Jeeeze... if sloppiness doesn't matter, what's the purpose of training? Sometimes the crap here amazes me.

And what's the deal here with "aliveness"? That's the best we can do? It isn't even a word.

We're down to the bottom of the barrel if we can make up a word like aliveness and then cop an attitude to people for not understanding it. Come on folks, there's people here whose English is a second language that do better than "aliveness"?

Ok a lot us like to bring MMA as a measuring tool and so I will here.

You Look at the Crippler fight against Silva, I've always thought that the Crippler does a lot of things well but not sharp he mostly fights with his heart and solid chin. But against a skilled striker that throws efficeint precise shots he was beaten at his on game power punching.

What does that have to do with sloopy or effective? The more efficeint the techinique the shorter time to deliever thus you beat them to the strike, hit harder and more often.

Of course sharp precise strikes are create through repetitive drills and someone watching refining these techniques.

I believe left alone either through ignorance or bull headness sloopiness remains unchanged until someone reaches them to help change it. Trained Live or Dead by the beforemention definitions

Sloopiness isn't ineffective until you face a superior technicain.

Joss, Ironfoot -

I may not be wording the question properly. We often see fighters derided for "bad technique", even though they win. Of course, perfecting technique can help with the application. But is there a point of diminishing returns, where the technique is "good enough" to do the job, and further refinement is of less value?

Quote:

---

But is there a point of diminishing returns, where the technique is "good enough" to do the job, and further refinement is of less value?

---

Matt your sentence captures the what could be called the "paradox of purpose".

It caputres the question but cannot answer it. The question or concept of "good enough" can be asked of a specific technique, art or, individual.

My personal view is that the purpose of refinement and it's value, rests in our ability to accurately assess ourselves and be used as an aid in personal growth.

Further refinement is of less value when it is used to measure others.

Quote:

---

I do not appreciate you trying to slander me. I don't change people's quotes. I asked a question AFTER your quote, (question was my own), but I never altered your quote.

---

Matt I was just bustin your chops. You left out my prior sentence which sets up what you quoted so people would understand what I meant.

So you didn't change my words, but you changed the spirt of them by ommision, which I thought was clearly to get a rise out of one John "Aliveness" Korgos, which btw you did.

I thought it was funny, are you pleading innocent of all charges?

I absolutely think there is a point of diminishing returns in the pursuit of perfect technique. But then you move to the next technique. There are only so many hours per week to train and, if all you ever do is seek the perfect punch, you might never learn to put yourself where you need to be to launch it. The punch is just ONE technique. In an MA "lifetime" most have to choose between a few techniques learned exceptionally well, and a lot learned poorly. Everyone falls in there somewhere. "Technique", to me, is what makes martial arts the equalizer that could allow me to survive against someone bigger, younger or stronger - BUT WITH LESS SKILL than I have.

But so much of what I read on this board seems to focus on who is the quickest, biggest, strongest and baddest in competetive fighting. To me, all that is just natural athleticism, refined so that it might be pitted against others with similar refinements. In the end, technique washes out. It isn't really about technique because everyone knows what everyone else is doing. At that level, technique is a given.

If it was a football game, it's the same. As much as the game is studied these days, it is someone bringing another level of physical ability to the field that wins games more than technique. The NFL draft is all about gaining that game breaker talent. That's where competitive fighting is.

But here's a question.... is martial arts just about the very few people right at the top of the competitive fighting food chain? Or is it about the thousands of run of the mill people, lots of us who DON'T have tons of natural ability.

As I age I realize that if I am confronted, to survive, I will have to "cheat" with techniques that counter youth and strength. These have to be pretty flawless to have any chance of success.

So, for us "Joe Average's", taking the slack out of sloppy techniques is a lifetime committment. It's pursued through training. And efficiency of technique is maybe the most we hope for.

Quote by Oldman -

Quote:

---

Matt your question sucks.

---

Fixed that for you, Mark.

I will concede that my question is probably not a good one. I know what I mean, but I can't seem to articulate it properly. Oh well.

Kimo -

I am pleading innocent on all charges. I did not intend to 'get a rise out of anyone' in particular. I was going for everybody.

I did not see the need to pull your entire statement, since I was only concerned with the one comment - which I did not alter.

Matt,

Quote:

---

Matt your question sucks.

---

Quite the contrary. It is potentialy profound.

May anyone provide a solid definition of "sloppy technique" please? It seems like everyone has his own perception of "sloppy technique"...