# Martial Arts Aren't Magic



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

Over the years I have witnessed an interesting concept both the trained and untrained believe. The concept is based around the idea that showing up for practice is the *only *thing required to improve martial prowess. This isn't directed to the differently abled, but more towards those that don't wish to put the work in for various reasons. 

Simply knowing techniques is one thing, puling them off in combat is entirely different. Knowing stances, punches, kicks, etc, doesn't make you a martial artist. Attending class after class and drilling the same things with *intent* is what makes you a martial artist. Practicing techniques until they're embedded into your muscles is what I think some forget. "You fight how you train" is a quote that helps with this misconception. Flailing your arms, sitting in a high horse stance, only doing that which is comfortable is one thing that is hurting martial arts in general today.

The most common group I've witnessed this with is children. Some parents believe enrolling their kids into a martial arts class is all they need to do for their child/children to learn to defend themselves. I can understand this misconception, especially considering a lot of parents who enroll their kids are untrained themselves. Though some people like to downplay younger students not taking their training seriously, in the end who is it really hurting? Parents, do you take an active role in your child's academics? Then why not with their martial arts training? This doesn't mean you must enroll in the same class as them. It means speak to the instructor, ask them what your child needs to work on, encourage your child to improve.

Some adults share this mindset as well. I've seen this mindset in both new and mid-ranked students. One of my instructors has said "you're only cheating yourself", when he sees people putting in minimal effort into their training. Complacency plays a big role in this as well. especially with those with a rank mentality. Those who are more concerned about memorizing new techniques than drilling the ones they already know miss the big picture sometimes.    

In summary, as martial artists we shouldn't treat training as such a routine and mundane task.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 8, 2017)

So was Kaue Mena a martial artist?  Although he was an undefeated MMA fighter, the one time he had to fight for real he couldn't pull of any of the techniques he knew.


----------



## DaveB (Dec 8, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Over the years I have witnessed an interesting concept both the trained and untrained believe. The concept is based around the idea that showing up for practice is the *only *thing required to improve martial prowess. This isn't directed to the differently abled, but more towards those that don't wish to put the work in for various reasons.
> 
> Simply knowing techniques is one thing, puling them off in combat is entirely different. Knowing stances, punches, kicks, etc, doesn't make you a martial artist. Attending class after class and drilling the same things with *intent* is what makes you a martial artist. Practicing techniques until they're embedded into your muscles is what I think some forget. "You fight how you train" is a quote that helps with this misconception. Flailing your arms, sitting in a high horse stance, only doing that which is comfortable is one thing that is hurting martial arts in general today.
> 
> ...



There's some truth to that, but it's an oversimplified point.

The trouble is that the why's and wherefore's of a person's effort and commitment are so broad and individual that what is rightbfor one may not be for all.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 8, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Over the years I have witnessed an interesting concept both the trained and untrained believe. The concept is based around the idea that showing up for practice is the *only *thing required to improve martial prowess.


i think the problem lies not in others, but in your own narrow presupposition.
define for me please ....martial prowess?  
now to save some time i will make the assumption that you mean the ability to use learned martial skills in a self defense situation.  
now can you answer how many parents of said students actually really want their child to be fighting, going around punching and kicking the snot out of other kids?
there are two issues to consider here #1...the reality is that under the age of 15 or 16 children are not really learning applicable fighting skill. also there is the level of maturity to grasp the concept of violence.
#2 parents do not generally send their kids to learn to fight but do send their kids in hopes of fostering self esteem and confidence that in turn will have the effect of the child not submitting to bulling and to be able to assert themselves in the world.

as far as adults training, your same presupposition is faulty.  99 % of adults do not really want to learn to defend themselves. they just want a fun activity.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 8, 2017)

Different people want different things. Global truth, right?

Specifically applied here, Different people in different types of MA training want different (sometimes from day-to-day, year-to-year) outcomes from that training, either for themselves or as you are illustrating, from their children.

What's wrong with mom putting her ankle-biters into a kids program then taking a blessed break from them so she can recharge to be super-Mom at the end of the day? Nothing... unless super-Mom actually has an expectation that Junior is going to be a MMA Champ in the next 4 years, and then she should re-evaluate. But... super-Mom does not want that outcome in the vast majority of instances, so the expectation does not apply.

For the hard core MA folks, yes... we stay late, work out alone, think abou it, visualize it, etc. But, that's probably 1% of the total.


