flow fighters vs technical fighters. all theory

[bo1]

it seems we have 2 schools of thought on fighting prowess, basically breaking down into 2 theories, yes theories.

so a quick definition so we are all on the same page:
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:
it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

The term is often used colloquially to refer to any explanatory thought, even fanciful or speculative ones, but in scholarly use it is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. These requirements vary across different fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

i am probibly mistaken as i am more of a technical fighter, but these are my observations.

it seems to me that a flow fighter is more focused on getting into the movement and feel of the fight. not restricting themselves with style and stance. generally i see them with a more offensive thought process. i have seem them throw very odd angles and strange body positions. often times i wonder how the heck they got into the position they are in. seems like they accept mistakes as long as they machinegun as fast as they can. weapon blocking is not a priority, although this may be just a select few who think this way.
fighters of note: bahkdar, soo mio tia( spelled wrong, sorry)

a technical fighter is all about the probiblity, playing the odds. they are usually perfecting there stance, making sure there gaurd is in perfect position. super defence, making fewest mistakes as possible. forcing the other fighter to make mistakes and taking the safer shots when the target becomes available. weapon blocking is usually a big part of this defence.
fighters of note: peter and kenny

now lets not start with all the crap here, please. i do not want to hear that flow fighters are just an excuse for **** form and tech fighters cant react to what they dont understand.

so my questions are
what makes a good technical fighter?
so what makes good a flow foghter?
what are the advantages of a flow fighter and what are the advantages of a technical fighter?

[Drudge]

Could you please clarify something, Sir Beau? In this post, do you mean "flo" as short for "flow" (i.e., one who "goes with the flow") to be the opposite of your "technical" side, or are you merely abbreviating florentine?

[Soo Ma Tai]

From what I have seen so far, those who have been talking about "Flo fighters" have been talking about twin weapon, or Flourentine fighters, not "Flow" fighters. Though I think you are right, there are Flow Fighters, and there are Strategists. Two very different schools of combat.

P.S. Flourentine is a specific school of combat that uses Rapier and Main Gauche, to call anything else flourentine is a horrible mis-representation. It's just the commonly used term to describe a fighter weilding two weapons.

[Drudge]

P.S. Flourentine is a specific school of combat that uses Rapier and Main Gauche, to call anything else flourentine is a horrible mis-representation. It's just the commonly used term to describe a fighter weilding two weapons.

Kudos for knowing that, Soo. I groan a little every time I see two weapons swung about wildly being called Florentine.

I figured since he was talking about two distinct styles of fighting, it could be possible he meant "flow," since a two-weapon fighter could be "technical" or a sword-and-board fighter could be one who "goes with the flow".

[Soo Ma Tai]

I believe you are right, on the two schools thing, I just think he came by the idea because of what has been said in other threads about "flo fighters"
and thanks.

[Juicer]

I'm fairly sure he means "flow"

so my questions are
what makes a good technical fighter?
so what makes good a flo foghter?
what are the advantages of a flo fighter and what are the advantages of a technical fighter?

I consider myself a somewhat technical flow fighter. It also really depends on my weapon set.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who can discuss what makes a good technical fighter much better than I can.

A good flow fighter needs to have sufficient mastery of all the basics; footwork, good shot placement, shield work, and above all good awareness. It helps if you get good at reacting before things happen (reading people). A good offense is often a good defense. Scoff at "machine gunning" all you want, it can really overwhelm a great many opponents and cause even the more experienced technical fighters to falter if they aren't prepared for it (and sometimes even when they are).

A few major advantages of the flow fighter: Turning every fight into a fast-paced workout will increase your hand and foot speed, and your endurance (I know a fair amount of flow fighters who smoke and drink and are still speedy as ****). Having less thought in your movement allows more thought for other things, like what that archer over there is aiming that, or when to spin your shield behind you for that guy running up. The offensive nature of flow fighters makes a good flow fighter an effective force on the field, dealing with each fight quickly and moving on to the next one just as fast.

[Derian]

Juicer has some good points.

Up until about a year ago, I was primarily a flow fighter. I'm trying to move into a more analytical stage right now because I had hit a plateau and I feel that that's the next logical step for me.

