Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Instinctive vs Analytical Fighter
#1
What kind of a Fighter are you? I consider myself as an Instinctive fighter since I've been training mostly without a sparring partner and do shadow training most of the time, I call this blind training. Blind training can have its advantage in Fighting because this could make you act automatically, and become unpredictable when fighting someone who is Analytical. The best about this is that, the analytical opponent won't be able to read you and he won't be able to see a fist or a kick flying towards him. How can one be an Instinctive Fighter? Simple! You just have to learn how to open and train all your senses. Although sometimes I believe that Instinctive fighting has a big problem but as of now, I don't know what I'm lacking. I guess, balancing the two would make you a better fighter?
Reply
#2
When it comes to fighting, it is always the smart guy who has the edge. I believe that an analytical fighter has more chances of winning because he could adapt not only to the style of the opponent but also to the situation. In the last UFC fight of Conor McGregor and lightweight champion Eddie Alvarez, McGregor used his mind to set the tenor and pace of the fight. It was a mistake for Alvarez to go along because that was not his style. And in the second round, Alvarez succumbed to a disastrous knockdown that prompted the referee to stop the contest. If Alvarez had dictated his own fighting style then maybe he had a good chance of defeating McGregor.
Reply
#3
That's so very much true @Alexandoy! It doesn't really matter how much training we have because there is this part of the fight we need to use our head and that cannot be taught. As far as I see it the ideal fighter is a mix between the analytical fighter and the instinctive one.
Reply
#4
(11-14-2016, 08:35 AM)Alexandoy Wrote: When it comes to fighting, it is always the smart guy who has the edge. I believe that an analytical fighter has more chances of winning because he could adapt not only to the style of the opponent but also to the situation. In the last UFC fight of Conor McGregor and lightweight champion Eddie Alvarez, McGregor used his mind to set the tenor and pace of the fight. It was a mistake for Alvarez to go along because that was not his style. And in the second round, Alvarez succumbed to a disastrous knockdown that prompted the referee to stop the contest. If Alvarez had dictated his own fighting style then maybe he had a good chance of defeating McGregor.

Thank you for your input @Alexandoy. I can see what you mean and I agree at some point but then let me tell you that McGregor isn't a pure analytical fighter but he said on his interview that he's more of an instinctual fighter. Analytical Fighters doesn't have killer insticts and he said that he does fight with it. He does not train with routines and machines because animals don't train with machines. The best Analytical Fighter that I can think of would be the current Manny Pacquiao and Nonito Donaire.

IMO, just like what @to7update have mentioned I believe that if you want to succeed in fighting, you should be both Instinctive and Analytical.
Reply
#5
I think a blend of the two, instinctive and analytic fighting will make a more balanced fighter. The fact remains in a real combat, in addition to these acquired skills your discretion and forcefulness matters a lot.
Reply
#6
(11-21-2016, 10:16 AM)tpicks Wrote: I think a blend of the two, instinctive and analytic fighting will make a more balanced fighter. The fact remains in a real combat, in addition to these acquired skills your discretion and forcefulness matters a lot.

There's a lot of debate between the effectivity of the two but then we cannot tell what is real unless a study has been conducted regarding this. I believe that there is already a study done on this but it's not something being provided openly to the public. But then, most of us can say that it's the combination that is better so far.
Reply
#7
When I used to box I always thought of myself as a more technical fighter, and while I would always make sure that I was in the best condition possible, a lot of my training I spent looking at the opponent and his strengths and weaknesses and adapt my style to theirs. In some cases it isn't possible to do that but if there was a weakness then I made sure that i knew what it was before I stepped in the ring.

Instinctive fighters are usually those that have the highest stamina and can go into a fight knowing that they can stay in there and figure out their opponent as they go along and adapt to the fight as it goes on, but for those who know they are only going to be able to last at peak fitness for half or three quarters of the bout, that is somewhat risky.
Reply
#8
Yep, that's something important in most sports, to analyze our opponent and to see his strong points and weaknesses so that we can adjust our game to that. Naturally this works better for the analytical fighter, as when we do it by instinct we aren't really not thinking that much, we are just fighting based on our impulses, we don't really have a strategy.
Reply
#9
I'm almost totally analytical (sometimes I think that I'm a "robot" or something). I like to study all the pros and cons of my movements and the possible movements of my opponent. I rarely act on instinct (even though I'm extremely nervous). My brain usually takes control of the situation.
Reply
#10
That's rare indeed @shine_spirit, even more in a contact sport like muay thai, where it's easy to react to aggression. Studying pros and cons is very good, but something we need to think out of the box, and that move might be the one giving us the win.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)