Here ' s a perfect scenario 2 instructors demonstrate a technique # 1 the student throws a well telegraphed punch several inches away from the instructor and holds his arm extended while the instructor moves at 3 x the speed relative to the slow incoming punch . He catches the punch , hold the wrist , mimes several deadly strikes to vital areas and ends with a few suggested joint breaks , throws the student to the ground and ends the sequences with several feigned kicks and stomps to the downed opponent . # 2 student and instructor both wear necessary safety gear gloves , mouth guard , ect and the student moves around in a fighting motion and when he feels ready throws a quick jab aimed at the instructor and retracts it quickly . The instructor times the jab and simultaneously parries it and moves in to counter with a cross at the same time . This sequence is repeated 510 times . In 1 or 2 of these sequences the student successfully hits the instructor in the face , in 1 sequence the instructor is not successful and misses his counter . The crowd watching is impressed by demo # 1 some guys laugh and joke and ask the instructor to repeat the move to the chagrin of the student . The fast movement and implied deadly techniques dazzle the crowd . Demo # 2 gets applause but not the same reaction as # 1 . Which of the 2 demos shows more fighting ability ? Which is more practical and useful ? IMO # 2 is an example of evidence based practice . # 1 has its place as a demo and is standard fare but I ' ll never be impressed by that type of crap . It gives no evidence that the instructor actually has fighting ability . This is what martial artists need to be aware of . We need more skepticism and critical thinking . Edit sorry about the caps . Not sure what happened , posting from mobile .