Flow fighters can be very effective - Bhakdar is a good example of this. He's always described himself as a flow fighter and he's a badass. Flow is necessary and will certainly help you progress as a fighter, but it doesn't have to come at the expense of analytical thinking.

[Arrakis]

Florentine was a style invented in the SCA to describe fighting with a pair of salad forks. It has no historical basis in anything. Ever.

That said, I love fighting Florentine!



I consider myself technical but savor any chance to hit flow-state while fighting. It can do nothing but improve me.

[Derian]

Before we go too far in this - I don't think Bo was talking about flow experience, as in Psychology. I think he was talking about fighting and let the fight take you where it may or fighting by instinct.

[Drudge]

Before we go too far in this - I don't think Bo was talking about flow experience, as in Psychology. I think he was talking about fighting and let the fight take you where it may or fighting by instinct.

^This.

Edit: With that being laid out, I tend to "flow" more, since the reading aspect of battle can mean the difference between being in the wrong place at the wrong time and being in the right place at the right time (although I more often than not wind up in the wrong place at the wrong time ).

However, since I've been reading this board in-depth, I know I'm going to be concentrating more on my technical side and monitoring my own footwork, shot selection, etc., since that was something I never paid much attention to before.

[Lokin]

When I'm on my game and not tired, my offense tends to be pretty technical. I plan my moves in order to push my opponent into a predictable situation that I can take advantage of. I scan my opponent and look for the open spots in their game. Past experience fighting that person also comes into play. "What do I know about this Fighter?", "What has he done in the past when I did x move?" The disadvantage of something like this though is that sometimes someone can do something unpredictable that I didn't have a plan for. Makes me freeze up and then I die.

My defense is all reactionary though. I don't plan to block... I just block. Especially as a S&B fighter you have this board and its used for blocking so block with it. Though I'm trying to break myself of this habit. And block with my weapon as well. Its one of the main reasons why I use a strap. Because if I were to use a Center Grip it would be everywhere.

The next big step in my game IMO will be to transition my Defense to a technical outlook.

[Snotbelly]

Well, I like your experiment here Bo...

I am a Flow fighter. I have some explanation of my style, that I will analyze for everyone. In my experience a flow fighter takes into account his surroundings (team mates, enemy line formations, and weapon styles of of both respectively) then utilizes this information to deploy and continually redeploy themselves along the battlefield. I also feel that I can alter my footwork and weapon style with ease. I also would like to point out that the flow fighters I know are aware that the best, or at least the most effective field tactic, is to strike from the side and/or back of the enemy. I do not agree that flow fighters are not strategic fighters, I might go so far as to say without the ability to flow with one's team you are simply a liability to your team in your lack of teamwork ability.

I would like to ask some questions... I mean no disrespect by my line of questions here, but answer as best you can...

If you could trace the origin of Flow fighting would it's path not lead to Dur-Demarion?

If you could trace Technical fighting where did it originate?

So Ma Tai - Where did you learn to fight?

In my honest opinion Belegarth's styles derived from groups of Dag that had different opinions on the aspects of the game. The two primary groups of amazing fighters then spread themselves out along and predating the belegarth timeline. Ivan formed the realm Northlands. Shadow formed the realm Mordor. Do these groups hold primarily flow or tech fighters?

Galin and Misty moved from Avalon to Numenor. I moved from Dur-Demarion to Numenor. Did the influx of our three fighting styles in Numenor change a largre portion of IL fighting tactics?

Did Iowa fighters learn from sparring with fighters from other realms, or does Iowa hold a unique third style?

What forms works best for you, is ultimately the question one should ask themselves. I offer this advice... Never think the old dogs don't learn new tricks... Keep your mind open and learn from others, even if you don't want to fight them on the field or spar them off the field. Just watch and learn.

[Derian]

Did Iowa fighters learn from sparring with fighters from other realms, or does Iowa hold a unique third style?

I know this is a bit outside the scope of this thread, but that's ok.

It's my opinion that Iowa fighters generally have a unique style. As a whole, I've not encountered anyone that fights like Iowa does. From what I hear, we're a lot closer to a lot of the Western fighters, both individually and groupwise, but I can't say from experience.