----------



## skribs (Dec 8, 2017)

If a parent puts their kid in martial arts, their kid is better off than if they had not been put in.  Martial arts should teach more than self defense: discipline and respect are high up there as well.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> So was Kaue Mena a martial artist?  Although he was an undefeated MMA fighter, the one time he had to fight for real he couldn't pull of any of the techniques he knew.


 
I've seen the video you're referring to, but your'e not describing what happened in the video. He threw techniques but he was fighting multiple opponents, one armed with a 2x4. Even the well trained can be defeated in the right situation.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> There's some truth to that, but it's an oversimplified point.
> 
> The trouble is that the why's and wherefore's of a person's effort and commitment are so broad and individual that what is rightbfor one may not be for all.


It's not oversimplified. The point is some put so little effort into it and still expect amazing results. It is a simple concept of "you fight how you train" and "you get back what you put in", but it's not oversimplified. Even if your goal is fitness in martial arts, you should still be putting effort in.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> define for me please ....martial prowess?


Prowess "skill or expertise in a particular activity or field"



hoshin1600 said:


> now can you answer how many parents of said students actually really want their child to be fighting, going around punching and kicking the snot out of other kids?


Training with intent and teaching students to be overly aggressive aren't the same thing.  



hoshin1600 said:


> there are two issues to consider here #1...the reality is that under the age of 15 or 16 children are not really learning applicable fighting skill. also there is the level of maturity to grasp the concept of violence.


First, that's not what I've witnessed. I've seen focused and disciplined 12 year old that take training more seriously than a lot of adults. Again, it's not about violence, it's about training with intent. Regardless of age you must train the body at a certain level to achieve results.  



hoshin1600 said:


> #2 parents do not generally send their kids to learn to fight but do send their kids in hopes of fostering self esteem and confidence that in turn will have the effect of the child not submitting to bulling and to be able to assert themselves in the world.


I agree that there is a psychological component at work when children take martial arts. However; parents also enroll their kids to gain a certain level of self defense. I don't think it is *solely *one or the other. 



hoshin1600 said:


> 99 % of adults do not really want to learn to defend themselves. they just want a fun activity.


What are you basing this on? 99%? Though I agree many people take it for more recreational reasons, why does that exclude intent though? If you're playing a pick up basketball game do you not still perform your best. That doesn't include violence or fowling other players, just doing your best.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Different people want different things. Global truth, right?
> 
> Specifically applied here, Different people in different types of MA training want different (sometimes from day-to-day, year-to-year) outcomes from that training, either for themselves or as you are illustrating, from their children.
> 
> ...



I'm not referring to a world champ, just training with intent. In your example, the mom should at least recognize the opportunity from enrolling her kids in that class. She shouldn't expect her child to be the next world champion, but to understand the value of what they could learn and encourage them to do so.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 8, 2017)

Anarax said:


> I've seen the video you're referring to, but your'e not describing what happened in the video. He threw techniques but he was fighting multiple opponents, one armed with a 2x4. Even the well trained can be defeated in the right situation.


You're missing the point.  The well trained are easily defeated when they are trained for a totally different sort of combat.  He was trained for a consensual fight/sporting contest not self defence/non consensual criminal violence.  He never trained to deal with multiple opponents or weapons because they are not something he needed to train for in the ring.

So by you're definition he was a well trained Martial Artist, however that does not mean he has any skill self defence.  Consensual/sport fighting and self defence are two very different things, and skill at one does not automatically translate into skill at the other, and vice versa.

So the question remains, do you think he was a martial artist?  Clearly he was skilled in the ring as he was undefeated, but he did not train for combat outside the ring, did not understand combat outside the ring, and did not have the skills to deal with combat outside the ring.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 8, 2017)

Thing is some people simply don't care if they're good or not, some people just do it for a workout or a social thing or just to get out the house. It's an activity to them. Not everyone wants to dedicate their life to it and that's absoloutely fine. It's like a football player who plays on a Friday night he probably doesn't spend time practicing football away from that Friday night.

There's simply no right or wrong way to do martial arts


----------



## skribs (Dec 8, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> There's simply no right or wrong way to do martial arts



There are plenty of ways.  If you do so with arrogance, malice, disrespect...


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 8, 2017)

Anarax said:


> ...
> "You fight how you train" is a quote that helps with this misconception. Flailing your arms, sitting in a high horse stance, only doing that which is comfortable is one thing that is hurting martial arts in general today.
> ...



