some things are just wrong (and some are contextual)

Fighting, style, and fighting styles come in a very wide variety. Everyone carries their own history, motivations, and experiences that will influence how they navigate and interact with the world. We all have our own way of doing things and that's okay. But not all ways are equal; some are flat-out inferior. Wrong, if you will.

A bit inflammatory, huh? But it's true.

Both style and fighting are simultaneously art and science. "Correct" is usually a spectrum rather than a pinpoint. This causes people to confuse the broadness of those confines for there being none whatsoever; the layman often thinks either endeavor -- style and fighting -- to be a free-for-all.

Yes, you can win a fight by closing your eyes and swinging wildly, but it's highly ineffective compared to a more refined approach. 

You can also wear whatever you want without care or regard for how others perceive you, but here's the thing: style is visual language. If you don't put care into how you articulate yourself, your  visual messaging will probably look like something between "haLLo nIce 2 meet U" and "KSDJFGFKFFjVKFJVGJf."

So if we yearn to be successful in our ventures (in fighting or style), then we want to be effective. Hence, when I say "correct," or "wrong," I mean "effective" or "ineffective."

And there definitely is a degree of subjectivity and wiggle room in both of these realms, but some shit is just wrong (read: highly ineffective). 
​

So how can we do it right?

Well, half of the battle is having the right stuff, and the other half is using it at the right time. Which is why -- as dope as I look in this navy birds eye Vitale Barberis Canonico Super 150's wool suit -- I wouldn't wear it to hang out at a Bar-cade. (And yes, that's a bar with video games.) 

---

---

In that setting, I'd probably wear something more like this: casual yet put-together.

---

---

Both are examples of sharp style with pleasing contours, color-coordination, and overall composition. Both feature quality style, yet either of them could be "correct" or "incorrect" depending on context. 

Same with fighting. When I've trained for/competed in boxing, I made sure to intersperse level changes and head movement with all of my punching combinations. This was highly effective/correct for when my goal was to land punches without getting punched back. 

But that same style in a different setting -- one in which knee strikes can accompany punches -- suddenly made less sense and became less effective. As you'll see in this video, that lesson was hard-learned.

---

---

The techniques and style were legitimate, but had been applied in the wrong context. If applied in the right context, they would thrive -- much like the aforementioned navy suit applied to my Instagram feed.

On the other hand, ineffective/incorrect technique will never thrive in any context. Let's look at Meek Mill's "boxing" for instance...

---

---

Sure, maybe he could dispatch an adolescent, a quadriplegic, or a narcoleptic with that mess...  But his style is awful and ineffective. There is no context in which it would thrive, albeit maybe a few in which it would allow him to scrape by. If only just.

Long story short, the dynamic relationship between efficacy and context can really blur the lines of what is "right" or "wrong," which can in turn lead to people mistakenly believe there's no "right" or "wrong." 

"We all just have our own way of doing things." 

Sure, but some ways are better than others. Though fighting and style are driven largely by instinct and individuality, deliberate and formalized techniques are superior for exacting favorable outcomes. 

Which is to say that some things are right -- and by extension -- some things are just wrong.