Most of the initial Iowa skill came from people like Bhakdar, Peter, Falkor and Rudzok. Sure, they were definitely influenced by Illinois fighters (mostly), but they also helped to create that initial Iowa fighting style by working amongst themselves and passing on what they knew.

[Juicer]

(still off topic) From what I've seen of Iowa, they definitely have more of a westernish style than an easternish one. In my awesome opinion.

[Soo Ma Tai]

Funny you should ask that Snotty my friend. Back in the day, I first started fighting with Grim Felltooth, before I ever went to the field, I had a pretty good grasp on a few shots. Then I went out, and got smoked, a lot, really badly. So I worked on that **** and got better, fast. A great deal of my style came from my background in Martial Arts...primarily Kenpo Karate and Modern Arnis/Escrima. Once the Orcs kinda fell away I was left alone on the field. I spent a week fighting with (and I shudder) Hawkins, before Shadow asked me to fight with the DA. This was when Shadow was still 17, and I spent then next year or so refining my skills and sparring with Kelsey and Larrick and those guys, along with wolfpackin the **** outta the Dur-D field. Shadow had a big influence on my style and I had a big influence on his as well, we learned a lot from each other. I learned to flow from him, he learned some more tech from me, it was a mutually beneficial experience. I wish I had been able to stay in Nashville, but real life called. The last thing I did was give him a set of twin dao swords fro his 18th B-day. I would agree that the flowing style of combat, with many turns etc, came directly from Dur-D, and primarily from the DA and it's influence.

As far as tech vs. flow, I think that to be a good flow fighter you have to have good technique. You'll only be as good as your technique allows for. If your technique is poor and you only know a couple of shots, no matter how good your flow is, you'll still get smoked. I think that even those who call themselves Tech fighters are still are still flow fighters when it comes down to it. They just think about combat a lot more when they aren't fighing. In battle everything happens at muscle memory speed, it all about what you've committed to muscle memory and how any ways you can apply it. Eventually you find there are only so many tools, so then you are forced to find new and inventive ways to use those tools.

[Kenneth]

The primary theory behind my fighting also came from martial arts, that I adapted to fit to Belegarth.

This is my thinking, although I've only thought a brief few minutes on this topic:

Technical fighters may have a focus more on what has gone wrong, rather than what has gone right in a battle. I suppose you could say the focus is merely being stronger where an opponent is weak, instead of being stronger than them overall. The ability to quickly determine what has gone wrong, is the first mark of a technical fighter.

Perhaps as importantly, technical fighters may be better able to generate a means to capitalize on what has gone wrong. Just because you see something is wrong, doesn't mean you can take advantage of it. However, a technical fighter will figure out factors such as: (1) This is what I would be risking in this shot; (2) This is what they would be risking; (3) If my attempt fails, this is what I would be risking; (4) This is the most probable result of my action.

Identifying weaknesses is the first step of a technical fighter. The second step is to generate ways to capitalize on that weakness. Once both steps have been completed, it practically requires a rework of a non-technical opponent's style to tilt the scale of battle again. In other words, technical fighters may be able to generate theories on their own to adapt to battles by sitting at home, whereas a "flo" fighter has to get the feel of it, and physically perform the action.

A technical fighter tries to adapt the battle to him. A "flo" fighter tries to adapt to the battle.

Just my thoughts.

[Juicer]

That's a good point, Sir Kenneth, and I think that's the main difference between flow and tech fighters.

Another difference is their major focus:
Tech fighters focus mainly on predicting what their opponent is going to do.
Flow fighters focus mainly on being unpredictable.

When the two encounter each other, I think it mainly comes down to whoever accomplishes that goal.

The truly great fighters have a healthy dose of both.

[Shino]

There is more than one way to swing a sword.
I guess by those definitions that I would be considered a flo fighter. I rely primarily on fakes and striking combinations to get my opponent to open up for a specific shot that I am looking to throw. I am mostly reactionary in my though process. I look for opportunity or try to create it with little thought to what my opponent is thinking or what degree of risk I am taking. I hope that my reactions will save me instead of knowing that my stance will protect me.