You do fight how you train.  You deal with many situations how you train, if you train for them, either physically, mentally, or both.  That has been proven many times over.  That is why the military does a lot of training.  And some businesses do a lot of training.

That explains why Paul_D is correct in his post.


----------



## Buka (Dec 8, 2017)

The thread title is spot on, Martial Arts aren't magic.

Magic has much cooler hats.


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You're missing the point.  The well trained are easily defeated when they are trained for a totally different sort of combat.  He was trained for a consensual fight/sporting contest not self defence/non consensual criminal violence.  He never trained to deal with multiple opponents or weapons because they are not something he needed to train for in the ring.
> 
> So by you're definition he was a well trained Martial Artist, however that does not mean he has any skill self defence.  Consensual/sport fighting and self defence are two very different things, and skill at one does not automatically translate into skill at the other, and vice versa.
> 
> So the question remains, do you think he was a martial artist?  Clearly he was skilled in the ring as he was undefeated, but he did not train for combat outside the ring, did not understand combat outside the ring, and did not have the skills to deal with combat outside the ring.


I'm not sure the facts support your point, he was out numbered 7 to one and they had big sticks, it seem the only training that would have saved him a beating was sprinting.

my old man gave me little in the way of good advice, one of the few gems, was don't fight more than one at once, get them one a time when you have Your mates with you, that way you tend to win


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i think the problem lies not in others, but in your own narrow presupposition.
> define for me please ....martial prowess?
> now to save some time i will make the assumption that you mean the ability to use learned martial skills in a self defense situation.
> now can you answer how many parents of said students actually really want their child to be fighting, going around punching and kicking the snot out of other kids?
> ...


??? You don't think that under 15s understand the concept of violence, or ever get in fights and need violence?


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 8, 2017)

People look for the easy way out.  Ever wonder why some people are attracted to no-touch knockouts or light touch knockouts?

As far as people in classes goes... there’s some who just go through the motions, and some who push themselves.  You get out of it what you put into it.  The ones who just go through the motions have no bearing on my training.  And just going through the motions when they’re sparring with me won’t last long at all.  Or they’re so much better than I am and they’re bored while I’m trying to keep up.

But the going through the motions people can suck the life out of class if the teacher feeds into them.  A good teacher will either creatively motivate them, or basically intentionally turn a blind eye to them.


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> People look for the easy way out.  Ever wonder why some people are attracted to no-touch knockouts or light touch knockouts?
> 
> As far as people in classes goes... there’s some who just go through the motions, and some who push themselves.  You get out of it what you put into it.  The ones who just go through the motions have no bearing on my training.  And just going through the motions when they’re sparring with me won’t last long at all.  Or they’re so much better than I am and they’re bored while I’m trying to keep up.
> 
> But the going through the motions people can suck the life out of class if the teacher feeds into them.  A good teacher will either creatively motivate them, or basically intentionally turn a blind eye to them.


but that's more their personality than anything else, some people coast through life, going though the motions, job, marriage kids hobbies, , everything, it seems unlikely that ma will change that much


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> ??? You don't think that under 15s understand the concept of violence, or ever get in fights and need violence?


i understand your _"that guy"..._the one who sees the world through their own eyes and refuses to try to understand the underlying point that someone is trying to make...so be it....

What do children know of their own mortality?

"In a recent review of studies on children’s understanding of death, medics Alan Bates and Julia Kearney describe how:"

_"Partial understanding of universality, irreversibility, and nonfunctionality usually develops between the ages of 5 and 7 years, but a more complete understanding of death concepts, including causality, is not generally seen until around age 10. Prior to understanding nonfunctionality, children may have concrete questions such as how a dead person is going to breathe underground. Less frequently studied is the concept of personal mortality, which most children have some under standing of by age 6 with more complete understanding around age 8–11."
_
now that is for the concept of death and mortality but they also have to have an understanding that bad things can happen to them.  often children think that death is only something that happens to old people or adults.  on top of that we are not just talking about mortality we are talking about violence.  while some children do experience violence, most do not.  it is that experience that allows them to grasp the concept.  i am not talking about fist fights in school where the worst that happens is someone cries and runs away humiliated.  if the child's experience is limited to school fights then they will not comprehend the concept of the level of violence an adult can do to another.   the ability to comprehend is dependent on experience.  this is not limited to children.  adults are prone to this as well. many adults who can logically understand violence can have an insulated view. thinking that things like that can not happen to them,  or perhaps ignoring the possibility for psychological comfort.
while a child may understand violence from one perspective, correlating their own martial arts and the connection to violence is again another step.  its a step many adults cant make.   violence is often nothing more than a vague concept that has a slight possibility of happening somewhere way off in the future,, but probably not ..in their view.  this insulated view makes martial training less about self protection and more a social activity.

