The difference is, with many sports, the results of different techniques are readily demonstrated against a standard scale, where fights are very much a "come as you are" affair - the fact that one technique worked great against one opponent says as much about the opponent as the technique. This is the real reason that, even given centuries of combat, no ultimate technique has really been distilled, because no one can prove what it is. The fact that Mick Coup could kick many people's asses using only boxing, for example, doesn't prove or disprove that boxing is or isn't all you need. We're in an era where many people ARE trying to refine fighting to some kind of objective science (this technique is demonstrably, mathematically, better than that one), but it's been in an era of alchemy almost since people started fighting.
@@eclipsewrecker - Just as a follow up: Can the world's best chess player beat the world's best checker player? Can the world's best boxer beat the world's best wrestler? Perhaps, but in what context? There's enough contention within chess, checkers, boxing and wrestling about what do in any given situation, let alone against someone who is playing a different game altogether, or a game that really has no rules. Expert fighters in any style have a good idea of what to do against someone using the same style/rules because, broadly speaking, they know what the opponent will and won't do but, even in that context, there's no one-size-fits-all solution/technique. Any given technique might, in itself, be sound, but it still might not be the proper tool, depending on the job. Expert fighters taking on untrained people have a good chance of making the fight into whatever suits them but, even then, they can be surprised, so there's no proven technique that can guarantee victory. Many people are sold lessons based on the idea that "evolved" technique will more than compensate for other real-world factors, such as size and strength, but no such super technique has emerged, inside or outside sports - even within boxing, a flyweight taking on a heavyweight has their work cut out for them, and that's within the context of agreed rules.
Malt454 who is suggesting that there is one move that guarantees victory? The video was discussing a technique within a move. There isn’t one “technique” that guarantees victory in the sports you referenced, but there is superior technique to accomplish the move (or “technique”).
@@eclipsewrecker - Right, so any given technique, or even set of techniques, is "proven" to work... some of the time, against some opponents, because fighting has more variables than the high jump. It certainly depends upon the definition of "proven". I do find the question very interesting, given that, for millennia, people have been looking, very seriously, for the best way to use their bodies in personal combat, and still haven't arrived at a clear answer. Knowing something, if it doesn't lead to over confidence, is usually better than knowing nothing, and pressure-tested seems to be better than non-pressure tested but, beyond that, what do we know about proven technique, except that proven in an artificial sport environment?
How to fight with armor, ammo, and weapons is much different. Even in hand to hand, which is why grappling is heavily emphasized. Punched in the head doesn't work when the guy is wearing a helmet. A person can't set up head shots with body blows when the guy is wearing a flak jacket. The chop makes alot more sense for striking between these.
The difference is, with many sports, the results of different techniques are readily demonstrated against a standard scale, where fights are very much a "come as you are" affair - the fact that one technique worked great against one opponent says as much about the opponent as the technique. This is the real reason that, even given centuries of combat, no ultimate technique has really been distilled, because no one can prove what it is. The fact that Mick Coup could kick many people's asses using only boxing, for example, doesn't prove or disprove that boxing is or isn't all you need. We're in an era where many people ARE trying to refine fighting to some kind of objective science (this technique is demonstrably, mathematically, better than that one), but it's been in an era of alchemy almost since people started fighting.
Malt454 I get what you are saying, except combat sports have proven techniques.
@@eclipsewrecker - They are proven within a sports context, but as not as well proven outside of one.
@@eclipsewrecker - Just as a follow up: Can the world's best chess player beat the world's best checker player? Can the world's best boxer beat the world's best wrestler? Perhaps, but in what context? There's enough contention within chess, checkers, boxing and wrestling about what do in any given situation, let alone against someone who is playing a different game altogether, or a game that really has no rules. Expert fighters in any style have a good idea of what to do against someone using the same style/rules because, broadly speaking, they know what the opponent will and won't do but, even in that context, there's no one-size-fits-all solution/technique. Any given technique might, in itself, be sound, but it still might not be the proper tool, depending on the job.
Expert fighters taking on untrained people have a good chance of making the fight into whatever suits them but, even then, they can be surprised, so there's no proven technique that can guarantee victory. Many people are sold lessons based on the idea that "evolved" technique will more than compensate for other real-world factors, such as size and strength, but no such super technique has emerged, inside or outside sports - even within boxing, a flyweight taking on a heavyweight has their work cut out for them, and that's within the context of agreed rules.
Malt454 who is suggesting that there is one move that guarantees victory? The video was discussing a technique within a move.
There isn’t one “technique” that guarantees victory in the sports you referenced, but there is superior technique to accomplish the move (or “technique”).
@@eclipsewrecker - Right, so any given technique, or even set of techniques, is "proven" to work... some of the time, against some opponents, because fighting has more variables than the high jump. It certainly depends upon the definition of "proven".
I do find the question very interesting, given that, for millennia, people have been looking, very seriously, for the best way to use their bodies in personal combat, and still haven't arrived at a clear answer. Knowing something, if it doesn't lead to over confidence, is usually better than knowing nothing, and pressure-tested seems to be better than non-pressure tested but, beyond that, what do we know about proven technique, except that proven in an artificial sport environment?
Great stuff as always from Mick
Real deal stuff right here.
How to fight with armor, ammo, and weapons is much different. Even in hand to hand, which is why grappling is heavily emphasized. Punched in the head doesn't work when the guy is wearing a helmet. A person can't set up head shots with body blows when the guy is wearing a flak jacket. The chop makes alot more sense for striking between these.
Truth!
Dickhead: "It's battle proven."
Mick Croup: "Yeah? Which battle was that?"
Fucking classic.
this shouldn't even be a discussion if you ask me
this should be common knowledge by now
I love teachers of reality. In the striking martial arts that is sorely lacking.