If I fight a fighter with a very solid stance I will try to use my fakes to make them break their stance and make a mistake. I don't machine gun unless I am trying to break past a weak defense using only one move. (I see this in fighting vids from everywhere, it's not exclusive to flo fighters) I'm never swinging wildly or flailing when trying to defeat someone, I'm only setting up for a critical strike. This is why I don't shun the high cross. It works because I make it work for me.

To me, to "flo" is to seek to confuse. Fighters in my realm use hip fakes, head fakes, pump fakes, foot shuffles and shield fakes to great degree success. Our styles are a mix of text book shot placement and years of experience with progressive and experimental shots and blocks. A flo fighter is smart and is able to change his style on the spot to trump that of another fighter. I am conformable fighting at range (A Range? what?) and shield to shield. I will fake you out at both distances. If you step into me I will wrap/hook/cross/chop you and you will probably die. This may be more of a style argument than a psychological argument however.

Flo fighters have no real advantage over a technical fighter nor does the technical fighter have a distinct advantage over a flo fighter. It all boils down to experience and that is the bottom line.
Flo fighters make lousy line fighters but excellent flankers. We can skirmish and control small field situations with pinpoint accuracy but our group tactics dissolve against large formations. I love to fight technical fighters. I feel that I can surprise them and if I do I will kill them. A sound technical fighter will put me in the dirt half the time if they don't over react to my shenanigans.

I agree with Kennith on his technical fighter theory. It is sound.

[Shino]

If you could trace the origin of Flow fighting would it's path not lead to Dur-Demarion?

This is presumptuous. You mean to classify flo fighting as a style like florentine, high guard/low guard, or mantis. What I think Bo is trying to get at is that flo fighters and technical fighters are two different mentalities of fighters. This couldn't originate from just one location.

If you could trace Technical fighting where did it originate?

See above. It's all about a fighter's thought process.

So Ma Tai - Where did you learn to fight?

School of hard knocks.

[Michael]

Yet again this board comes through with a topic near and dear to my heart. In Amtgard we have long spoken of two schools that break down along these lines. The terms we use in that game are Analytical vs. Instinctive fighters, but the break down is very similar to what Bo describes.

The first time I talked about these ideas with a wide range of skilled Amtgard fighters was at SKBC 2003. We had an instructor panel at the end of the event and we talked a little about it. We also did a show of hands on which fighters considered themselves primarily instinctive and which considered themselves primarily analytical. The breakdown was about even. We have had this same discussion and show of hands at each SKBC since then and the break down now tends a little toward analytical but its still very divided.

Juicer made a very salient observation, IMO, when he said that “The truly great fighters have a healthy dose of both.” That’s because fighters who start as analytical need to build strong fighting instincts to put their analysis into effect, while those who start with just instinct will plateau without the analytical tools to guide their instincts. Even short of greatness, all decent fighters use both analysis and instinct.

Teaching others to fight or even posting about fighting here is a great way to force yourself to use critical analysis on your skills. This makes every fighter better at the technical side over time. However, all the armchair work in the world means nothing without the fighter practices to try it out in. This experimentation goes beyond just verifying technical theory, though. Fighter practice also builds the fighting instincts we need to survive.

The fastest thinking analytical machines among us don’t compute every minor probability all the way out. Rather we all leave a high amount of basic decisions to sound fighting instincts built up over years of practice. On the other hand, even the fighter who goes most by flow and instinct will have at least a high level plan on how to maximize his or her chances of winning.

[bo1]

yes flow, not florentine. sorry for any confusion, thanks for the answers.

[Bhakdar]

Aye, this thread is most stimulating in commentary on both camps. Numerous comments I have read and thought to myself "that coined it really well." I agree heartily with the sentiment that the most adept fighters blend both worlds. If I may add:

Shino-- I get your drift responding to Snotbelly but I don't think this would sound as presumptuous if you had started fighting in the midwest. Having traveled all over myself, I definitely would affirm the idea that Numenor and Dur-D were the two of the biggest players of Belegarth influence in the midwest and could be accurately generalized as Numenor being the analytic and Dur-D the flow & flashy. (I don't mean to slight Avalon here, another significant camp-- Ohio is one of few major regions I haven't lived & fought in).