and to clarify my earlier post...i said their training does not reflect self defense ability until around 15.
_#1...the reality is that under the age of 15 or 16 children are not really learning applicable fighting skill._
please notice the . period after the word skill


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i understand your _"that guy"..._the one who sees the world through their own eyes and refuses to try to understand the underlying point that someone is trying to make...so be it....
> 
> What do children know of their own mortality?
> 
> ...


i have little idea, what that lot was supposed to show. You said that there needs to be maturity to understand the concept of violence, i think, most kids will catch on when another kid pins them to the ground and repeatedly punches them. or some such, 

and why do you believe. That say a 13 yo can't learn applicable fighting skill, ? if a thirteen yo ma gets into a fight why arnt his skills just as applicable as a 15 yo ma. Your whole point doesn't make sense!


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You're missing the point.  The well trained are easily defeated when they are trained for a totally different sort of combat.  He was trained for a consensual fight/sporting contest not self defence/non consensual criminal violence.  He never trained to deal with multiple opponents or weapons because they are not something he needed to train for in the ring.
> 
> So by you're definition he was a well trained Martial Artist, however that does not mean he has any skill self defence.  Consensual/sport fighting and self defence are two very different things, and skill at one does not automatically translate into skill at the other, and vice versa.
> 
> So the question remains, do you think he was a martial artist?  Clearly he was skilled in the ring as he was undefeated, but he did not train for combat outside the ring, did not understand combat outside the ring, and did not have the skills to deal with combat outside the ring.



You are only finding the example that backs up your view though. What about the multiple cases of professional fighters getting into altercations outside the ring and they demonstrate they are more than capable of defending themselves? Him unable to defend himself against 5 or more people one armed with a 2x4 isn't a failing of his training. If you stack the deck high enough against someone regardless of how well they're trained, they won't come out on top.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> You do fight how you train.  You deal with many situations how you train, if you train for them, either physically, mentally, or both.  That has been proven many times over.  That is why the military does a lot of training.  And some businesses do a lot of training.
> 
> That explains why Paul_D is correct in his post.


 
No it's not. Finding a video of a professional fighter getting overwhelmed by 5 or more people isn't proof of his claim. Look up the other cases of professional fighters getting into altercations outside the ring, then tell me they're training wasn't effective


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2017)

skribs said:


> If a parent puts their kid in martial arts, their kid is better off than if they had not been put in.  Martial arts should teach more than self defense: discipline and respect are high up there as well.


Not necessarily.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> So by you're definition he was a well trained Martial Artist



No, he was the example you used. I was stating in general that the well trained can still be defeated under the right circumstances.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> There's simply no right or wrong way to do martial arts



There are effective and ineffective ways of training though.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> Your whole point doesn't make sense!


ok your right,  sorry if i dont make any sense to you...You Win.
im not interested in an argument today.


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> ok your right,  sorry if i dont make any sense to you...You Win.
> im not interested in an argument today.


or you could just stop making nonsensical posts?


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 8, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> There's simply no right or wrong way to do martial arts


While I agree with the rest of your post, this line is debatable...


----------



## Anarax (Dec 8, 2017)

skribs said:


> If a parent puts their kid in martial arts, their kid is better off than if they had not been put in.  Martial arts should teach more than self defense: discipline and respect are high up there as well.



Is it? instilling into him a level of confidence that isn't proportional to his skill is dangerous. There needs to be a correlation  between confidence and ability.


----------



## jobo (Dec 8, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Is it? instilling into him a level of confidence that isn't proportional to his skill is dangerous. There needs to be a correlation  between confidence and ability.


id never have got anywhere if that was true


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 8, 2017)

I get the point of the thread, but I take issue witht he title. There are martial arts that are, in fact, magic.


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 9, 2017)

So whats magic about it? In Japan MA is like little league. A discipline that some catch on to because....... they can already fight. Even then nobody does it for self defense, but for competiton. NOT to defend themselves. This is where the concept has got twisted. 

