crimsonking wrote:
Competition venues do favour long-drawn out fights - things like padding, rounds, referees, corner men, gloves and rules make real destruction less likely.
**What makes “real destruction” less likely is that the competitors are in better condition so they are more difficult to hurt, are better skilled so they are better able to avoid being hurt, and in these situations “taps” or “throwing in the towel” or referree intervention is permitted (able to stop before someone gets hurt). Lots of “sport fighters” have had "streetfights, and they end very quickly – not because of the lack of padding, lack of rounds, referrees, cornermen, gloves, rules, etc. but because they outclassed the opposition in skill. For example, Tyson knocking out the two guys in the parking lot – these guys weren’t good fighters, they couldn’t take a punch, avoid a punch, etc.
Exactly, that’s what i’m saying - we need to define “our activity”. Mine is certainly not yours. Therefore your training - and prioritisation of conditioning for competition, is not mine. No problem.
**Yes, we do need to define our “activity” and condition ourself for that activity. As WCK is a fighting method, it would seem to me that conditioning for fighting with that method is essential.
In a sports fight - perhaps conditioning is “the deciding factor”. In a street fight, perhaps not. Again - conditioning is specific.
**This is one problem with doing anything for “streetfighting” – it is all theoretical, because unless we are going out and fighting in the street, how do we know we are getting good results from our training or that these things will work? It’s all guesswork, inference, theory. Another problem with “streetfighting” is there is no way to guage the level of the opposition in these “tests”, so what works “out on the street” for us in some encounter may have worked only because our opponent was really bad, not because our technique or attributes were good.
Regarding labels - we almost agree! There has been a tendency for people in the ‘sports\sparring’ camp to label those not in it as somehow unprepared to go through that sort of training. It’s a testostorone-fuelled “toughman” mentality that’s not very productive - this is not a ****ing contest.
**We can all fight. We can fight before ever taking up WCK. One important issue is whether or not our training, whatever it is, is significantly increasing our ability to fight. And we need to know that – because if it isn’t, we can adjust our training (assuming this is our goal). How can we know? There is only one way: by fighting, and by fighting with skilled opposition. Anything else is purely theoretical (inferring from chi sao, for example). Believing that your biu jee will work in a fight is theory – anything you haven’t done is theory. My POV is to assume all theory is wrong until I see it work in genuine application for myself; this way when the sh1t goes down, I know what I can and cannot do, I know my level of preparation. It’s not theory to me.
You’re correct about the true meaning of traditional, the term has been abused here as part of this division into camps. Then there’s Traditional ™ lol.
**IMO there is an inverse relationship between the stressing of tradition and effectiveness. That’s because if someone can make it work, they don’t need to place great emphasis on how traditional it is. Folks stress “traditional” as a way of saying “if it’s traditional, it must be good.” Theory.
I’ve never heard of fights in the street going for very long. But don’t ask me, look to the evidence - go hang outside some bars or interview people in casualty on a saturday night. I’m aware that street fights are not equivalent to ring fights in terms of opposition, i’ll let that slide for the moment.
**The last “streetfight” I was in ended with one punch; I’ve never had a training (fighting) situation end in one punch.