In addition, some camps like Iowa and the West, who began as distant splinters with their own space to evolve, do have their distinctive style and flavor as a result. You can visibly see and physically experience this difference if you come from a realm archetype and travel to fight in these places. You will likely be a bit surprised. I learned as early as my second year of going to events that I could easily be a top fighter at home, but go fight a national mid-level fighter from another group and get humbled. I feel this exists even at elite levels and is a vital component of growth amongst elite fighters. You've gotta see things outside of your box if major evolution beyond plateaus will be made.

I feel Peter and Bo have recently done this by absorbing Amtgard analytic influence. I am braking plateau by integrating that analysis, my diverse background, and fighting in a realm full of 5-15 year veterans who I'm on the whole just getting familiar with. I also feel that the independent evolution of groups often leads to being a major strength. For example, I remember that because Peter, Falkor, and I went to spar all the vets when we could at nationals, but then had only each other to pound through plateaus with at home-- very early in our fighting careers we could go head to head with top fighters of established groups like Numenor, Wolfpack, Avalon, and Dur Demarion. As the cookie crumbled, Peter and Falkor took a lot more Numenorian influence and rolled with Henneth Annun's hard contact form while I joined Horde & Hellhammer and sparred a lot of Dark Angels. Definitely some analytic contrasted to flow development. I'll post some videos of Tir Asleen sparring and practice in our 3rd-4th years for some example.

What makes a good analytic fighter? Analysis complimented by lots of practice?
What makes a good flow fighter? Forgetting all you've learned and fighting like you mean it? For fun?

[Bhakdar]

I feel these videos may show some evolution of styles grounded in analytical & proper form fundamentals in contrast to flow fighting. Watch out for Falkor and Peter to consistently use structured form and stance while you may see fighters like Ahki and I be a lot more flowy in spins, reaching shots, and more rambunctious aggressive maneuvers.

Tir Asleen Sparring 2003 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5582439362326293779
Fighters: Peter, Falkor, Ninuvin, Bhakdar
Note Peter is dropping his shield or leg to an honor style he maintained while part of TDK.

Tir Asleen Sparring 2005 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4849771746792406997
Fighters: Falkor, Bhakdar, Ahki
This is a favorite of mine taken just before Falkor and I graduated Iowa State. We're all showing intensity and Falkor and I are trying to blazen Ahki with the responsibility of carrying on whoop-ass traditions in TA.

Tir Asleen Practice 2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6528896928389980674
Fighters: Daelenn, Calarn, Braiden, Peter, Bhakdar, Ahki
In this video you see stark contrast between Peter and I's fighting styles. He is very solid on guard, weapon block, & counter while I am all over the place with florentine. We're both trying to challenge ourselves against multiple opponents in group spars.

Also please note that I post this for example rather than critique. It is years ago at this point. There's lots of development going on in weapon blocking, multiple opponents, and working with and against wraps and angles in this video.

[p_quick]

god * i suck in those vids

[Bhakdar]

It was a different time and a different world, brother. Awareness of wraps, truly advanced wpn block & counter and shot diversity beyond 50% high cross was still developing in our game.

[The Great Gigsby]

Not to take away from the thread, but I think the analytical/instinctive dichotomy is a more accurate way of looking at the theory rather than technical/flow.

I remember a well known Amtgard fighter (I'm thinking Brennon or Clalibus) talking on E-Sam about having a branching strategy in every fight: "if my opponent throws feint A, then I can counter with shot B, C, or D. If they block shot C or D, then I'll throw E, etc. etc." That kind of attitude seems to be at the heart of an analytical/technical strategy. It's all about damage control. I'll see if I can dig up that thread later; it was a really good read.

[HERE IT IS!] premeditated shots

I feel extremely handicapped if I don't have a game plan during a fight. The problem for me is that --probably from lack of experience-- I can only plan a fight two or three steps in, at which point, if I haven't won, I fall apart. Sadly, as a lefty, I've gotten pretty good at finishing a fight in those two or three steps, but I get chewed up by any decent fighter that already knows the lefty game.