 Ater a lot of posts I now see clear distinction as to why a lot a people in the West do it. But it's not the reason I started. I could already fight. It was the challenge and the self discipline that attracted me.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2017)

Anarax said:


> You are only finding the example that backs up your view though. What about the multiple cases of professional fighters getting into altercations outside the ring and they demonstrate they are more than capable of defending themselves? Him unable to defend himself against 5 or more people one armed with a 2x4 isn't a failing of his training. If you stack the deck high enough against someone regardless of how well they're trained, they won't come out on top.


The only way to deal with multiple opponents is to train to deal with multiple opponents. How can not training to deal wih multiple opponents not be a fail in of his training.  Clearly that’s exactly what it is.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> he was out numbered 7 to one and they had big sticks, it seem the only training that would have saved him a beating was sprinting.


To you it seems that way yes.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 9, 2017)

Hyoho said:


> So whats magic about it? In Japan MA is like little league. A discipline that some catch on to because....... they can already fight. Even then nobody does it for self defense, but for competiton. NOT to defend themselves. This is where the concept has got twisted.
> 
> Ater a lot of posts I now see clear distinction as to why a lot a people in the West do it. But it's not the reason I started. I could already fight. It was the challenge and the self discipline that attracted me.


Something I have thought a lot about is why people here in the states do martial arts. What drives people to choose MA and to train.  My answer as of today is a bit complex and revolves around psychology. 
For some reason certain people have a fear of violence and that fear even though it may be small causes anxiety.   some people are very sensitive to this anxiety.  They have a subconscious need to relieve the anxiety and stress and martial arts fills that role.  This has a ripple effect of ramifications.  One major factor that should be understood is that *it is the perceived ability to deal with violence, * this means that the training does not actually have to address violence but only the anxiety.  It can be a paper tiger and still be good enough for the student as long as it appears real and relieves the anxiety and stress. This is because it is not the end result that is needed but only the process. The process, the training causes hope, a light at the end of the tunnel. As long as the person is on the path the stress is kept in check and is manageable.

That being said I am curious on why this would not hold true in Japan.  Perhaps in Japan the pressure of obligation outweighs any thoughts of personal insecurity.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> or you could just stop making nonsensical posts?


Your inability to understand does not make it nonsensical.


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 9, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> Something I have thought a lot about is why people here in the states do martial arts. What drives people to choose MA and to train.  My answer as of today is a bit complex and revolves around psychology.
> For some reason certain people have a fear of violence and that fear even though it may be small causes anxiety.   some people are very sensitive to this anxiety.  They have a subconscious need to relieve the anxiety and stress and martial arts fills that role.  This has a ripple effect of ramifications.  One major factor that should be understood is that *it is the perceived ability to deal with violence, * this means that the training does not actually have to address violence but only the anxiety.  It can be a paper tiger and still be good enough for the student as long as it appears real and relieves the anxiety and stress. This is because it is not the end result that is needed but only the process. The process, the training causes hope, a light at the end of the tunnel. As long as the person is on the path the stress is kept in check and is manageable.
> 
> That being said I am curious on why this would not hold true in Japan.  Perhaps in Japan the pressure of obligation outweighs any thoughts of personal insecurity.



Thanks for that opinion. That explains a lot. 

Japan is not a violent society. Admittedly there are few cases like the recent sword problem. It's not as law abiding as they would like to think either because they keep things out of the media. But people dont usually have guns. They have faith in the system and stress and anxiety are in other things like work. Just forced into very very busy life by society. Hard to tell the difference beween a plain clothes policeman and yakuza who meet and reach a certain understanding.


----------



## jobo (Dec 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Your inability to understand does not make it nonsensical.


his inability to even attempt to justify it does


----------



## jobo (Dec 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> The only way to deal with multiple opponents is to train to deal with multiple opponents. How can not training to deal wih multiple opponents not be a fail in of his training.  Clearly that’s exactly what it is.


are you really suggesting that such training would have altered the out come significantly ?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 9, 2017)

Hyoho said:


> Thanks for that opinion. That explains a lot.
> 
> Japan is not a violent society. Admittedly there are few cases like the recent sword problem. It's not as law abiding as they would like to think either because they keep things out of the media. But people dont usually have guns. They have faith in the system and stress and anxiety are in other things like work. Just forced into very very busy life by society. Hard to tell the difference beween a plain clothes policeman and yakuza who meet and reach a certain understanding.



