WOO factor

[Goju]

ANyone heard of this????

I dont often read it, but I read in the last Black Belt magazine about this thing that this guy created called WOO factor.

It stands for (W)indow. (O)F.(O)pportunity factor. It takes basic and advanced techniques of various styles, and predicts how effective they are.

It can be set up in chart form by taking the technique and then placing it in various situations, like close range, long range, grappling etc. It is then given a rating on how effective it would be in each situation (i think its a rating of 1-3). AN average is given at the end of the chart and it shows how effective a technique is overall.

example:

jab: close range-(3) long range-(2) grappling-(1)

jumping spinning hook kick: close-(1) long-(1) grappling-(0)

I think its a good system for helping to choose a style or a fighting preference based on techniques.

Anyone heard of it?? thoughts///

[Cain]

IMHO a rating system to judge arts/techniques is the last thing we need in todays world, a factor called common sense\personal experience is a serious competition to WOO ;)

For some the cross punch may work at it's best in lose range while for some it's best at a longer range, it's different for eneryone ie we all have got our own individual "charts"


Except me! :D

|Cain|

[Terry Matthes]

Black belt magazine isn't the best piece of reading to find objective opinions on martial arts. However, If you want to be able to take on 5 men in the middle of a dark alley, I am sure they have the articles you're looking for :D

[Noodle]

Comparing martial art styles only serve a limited functionality:

1) It is good for entertainment value

2) It serves as an educational tool to understanding the distictions of given styles

3) It serves as an educational tool to understanding an underlying culture

4) It serves as an educational tool to understanding the history surrounding a style

Comparing martial art styles does not serve as a valid measure to the potency of a given style. The reason for this is that the return value on any action or series of actions is directly related to the input factors. The main input factor being the persons dedication to a given martial arts style. In other words, if a person puts alot into a style of fighting, they will become very good at it.

Take for example someone who simply gets into bar fights consistantly and with high frequency for a long period of their life. All things being equal, one can expect this person to become a fairly good fighter and would probably be the better in a fight with the majority of shodans today (speaking only for Western society).

If one puts in a great amount of effort into perfecting their art, they should expect great results. But the reality is that most people do not put in a great amount of effort. The retention rate at the average Western dojo is at most currently about 30 percent (and that is probably a high figure for most parts of the country). Of these 30 percent, what is the rate of dedication that could be describe as excellent? Usually not high. Take a look around your dojo and ask how many people commit an incredible amount of their life to the art. That's a vague question so let us put a number on it. Ask yourself how many people in your dojo commit at least 4 hours per day outside of their scheduled classes for training (TRAINING, not thinking about martial arts). This is still a low number but I am confident even with this low number one would be able to find very many people. A realistic number would be a person that puts in an 6 to 12 hour day in training (in this case, including class time).

It is important to take a minute to mention that there is nothing wrong with not putting in that amount of time. Hey, everybody has a life, right? For most people, martial arts is something that they just do. Even the average "serious" martial artist of today is still only putting in enough time to truthfully call it just a hobby (I'm thinking that 2-4 hour training day). Most of us have jobs and families that prevent us from dedicating our lives to study. My point is that, at least in private, we should assess our level of commitment in order to understand what kind of results to expect and the timing of those results.

That being said, the only true measure of effectiveness of a given martial style is one's level of commitment to that style (or styles). Think about the past few decades and the styles that have become popular at various times (e.g., judo, karate, brazilian-jujitsu, etc.). Now ask yourself, what made those styles popular at those given times? Judo isn't as popular as it used to be. Jujitsu in general was not as popular as it is today (I cannot really use brazilian variation in this example because it is a newer style).

A style becomes popular, or the rage, when a dedicated fighter attracts attention. Judo has its Gene LaBell's; Kung-Fu in general has its Bruce Lee's, Jet Li's, Jackie Chan's, and Grasshopper's; Akido has its Steven Seagel's, Kickboxing has its Benny the Jet's, and running away screaming like a little girl has me.

Brazilian jujitsu and crosstraining (MMA for you catch phrase lovers) seem to be the current rage. Why? No doubt the Gracies had everything to do with that. Find a champion and you find a popular style or trend. Why do you find alot of ultimate type fighting winners tend to be grapplers? Because most of the competitors have taken up grappling. My money would be on more punchers and kickers winning if more competitors trained heavier in those styles. Tyson at his prime showed us what a good punch could do even with a heavily padded glove. Now take the fact that a kick should always be theoretically more powerful than a punch (if trained properly) and that should make more people think. Most fights end up on the floor because most fighters train to end up on the floor. Put two Brazilian jujitsu competitors in the ring and of course they will be on the floor in no time. Train on staying off and getting off the floor and you greatly increase your odds that is where the fight will be.

Alot of fighters adapt the copy cat response and switch their style of fighting to the style of the latest champion. The logic is that since they are not a champion in their current style, they will switch to the more "effective" style because obviously someone else has won with that style. The problem with this type of logic is not with the style. The problem is that the person is not training effectively or enough. In reasonable matchups (one-on-one, size, etc), the winner will 95 percent of the time be the competitor who trained harder. The other 5 percent of the time a pink elephant will crash through the ceiling an squash the better fighter leading to a victory by default to the lax competitor.