Flow for me is when I don't know how I'm reacting to the fight. My body will move before I can slow down enough to judge whether I'm making a smart decision. The obvious advantage is that because I don't necessarily know what's happening, my opponent is even more confused and I can definitely make some unconventional wins. Maybe that's more akin to "the zone." So, I would say I'm a technical fighter as far as it serves me, at which point I rely on flow to get the job done. Realistically, I'm pretty subpar at both, and mix and match them to compensate for my shortcomings in both areas.

I do believe that analysis will always trump instinct, all things being equal.

[Olos]

Maybe.

But of course, the pinnacle would be when your analysis becomes instinctual.

[Snotbelly]

What makes a good analytic fighter? Analysis complimented by lots of practice?

I feel a great analytical fighter, as others have said, depends on speed and muscle memory. Cold calculation of an enemy's weakness/ the ability to exploit said weakness only allows you to know where to strike, but the timing is everything.

What makes a good flow fighter? Forgetting all you've learned and fighting like you mean it?

I do not agree with this. I think what makes a good flow fighter is the ability to let go of needless senses and focus on "the now." The "Mind/No Mind" school of martial arts will aid anyone in the flow fighter arena. In feeling the freedom of your body's movement/ coupled with good instinct for combat, you fight effortlessly in one's own mind. I feel that the great flow fighters feel no inner restrictions, and perform best under that condition.

For fun?

This is where all fighters will exceed expectations. If you have no worries about winning, defeating an enemy, or your performance, you become great inevitably. One of the best intimidatory tactics lie in smiling during battle. The joy of combat is where you break through personal barriers. Especially once you learn that losing can be just as fun as winning. Watching another fighter defeat you, over and over again in your mind leads to emotional responses. If you defeat your emotions with the joy of combat, even when you are beaten, you never lose.

[Arkin]

I think all technical fighters flow at events.

[Arrakis]

I consider myself pretty technical/analytical, but I very rarely have a plan other than "See what happens and throw what looks open". Hmm.

[p_quick]

I consider myself pretty technical/analytical, but I very rarely have a plan other than "See what happens and throw what looks open". Hmm.

then i think that would classify you as more of a flow fighter, or a reaction fighter

[Shino]

I consider myself pretty technical/analytical, but I very rarely have a plan other than "See what happens and throw what looks open". Hmm.

then i think that would classify you as more of a flow fighter, or a reaction fighter

Seconded

[Arrakis]

Huh. I just don't think that I can really have a plan that works for all types of fighters, so I lock my defense down really hard and try to get them to show me where they're weak. Then, I formulate a plan and throw combos. I may be some weird hybrid.

[bo1]

i love the sound peter makes in the first vid at 6:53. priceless, nad again at 9:00. much love bud.

[bishoplod]

I got a smile out of that as well, and then also Falkor's reaction to Peter's revenge. I make similar noises when someone tags my ears

[Kerb]

Huh. I just don't think that I can really have a plan that works for all types of fighters, so I lock my defense down really hard and try to get them to show me where they're weak. Then, I formulate a plan and throw combos. I may be some weird hybrid.

That is sort of the the definition of reacting, you have a process so you dont get chumped immediately, but you are still reacting to what your opponent gives you.

What you should start doing, in my opinion, is create an opening or 2 in your solid defense so you are forcing your opponents to throw where you want them to and then you are now in control of the fight and can create opportunity instead of wait for your opponent to make it for you.

[Sir Killian]

wow... my offense is all muscle memory... my defense is analytical
so in offense i am flow and defense i am technical

so maybe just maybe no one can be truly all flow or all technical.. but always a mixture of both

what do you say to that?

[Kerb]

what do you say to that?

I would say you are completely correct, there are always shades of gray.
It would be more accurate to describe it as leaning towards one or the other as far as what has more influence in your fighting style.

[Michael]

In my opinion, Kerb is right but I would go further. The dichotomy that we are discussing here has more to do with how fighters become good than how good fighters are good or continue to be good. Since everyone has both aspects and since good fighters need to be pretty good at both, the real break down comes in the more developmental stages.

That is to say some fighters learn the craft by more repetition and practice building the instincts for success. When they meet fighters who are equally practiced but also have a deeper understanding of the fight and ability to plan on the fly, those fighters then develop more analytical skills so they can keep up. On the other hand some new fighters start right away making plans, copying videos and listening to great fighters. Eventually these people run up against a guy who is fighting four times a week to their two and realize that they need stronger instincts to keep up.