It is interesting to me that you say the Japanese have faith in their system. Generally in the US we dont.  Many view the government and law enforcement as the enemy.
I think the concept of violence anxiety is a symptom of the bigger issue of self reliance. In the west we have the pressures of being self reliant, somthing I believe is not prevalent in Japan.
Being self reliant means the responsibility of self preservation and self protection falls on the individual.  In the US we see ourselves as individuals, I think ( let me know if I am incorrect) in Japan they see themselves as part of a group. Is it possible that group identity is stronger than individual identity?   This could make a big difference on how martial arts  manifests itself in different cultures.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> are you really suggesting that such training would have altered the out come significantly ?


I’m suggesting he best way to deal with multiple opponents is to train to deal with multiple opponents, as opposed to not training to deal with them and then having no understanding, no training and no skills to deal with it if it happens.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> his inability to even attempt to justify it does


He wasn’t unable, he said he couldn’t be bothered to argue with you.  If it’s something you’ll never understand he’s just banging his head against a brick wall.


----------



## jobo (Dec 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I’m suggesting he best way to deal with multiple opponents is to train to deal with multiple opponents, as opposed to not training to deal with them and then having no understanding, no training and no skills to deal with it if it happens.


well if your not suggesting different training would have given a different out come, then you can't really say the training he did have let him down.

outside the world of the,kung fu movies, 7 opoinent is always going to end up with you being a bit beaten up, unless they are 12 yo girls, even then.?


----------



## jobo (Dec 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> He wasn’t unable, he said he couldn’t be bothered to argue with you.  If it’s something you’ll never understand he’s just banging his head against a brick wall.


they always say that if they have been pulled on talk tosh,


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> well if your not suggesting different training would have given a different out come


I’m suggesting the best way to prepare for multiple opponents is to train for multiple opponents, rather than not training for multiple opponents and then having no training no understanding and no skills to deal with multiple opponents.


----------



## jobo (Dec 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> I’m suggesting the best way to prepare for multiple opponents is to train for multiple opponents, rather than not training for multiple opponents and then having no training no understanding and no skills to deal with multiple opponents.


but that's a completely different point, than the one were you said that. Guys training had failed. But even then there arnt any skills that will allow you to fight 7 opponents, so he would still have been beaten up.

its like saying someone whose rope broke when absailing should have trained free falling, it wouldn't have made the slightest differance to the out come


----------



## Danny T (Dec 9, 2017)

5 maybe 6 years back a group of UFC fighters were involved in a training program with the U.S. Marines where they were either attacked by 2 man teams of Marines or they attacked the marines. Most of the attacks had the fighters with more numbers than that of the marines with the fighters losing almost every encounter even when they had the upper hand with surprise as well as numbers. That said the marines had the advantage of home territory (being outside in the rough terrain and snow), having trained as two man teams with weapons vs 4 or 6 man teams. All encounters were hand to hand with and without weapons.
Training vs multiple opponents is different than fighting a single person. The overall strategies are different and some important tactics are different. The idea of engagement is different, when to engage and how is different.


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 9, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> It is interesting to me that you say the Japanese have faith in their system. Generally in the US we dont.  Many view the government and law enforcement as the enemy.
> I think the concept of violence anxiety is a symptom of the bigger issue of self reliance. In the west we have the pressures of being self reliant, somthing I believe is not prevalent in Japan.
> Being self reliant means the responsibility of self preservation and self protection falls on the individual.  In the US we see ourselves as individuals, I think ( let me know if I am incorrect) in Japan they see themselves as part of a group. Is it possible that group identity is stronger than individual identity?   This could make a big difference on how martial arts  manifests itself in different cultures.



True because Japanese are Japanese. Nationality bonds them together. In some ways so much that its completely over the top with company taking preference to a family unit. Then when they do become individualistic they split and form yet another group.

It can actually be a group conciousness that exceeds race and nationality 'if' you belong to that group and are in Japan. 

Losing face is very bad in Asia, so not just the individual but the whole group loses face.

Individuality is taking something that others can do then adding ones own character to it. For others to sit wtch and admire what you have added rather than changed.

Politically a leader takes few descisions. They confer with party and sempai. In the past a prime example of leadership gone wrong.

My study over many years has been one of cultural activity. I find it sad that many more dont look at MA is this way.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 9, 2017)

Anarax said:


> I'm not referring to a world champ, just training with intent. In your example, the mom should at least recognize the opportunity from enrolling her kids in that class. She shouldn't expect her child to be the next world champion, but to understand the value of what they could learn and encourage them to do so.


In a word, Why?

