Lets make up a list of discrepancies between theory and practice in martial arts and then discuss why individually. According to the free dictionary, theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested of is widely accepted and can be use to make predictions about natural phenomena; practice is to do or perform habitually or customarily, or carry out in action, etc.
Ok - Theory: "I don't need to learn to grapple because I will never get taken down in a REAL fight" Practice: "Please let go of that armbar it hurts" Theory: "I train for the street not the ring" Practice: "Please stop hitting me in the face whilst I am trying to poke you in the eyes...stay still dammit...this worked in class...."
Slightly tongue in cheek obviously, but the core point is that theory must by tempered by training and experience...take either away and the theory is at best unproven and in all likelihood utter shash
Ultimately it depends on the raison d'etre of the art of course. Olympic TKD needs no justification other than allowing you to win Olympic TKD bouts. That's what it exists for. But assuming some claim of self defence relevance we get into murkier waters. Hannibal makes good points. Or the current converse, "I don't need to learn striking because BJJ wins every real fight" Or, "I've done kick/thai/boxing pad work for years, of course I know how to strike I think the real fallacy is varied but consistent, "I don't need to train under realistic conditions because...." fill in the blank. It's tricky to define "realistic conditions,", but ultimately you need to be able to do what you do against someone who doesn't want you to do it and is intent on hurting you. Mitch
There is pure technique and applied technique. Applied technique is unique to the individual. Pure technique is, theoretically universal. But how do you know what you can do until you've applied it when it matters? If you think pure technique is what matters most, good luck with that.
One art which has plenty of theories and concepts to draw from is Wing Chun. One of the more well known Wing Chun theories is the triangle concept, which physically manifests in the pigeon-toed stance. Amongst the schools that fight (e.g Alan Orr's) you will never see the pigeon-toed stance used under pressure, mainly because it doesn't work. The inward turned feet reduce the ability to create power from your hips, reduce the speed of your footwork, and make you look fairly silly.
From my Aikido days (not me personally): Theory: "Drill it slow and gentle, then you'll become so familiar with the movement that you can do it under pressure". Practice: "Ah, god damn it, stop resisting! Why can't I make this work?!" Theory: "We don't need to learn to move on the ground because no-one's gonna take you down in a street fight if you have good Aikido." Practice: *fat green belt falls over while grabbing black belt, takes them both to the ground, mounts black belt and gets into position for pound and ground* ** ** That one was me (the green belt). Theory: "Go on, attack me with the knife, it's jiyu waza so any attack you like and I have to defend". Practice: "No! You're not supposed to attack like that! Attack the way you're told to!" :bang: Love Aikido, but of the attitudes that certain people had that I met (and some I trained with) when I still practised...wow. Just wow.
Do you mean Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma ? Have to admit I haven't ever been told it's for fighting. I've no doubt some would be daft enough to try it but it's beyond me why.
For enlightenment check out this thread on Martial Talk: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/71454-Yee-Gee-Kim-Yeung-Ma-for-Training-or-Fighting, it seems fairly common for that stance to be treated as a fighting stance.
Muto dori. Theory: I will be able to disarm the bloke with the blade by superior use of distance. Practice: bloke with blade has all the advantages and controls the distance at will, "excuse me is this your arm?"
I think that theory is being unfairly characterized here as armchair hypothesizing. I'll try my hand at one. Theory: How you train is how you fight. Prediction: By training a person in a loose ruleset combat sport, we will adequately prepare her or him for hand to hand combat. Test: Take a trained person and place them into hand to hand combat. Support will go one way or the other in our experiment, we will adjust our practice for training accordingly.
I came across the article by Dr Yiannakis on the true meaning of Ju in Judo and Jujutsu: "In summary, we see ju as applying to the concepts of: (i) Psychological Flexibility (ii) Strategic Flexibility (iii) Technique Efficiency (iv) Physical Pliability When employed in combination these four principles enable tori to reach a high state of mind-body unity and it is this state that best exemplifies the true meaning and application of ju." This sounds like a very good guideline for practice and it must be grounded in years of observations and practices.
Thanks, so we got one example. I think this is situational, in a close up situation with the opponent grabs your upper arms and kick you between the legs with a shin kick then a pointy toes stance might have a better chance to survive.