Two Fights of Mine from around '99

**losttrak** · Posted On: 1/19/2006 3:33pm

Originally Posted by Repulsive Monkey

Could you describe the type of conditioning that takes place in a little more detail?

That could be a little spammish since there are quite a few training methods we use, some with a few variations. They more or less focus on overall bodily strength, balance in motion, a lot of leg conditioning, waist stretching exercises, and traditional flexibility exercises. I used to attend 4-5 times a week for several years and I never got to the point where I wasn't painfully sore after each class.

Did you really want me to try to put together a definitive list?

EDIT: Hideous Grammer!

**Grappler bob** · Posted On: 1/19/2006 4:00pm

is there a reason i hear no audio?

**mean_liar** · Posted On: 1/19/2006 4:43pm

Thanks for sharing.

**losttrak** · Posted On: 1/19/2006 5:30pm

Originally Posted by Grappler bob

is there a reason i hear no audio?

Actually, I had intended to upload this to a potential webhost that only allowed a limited amount of memory. Thus, I cut out audio in order to maintain reasonable size, framerate, etc. Since I am using yousendit now, I could always upload another version with audio. Once the need to rehost rears its ugly head, I will send up the larger, audio-enabled version.

**Bang!** · Posted On: 1/20/2006 11:14am

Originally Posted by losttrak

Did you really want me to try to put together a definitive list?!

Well, what I'm interested in is hearing about the top-down methodology that you employ. A rough example of bottom-up training would be teaching someone the gross movements and sending them into battle to pick up experience and subtlety along the way. In contrast, a top-down approach would work on the finer points -- in this case, body conditioning -- before students really started to mix it up. If you guys have had success with that, I'd really like to hear about it.

**unpossible** · Posted On: 1/20/2006 11:55am

Originally Posted by Repulsive Monkey

Well, what I'm interested in is hearing about the top-down methodology that you employ. A rough example of bottom-up training would be teaching someone the gross movements and sending them into battle to pick up experience and subtlety along the way. In contrast, a top-down approach would work on the finer points -- in this case, body conditioning -- before students really started to mix it up. If you guys have had success with that, I'd really like to hear about it.

God, I'm such a geek. I'm sorry. I'm going to make this whole post really small font size.

That's interesting -- I actually have a question about terminology here, as a noob.

Top-down and bottom-up are often used in programming, and bottom-up is, when possible at all, superior when used by people who know their stuff.

Bottom-up -- that's when you start with the primitives, the existing language available, decide what you want it to evolve into, and then begin using the 'bottom', the base capabilities, to write a new layer that makes more sense for the problem you're trying to solve and lets you solve a new type of problems faster.

Top-down -- you start with a pre-drawn-out plan of things that you need, with lines drawn maybe more neatly than reality allows, and then you create each separately and use them according to plan.

I see that the problems with top-down could be the same in both domains. You start out with a plan, but your plan might be a little off, and you aren't focusing on building up capabilities that gradually turn the project into a machine for solving certain types of problems (selling online/winning nhb-like fights), but instead on a training program that targets individual areas, like punching/kicking etc. Bottom-up seems like the method that experts eventually graduate towards, because top-down methods inevitably waste effort; you find your plan was wrong, a little or a lot wrong, and maybe you spent a lot of time on drills that gave you little benefit.

Haha, I am such a huge nerd. But I am now writing up a worse-is-better, bottom-up, no-silver-bullet training regimen for myself.

**losttrak** · Posted On: 1/20/2006 12:08pm

Here are the audio versions I mentioned. I also made them a little higher res, so they are about double (60MB) the size.

http://www.megaupload.com/?e=NHH98Q890RD8JS FIGHT1
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SKQCYAMO FIGHT2

**losttrak** · Posted On: 1/20/2006 12:11pm

Originally Posted by unpossible

God, I'm such a geek. I'm sorry. I'm going to make this whole post really small font size.

That's interesting -- I actually have a question about terminology here, as a noob.

Top-down and bottom-up are often used in programming, and bottom-up is, when possible at all, superior when used by people who know their stuff.

Bottom-up -- that's when you start with the primitives, the existing language available, decide what you want it to evolve into, and then begin using the 'bottom', the base capabilities, to write a new layer that makes more sense for the problem you're trying to solve and lets you solve a new type of problems faster.

Top-down -- you start with a pre-drawn-out plan of things that you need, with lines drawn maybe more neatly than reality allows, and then you create each separately and use them according to plan.

I see that the problems with top-down could be the same in both domains. You start out with a plan, but your plan might be a little off, and you aren't focusing on building up capabilities that gradually turn the project into a machine for solving certain types of problems (selling online/winning nhb-like fights), but instead on a training program that targets individual areas, like punching/kicking etc. Bottom-up seems like the method that experts eventually graduate towards, because top-down methods inevitably waste effort; you find your plan was wrong, a little or a lot wrong, and maybe you spent a lot of time on drills that gave you little benefit.

Haha, I am such a huge nerd. But I am now writing up a worse-is-better, bottom-up, no-silver-bullet training regimen for myself.

As a budding programmer myself, that was actually quite interesting. =D Thanks.

**Bang!** · Posted On: 1/20/2006 12:28pm

Unpossible, thanks for the feedback. Here are my thoughs on the relative advantages and disadvantages:

B-U:
Practical and in the now. Problems are surveyed from the vantage point of the next step toward solving them, and practical experience is generated from the outset. On the downside, this approach sometimes suffers from a lack of cohesive vision and may integrate many quck-fixes that do not draw from the same core strengths.

T-D:
Geared toward ideals. Even tiny details are mapped out in concordance with overriding principles. Strengths in one area generally transfer well to other areas. On the downside, this approach can allow theory to obfuscate solutions that are less than ideal and restrict people from experiencing all aspects of the trial-and-error process. Without proper focus and application, nothing winds up being completed.

**losttrak** · Posted On: 1/20/2006 1:31pm

I don't know... I would be hesitant to define our training by one or the other. Each particular exercise would have to be evaluated according to the parameters of each method. My sifu naturally determines what the user needs are in each class and seeks to provide for them with a corresponding routine. I just know that is how he has always taught.

Perhaps he uses an iteration-based methodology. He develops different aspects of fighting and then integrates them into one cohesive system. During each process, he obtains user feedback to gauge what other elements need to be added to the overall scope. In every project, there will be some scope creep. =O

EDIT: Speling iz mi frend.