Why "should" she do that? If her outcome values what you are talking about, perhaps. I'd agree with you, myself, but I can't, and neither can you, substitute your own judgment for hers as it applies to her child, unless you are going to go that far into authoritarian paternalism (being everyone's dad).

Typical martial arts types seem to have different value structures than typical non-MA types. Maybe, to her, all that build up of skill is a gross waste of her child's time and energy, to get something he/she will never use.  I'd disagree with her, but I can definitely see where she has the right to make that determination.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 9, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Typical martial arts types seem to have different value structures than typical non-MA types.


i am very interested in this idea. can you elaborate on this?


----------



## Anarax (Dec 9, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Why "should" she do that?


It's an opportunity that will otherwise be wasted. In your example the mother has already enrolled her child in the class. The only thing the child must do to gain so much more is apply him or herself. The child will gain valuable self defense skills if she simply encourages him or her. Both children and adults place too much value on belt ranks. Both children and adults have this mentality of "I am a (insert rank) belt, thus I can defend myself." Giving those with very little to no combative skills the idea that they know how to fight/defend themselves is a recipe for disaster. Confidence is great, but confidence in that which you are not good at is dangerous. 



JP3 said:


> If her outcome values what you are talking about, perhaps.


Why would the mother not want their child to be able to defend themselves?



JP3 said:


> substitute your own judgment for hers as it applies to her child, unless you are going to go that far into authoritarian paternalism (being everyone's dad)


Don't know where you got that from? I stated the same for adults. I've witnessed this numerous times and have never forced by beliefs on anyone.



JP3 said:


> I'd disagree with her, but I can definitely see where she has the right to make that determination.


My post was never about depriving someone of their rights. It's about both children and adults can get so much more out of martial arts if they apply themselves. Coasting through training isn't going to help them if they get into an altercation.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> The only way to deal with multiple opponents is to train to deal with multiple opponents. How can not training to deal wih multiple opponents not be a fail in of his training.  Clearly that’s exactly what it is.



No it isn't, you're generalizing and painting with a broad brush. You are essentially saying this one example you found that the supports the claim you already believed shows that anyone who doesn't train how to fight multiple opponents will not be able to defend themselves against multiple opponents. 

I can take your logic and find someone who does train against multiple opponents and loses against multiple opponents. I can then say, see? training against multiple opponents is ineffective. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 10, 2017)

Anarax said:


> No it isn't, you're generalizing and painting with a broad brush.


Which is exactly what you did with your initial post. 

Everydays a school day


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> but that's a completely different point, than the one were you said that. Guys training had failed. But even then there arnt any skills that will allow you to fight 7 opponents, so he would still have been beaten up.


Correct, there are no skills that will allow you to follow to fight 7 people when you are unconscious, because you have never trained for multiple opponents and so don’t look at what is going on around you, and get blindsided.  Where as of course the best way to deal with multiple opponents is to only train against one opponent so all you have ever done is focus solely on them at the exclusion of his mates coming at you from behind.  Yes that’s a much better idea, I mean what can that possibly go wrong...



jobo said:


> its like saying someone whose rope broke when absailing should have trained free falling, it wouldn't have made the slightest differance to the out come


It’s not even close to saying that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2017)

Anarax said:


> It's not oversimplified. The point is some put so little effort into it and still expect amazing results. It is a simple concept of "you fight how you train" and "you get back what you put in", but it's not oversimplified. Even if your goal is fitness in martial arts, you should still be putting effort in.


In my experience, the proportion of students who put in minimal effort AND expect to be great is very small. There are, indeed, many students who just do the work in class, no more and no less. Most are quite happy with their progress, or lack thereof. They like the community of the school, the physical activity, and being able to call themselves martial artists. Those who are dissatisfied with their progress tend to work harder.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2017)

Steve said:


> Not necessarily.


Agreed. In most cases, if the MA instructor is doing good work (not even necessarily considering fighting ability), the kid it likely better off. They're getting socialization, maybe some team work experience, learning to take direction, developing some physical ability, probably developing some discipline. The kind of stuff that many children get from other sports. If the instructor isn't doing good work, there's some bad that can come from being in a MA school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> To you it seems that way yes.


I don't know of any realistic approach that makes 7-1 not overwhelming odds, without a great deal of luck, other than getting shots off before they get close enough to do damage, so maybe they stop attacking and start running for their lives.