In summary, comparing martial arts styles is good to help the individual judge if they would be willing to dedicate a portion of time to a style. Some people like dressing up in a gi, if that would help them find the time to train then go for it. Some people do not like rank, others do, if that will positively effect their training then go for it. Some people like to wrestle, some people like to punch, some people like to kick, some people like diversity--if that will encourage you to train, then go for it. Some people like tradition, some people like religious overtones, some people like chaos: if that will make you train then find it and go.

The questions IS NOT what would match your current personality best. This IS NOT a good question because, face it, you are not the martial artist you want to be yet, or else, you would not be seeking a style. The GOOD types of questions are:

1) What do you want out of martial arts training?
2) What aspects of a style appeal to you.
3) What aspects of a style would encourage you to train?
4) What aspects of a style would discourage you to train?
5) How accessible is the style to you? (How far would you have to travel, where can you train outside the dojo)
6) ... fill in the rest of your questions ...

The bottom line is that a style ultimately is as effective as the amount of training you put into it. My only disclaimer is that I am refering to legitamate styles and not charletans that read a book and create the Ifoo-ryu style of fighting.

[Goju]

I dont know what the hell that post was about....Anyway the article was interesting, but it did sound kinda strange..I couldnt understand why someone would need tha, but I guess it could be good for some things.

[Noodle]

The short answer is that assuming a given style is legitamate: a style does not make a person great, it is the person that makes the style great.

Using a WOO factor or other "measure" of a style has little meaning, all that matters is how much a person is willing to commit to training in a style.

[Longshot421]

..A style becomes popular, or the rage, when a dedicated fighter attracts attention. Judo has its Gene LaBell's; Kung-Fu in general has its Bruce Lee's, Jet Li's, Jackie Chan's, and Grasshopper's; Akido has its Steven Seagel's, Kickboxing has its Benny the Jet's, and running away screaming like a little girl has me...

Though perhaps a little off the topic of the original post, I think this was an excellent comment on how we of the western world tend to approach martial arts. I had to quote the above portion because I thought it was just so damn funny. :D But the whole thing neatly summarised many of my thoughts about Martial Arts "journalism" today. Well said Noodle.

Now, about the original post (WOO factor): I read the article and this is my opinion: It attempts to summarise martial arts experience and distill it to a number system. Any martial artist who has spent some time sparring, particularly with people from different styles and dojos, will develop this kind of system in their head. Everybody evetually comes up with what combinations/counters/attacks etc. work against other attacks/counters/styles etc. It becomes part of the way we practice our art. It is an evolution of the martial artist. Attempting to put a numbered system together to take the place of that may speed learning, so an individual can benefit from your experience, but in the end, it is still going to come down to how that individual practices their own art. For example, someone with short legs but long arms may find their punches work better where another might have used kicks. I find my yoko geri works better than my mawashi geri etc. What I'm getting at is that how you approach your art and what you choose to put in your "arsenal" of techiniques is an evolutionary process and will vary from person to person and over time. Having someone else tell you what technique to use when may point you in the right direction, but it may end up moving you away from a technique that was more naturally suited to you. Just my opinion. :D

[Goju]

I wasnt really trying to say that it will show which system is better (because of course, no ma is the best one). I really just thought it could help someone who knew what they wanted to do, i.e. punching, kicking, but didnt know which ma to pick.

[Longshot421]

I wasnt really trying to say that it will show which system is better (because of course, no ma is the best one). I really just thought it could help someone who knew what they wanted to do, i.e. punching, kicking, but didnt know which ma to pick.

Yes, I agree, my longish rant was purely based on my gut response when I read the article, and a discussion we had been having at the dojo about what technique to use when. No ma is the best one - I like that. I had a similar thought about blocks - the best block is the one you weren't there to make (It was my goofball take on Tai Sabaki). Anyway, I just got carried away. :D

[Lame Leopard]

I read that article too and it really was a great article. I guess you can get all scientific about it, but the crux was to take what the opponent gives you, which many times is the closest most vulnerable area and go for it. When windows of opportunities close, it is our fault for not taking advantage of them. We are taught this in kenpo all the time.

This WOO stuff can be applied to life in general whether it be a job opportunity, a date with a girl, or the opportunity to strike first and hard if necessary. Since I read the article I have thought much harder about how to make these opportunities open in SD situations.

[Ikken Hisatsu]

Brazilian jujitsu and crosstraining (MMA for you catch phrase lovers) seem to be the current rage. Why? No doubt the Gracies had everything to do with that. Find a champion and you find a popular style or trend. Why do you find alot of ultimate type fighting winners tend to be grapplers? Because most of the competitors have taken up grappling. My money would be on more punchers and kickers winning if more competitors trained heavier in those styles. Tyson at his prime showed us what a good punch could do even with a heavily padded glove. Now take the fact that a kick should always be theoretically more powerful than a punch (if trained properly) and that should make more people think. Most fights end up on the floor because most fighters train to end up on the floor. Put two Brazilian jujitsu competitors in the ring and of course they will be on the floor in no time. Train on staying off and getting off the floor and you greatly increase your odds that is where the fight will be.


I agree with most of what you said except this. in the early UFC's a lot of the guys trained ONLY in punching and kicking. and they got schooled. the reason strikers cross train now is to avoid that. cro cop is one of the best because he learned how to grapple well enough to stay on his feet. Mark Hunt is one of the most powerful punchers in K-1, but when he recently tried UFC, he got schooled by a grappler.

[Nrv4evr]

in a world where people judge you based on your personality quiz score, i wouldn't be too reliant on a 3 number system from a not exactly perfect mag.