Also while it is fair to evaluate the analytical as being more proactive and the instinctual as more reactive, this fact can easily be overstated. A good secondary plan is vital in reacting to times where your opponent doesn’t ‘take the bait’ in your original plan and the best analytical fighters can shift plans reactively. Similarly, feints and leads can be learned instinctually leading to proactive moves without as much direct analysis.

[Derian]

Well said, Michael.

[Sir Killian]

i love circular discussions...

so we are right back to what i was saying... its like yin and yang you cant have one with out the other....

all analysis must be implemented by reaction to a causal factor....
and all instinct is a bodies analysis of a situation and its subsequent reaction to said situation IE muscle memory...

people can lean to a style but without the other style the action of fighting is not executable.

[Devaryn]

When I think of flow vs technical, it seems to me to be most noticeable in fighting style. I think of free-form versus precision. I think of chaos vs law. Of a machine gun vs a sniper rifle. I think they need each other, and must be trained together, in order for one to truly become an incredible fighter. There are a ton of fighters who fit in one or the other niche, but only a rare few have developed both sides of the coin.

Free-form, for lack of a better word - You throw a lot of fast shots, relying more on your speed and combos to break through. A lot of this is instinctual; you sense an opening in the middle of an exchange and use your physical ability to just make it happen. But if you tried to go back and think about what you just did, it all seems more like a blur. You train at this by putting yourself in the thick of the most chaotic situations, usually with multiple opponents, and by learning to zone out and feel the ebb and flow of combat.

Precision - You wait for your opening, or you strategically and surgically create one. You throw a very calculated feint and can hit the same exact spot a hundred times with the same exact force and speed. You are a master of the counterattack, learning to judge your opponent's timing and ending the fight with one swing as an opening is exposed. You are a minimalist, an economist of motion and effort. You train at this by practicing the same moves endlessly, by slowing down combat with a partner and training to recognize openings and counterattacks.

There are weaknesses to each style. A precision fighter can bulls-eye a pocket stab right in the middle of his opponent's frenzied series of combos. A freeform fighter can overwhelm a precision fighter with shots from all kinds of unexpected angles that he never practiced against.

A freeform fighter does a spin move and blocks a shot by flipping his shield behind his back as he kills the guy. You say "how the hell did he do that?" Half the time even he doesn't know.

A precision fighter easily blocks your shot by barely moving because he knew exactly where you were going to swing, and now you are dead because he also knew exactly where and when you were going to show an opening, and he exploited it.

I think the best fighter would utilize both of these styles, and be able to switch from one to the other without pause. Like so many other things you might have read about combat, true mastery comes in finding the balance and harmony of all things.

What could be more terrifying than a fighter who has all of this, who has perfect economy of motion, the most textbook and impenetrable defense, but also can dance like a blur through multiple opponents, spinning and delivering death with each swing?

[Troll]

A freeform fighter does a spin move and blocks a shot by flipping his shield behind his back as he kills the guy. You say "how the hell did he do that?" Half the time even he doesn't know.

I don't think that this is entirely true. I mean, as a more dominantly flow fighter, I could still tell you how to do a spin that won't get you killed, how to do a good wrap, and how to really sell a fake, how to block countless shots coming in, or how to give someone just enough bait to go for the shot (and then how to counter-swing in response).

The more important thing in all of this is the timing. I can't for the life of me describe the exact moment when you should do any of the above and which one you should do instead of the others. I think that is the part that is the territory of instinct. The timing, similar to jumping in on double-dutch. You can't describe the timing, you just have to know it. I think that is what it means to properly use the flow.

Just because a person is more a defensive fighter doesn't really matter in this discussion. That is a completely different category. I don't think it is directly related to a person being flow or tech.

I understand the idea of theorizing about new moves, and I have done it occasionally, and have gotten amazing results from it. Another way to come up with good tactics and moves is to simply "throw it against the wall and see what sticks." Its important to get out there and try new things, and in the process see if you can repeat it on a reliable basis.

