities in all of those fighting methods, along with the ability to effectively neutralize the efforts of those who possess equal or greater skills, will consistently survive every serious fight with minimal damage.

That's why I say fair fights are for suckers. I will grab a stick or a knife and sic my dogs on your behind. I will push you into traffic or smash a beer glass in your face. I will get somebody else to take out your legs. I do not care about proving who's tougher or better, if I perceive a legitimate threat to my or my people's safety and can't handle it readily without harming anyone I will shut it down by whatever means necessary.

origami_itto wrote:That's why I say fair fights are for suckers. I will grab a stick or a knife and sic my dogs on your behind. I will push you into traffic or smash a beer glass in your face. I will get somebody else to take out your legs. I do not care about proving who's tougher or better, if I perceive a legitimate threat to my or my people's safety and can't handle it readily without harming anyone I will shut it down by whatever means necessary.

Jasoni-san: I agree. If they stand behind you, protect them. If they stand beside you, support them. But if they stand against you, defeat them by any means necessary.

You are a trip, Sifu.

I read Go Rin No Sho as a teenaged punk kid and really took his message to heart. The only shame is in falling with a weapon undrawn.

I'm glad to see people start to talk about combat in this forum again. For a while I thought I was the only person who is still interested in combat.

johnwang wrote:I'm glad to see people start to talk about combat in this forum again. For a while I thought I was the only person who is still interested in combat.

I mean... Sifu... I love it. I grew up fighting. I've fought enough though, hurt enough, you know. I just want to be healthy and grow old gracefully and if somebody tries to hurt me be able to convince them it's a bad idea.

johnwang wrote:I'm glad to see people start to talk about combat in this forum again. For a while I thought I was the only person who is still interested in combat.

origami_itto wrote: I just want to be healthy and grow old gracefully and if somebody tries to hurt me be able to convince them it's a bad idea.

This is another part of the balance that I find very interesting, to train hard enough to be applicable in most situations but not to the punishing competition extremes where retirement at 35 is considered "late." Avoiding as much of the the stupid wear and tear but keeping the sharpness and function as long as possible. I had a great discussion about this with my training partner last week - how in combat sports you train for a specific # and duration of rounds with 1 min rest but in self defense you have to shift that focus as without a minute rest every 2-5min even one maximum effort can be a huge risk if your condition doesn't allow you to recover within a few breaths while still under stress.

Again though, all of that is why I study taijiquan. Authentic taijiquan (despite what windwalker and Formosa would say, for the exact opposite reasons...)

We spend a lot of time here digging into the details of how that works. But the way I study it's precisely for ending conflict as quickly as possible with minimal effort.

Sometimes saying sorry is the quickest and easiest way to end a quarrel

Quigga wrote:Sometimes saying sorry is the quickest and easiest way to end a quarrel

The greatest skill in martial arts, the ultimate goal, is to remove the enemy's will to fight. That's the checkmate every step should move towards.

Hmm interesting