Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Liberty,
The thing that seems hard for you to grasp here is that it is precicesly the experience of what's new and different that allows us to find what works. Make it fancy and philosophical if you like, but it's not. You can use terms like "transcending technique" if it makes you feel like you're identifying with Bruce Lee, but the simple fact is, all that means is "finding out what works best for you." And here's a newsflash:

What "works for you" will change over time if you're doing it right. If you get settled in and find a great way to throw a straight punch or a side kick, and all of a sudden, the way people fight changes? You're going to fall behind and your art will not work as well as it once did. That's a fact in all walks of life, not just fighting. The wat Dick Fosbury did the high jump was made obsolete when someone invented the Western Roll, even though it worked astonishingly well for Dick Fosbury before that time. The way people shot a basketball before Hank Lusetti started doing something called a "jump shot" was the most effective tool of the day, until Lusetti changed the way the game is played by continuing to grow. The way people trained to run the mile before Roger bannister came along was drastically different from the way they did it after he broke the four minute barrier. If people stuck to "what worked for them" in the face of all those examples of innovation, they'd have vanished into obscurity. Many did exactly that. Others, however, decided that they needed to keep learning. They researched the training of the innovators, and they adopted the things that worked. They "added" training methods and techniques in order to raise their game.

Now if you choose to believe that there is no "addition" of material when comparing an instinctive kick at a mouse and the round kick of a Thai Boxer, then that's up to you. That choice and that belief won't make you right, however. As for "decoding the laws of combat?" That's the simplest thing in the history of mankind. Combat is not a difficult thing to understand. It's perhaps the simplest thing in the human experience to define. The things that make combat effective are not mysteries. The "laws" that govern it are not hidden from view. Combat is simple, it is direct, and it is forever missed by people who have not experienced it. The reason I lose patience with the philosophical rambling is because it smacks of armchair quarterbacking. If you're talking about a fight, here's the simple truth of the matter: Do more than the other man is willing to do, and do it sooner. That's it. That's all. Fighting on any scale can be distilled right down to that one statement. That's why you got nailed in the face while thinking about techniques. it's also why you succeeded the next time. Everything beyond that is shit. Take that as you like.