I think it is much harder for a fighter to be taught how to be a flow fighter. It is much easier to show someone some moves, and teach them how to think about fighting technically. You just can't systematically teach someone how to do what low fighters can accomplish. I think it requires a lot more time and inner motivation to become an accomplished flow fighter simply due to the self-teaching required. That could just be me tooting my own horn, though.

[Aondor]

I consider myself a flow fighter because I transition from techniques and use variety of moves in one flowing motion at no time to I stop fake or do much of the posistioning technical posistion battles as soon as I engage in one of these I die.

So Flow to me is uninterupted seemless motion

[Evias]

Personally, I believe that "flow" fighters can only be effective in a holistic sense (field fightin', 1v.1, lines, all that other jazz) if they also integrate some level of technical prowess.

I'm somewhat of a "flow" fighter myself. The only way I've been able to keep up with my technical buddies is to learn some of it myself. Solid footwork, decent posture, and some very technical strikes and blocks are the only things that keep me from sinking too far below the rest of the people I regularly fight. I feel as if one must learn to break the craziness that is "flow" fighting with excellent execution of basic, strong, technical maneuvers. The "flow" portion, at least for me, is only a long string of fakes, body jukes, and relatively safe shots to set-up for the killing blow.

But hell, I'm no Kung-Fu master. So, this could be a very very bad philosophy.

[Postal]

Personally, I believe that "flow" fighters can only be effective in a holistic sense (field fightin', 1v.1, lines, all that other jazz) if they also integrate some level of technical prowess.

well then you are not a flow fighter

[Vak]

I started off as a Tech fighter thats for sure, but as I ventured out and got to fight more people I definitelly became a flow fighter, and all the world felt right when I jsut started to react and explode in combat rather than standing around thinking about it.

[Evias]

Personally, I believe that "flow" fighters can only be effective in a holistic sense (field fightin', 1v.1, lines, all that other jazz) if they also integrate some level of technical prowess.

well then you are not a flow fighter

Haha, that could be true.

[Titan G]

It seems to me that it’s almost like a diamond formation as far as the defense things goes, and it pertains more to getting better than to when you’re good.

You start progression with aggression, no one gets good without dying a lot and being aggressive and figuring out what works and what doesn't. This is both a combination of muscle memory and of study/practice.

Once you plateau most fighters seem to go defensive. They learn to defeat 80% of people with the "wait for them do make a mistake" style but they never catch veterans or anyone that really knows what they are doing. Usually they plateau again there.

Then you get the divergence into the technical school or the flow school. This actually seems to be a combination of physical ability, physical build, desired fighting style, region you live, number of event you attend, primary practice partner, and your training partners.

Once you have plateau in either of these styles you either stay there and your one of the 5-10% fighters. The guys everyone knows because they know that they carry some heavy skill with them

Once you reach that level and if you start to overcome your plateau then it seems to me that you begin to master and integrate both. Some of the best fighters in the game, the 1%ers if you will, use everything. they can stand there and point you like it’s a fencing match then roll down the line with wicked * spins, disgusting wraps etc. it seems to me that the best fighters make their flow analytical and their analyzes instinct.
However I don’t know enough to comment more than that.

[Satanaka]

It's funny- when I read the 1st post- I though of Shadow, Snotbelly and other DA as the "flow" fighters. Thought of Ivan, Zaknafien, Cedric, Brutus, Peter as Technical fighters. Some people do have skills in both- BUIT for the most part- you can cut the fiels via these two classes of fighters...

I also thing the "Analytical vs. Instinctive fighters" is a better way to say it. Although I also like Chaos & Law.

From my experience- a good Analytical fighter- at the top portion- look like Instinctive- sorta the way that MArtial arts teach techniques over and over and over- till be becomes "natural reaction"

in my own fighting I KNOW it was Technical or Analytical- but at my best- seemd more like "reaction" or Instinctive. some of the moves I have seen from "flow" people are awesome- and when I have asked-they do say "I don't know- I just did it" and may not ever repeat the same awsome move.

this is one of the things I still love watching and teaching. Seeing the skill in different people- Like some of those skinny- fast guys in Iowa- one wears the leather cap- the other is the darkheaded guy- BOTH- great people and I admire their skills- reminds me of the DA back in the mid- late '90s.

In the end- It's all good!!! Great topic.