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 10, 2017)

The point that ANYONE, no matter who he is and how accomplished a MAist he is, got beaten by 7 guys at the same time is SO STUPID that it genuinely deserves zero consideration and rebuttal.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Dec 10, 2017)

Anarax said:


> No it's not. Finding a video of a professional fighter getting overwhelmed by 5 or more people isn't proof of his claim. Look up the other cases of professional fighters getting into altercations outside the ring, then tell me they're training wasn't effective



If you are taking about professional fighters getting into fights outside the ring against groups of 5 people, I would like to know the circumstances and outcome vs TMA fighters who do the same, then factor in TMA who may not have had training defending against boxers and also believe in fighting fair.  Are professional fighters or TMA practitioners fighting against groups of drunken thug wannbees or experienced street fighters?

But regardless, your assertion that training to fight against more than one attacker would not make you better at that, is frankly, quite ridiculous.  That can be expanded to say that no training will help anyone to fight better.  TMA, newer MA, boxing, nothing.  So either you can fight or not.  No training will help you.  Do you support that?

If you want to argue the odds of any fighter, TMA or otherwise, winning against 2 attackers, or 3, or 4, 7 or 10, that would make more sense.  But there are so many possible variables I think it would be very difficult.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 10, 2017)

Looking through this post it seems the op thinks that everyone should share the same values and opinions that he does. Well no buddy sorry it doesn't work that way. If martial art schools only accepted people who were extremely dedicated then there'd be maybe 5 or 6 in each club. The majority of kids In kids classes simply don't care about martial arts. It's a little hobby for them after school. Same with adults it's something to do after work to keep active. They simply don't care about being amazing martial artists and that's absoloutely fine. You're dedicated to it good on you but your way isn't the only way and frankly thinking that everyone /should/ be taking it as seriously as you sounds very arrogant in my eyes. 

Why do you even care about what other people do..just get on with your own stuff and let them do there's.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 10, 2017)

How the heck did this thread get into more of this pro fighter self defence multiple attacker bs


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 10, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't know of any realistic approach that makes 7-1 not overwhelming odds, without a great deal of luck, other than getting shots off before they get close enough to do damage, so maybe they stop attacking and start running for their lives.


No one is saying it's not overwhelimg odds.  What I am saying is the best way to preapre for multiple opponents is to practice trainig against multiple opponents, rather than training to deal with one opponent and then have no idea, no skills and no training to deal with multiple opponents.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 10, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No one is saying it's not overwhelimg odds.  What I am saying is the best way to preapre for multiple opponents is to practice trainig against multiple opponents, rather than training to deal with one opponent and then have no idea, no skills and no training to deal with multiple opponents.


There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own


----------



## Paul_D (Dec 10, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own


Ok, I give up.

Clearly the best way to prepare for multiplie opponents is to never train to deal with multiple opponents.  The best way to train to deal with weapons is to never train to deal with weapons.  Instead just take up MMA because it covers everything to do with SD that anyone could ever need.

Goodbye


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 10, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Ok, I give up.
> 
> Clearly the best way to prepare for multiplie opponents is to never train to deal with multiple opponents.  The best way to train to deal with weapons is to never train to deal with weapons.  Instead just take up MMA because it covers everything to do with SD that anyone could ever need.
> 
> Goodbye


Um okay bye then...I didn't actually say a thing about mma at all but okay


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> No one is saying it's not overwhelimg odds.  What I am saying is the best way to preapre for multiple opponents is to practice trainig against multiple opponents, rather than training to deal with one opponent and then have no idea, no skills and no training to deal with multiple opponents.


I agree with that premise. The tone of previous posts sounded to me - and perhaps to others - as if that training would make 7-1 reasonable odds. If that wasn't your intention, no harm done.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 10, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own


I avoid the word "impossible", because someone will show me an example or two. But I agree with the basic tone and intent of your post.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 10, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Which is exactly what you did with your initial post.
> 
> Everydays a school day





Anarax said:


> Some parents believe enrolling their kids into a martial arts class is all they need to do for their child/children to learn to defend themselves





Anarax said:


> Though some people like to downplay younger students not taking their training seriously





Anarax said:


> Some adults share this mindset as well



I don't know where I generalized or painted with a broad brush.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 10, 2017)

oftheherd1 said:


> If you are taking about professional fighters getting into fights outside the ring against groups of 5 people, I would like to know the circumstances and outcome vs TMA fighters who do the same, then factor in TMA who may not have had training defending against boxers and also believe in fighting fair.  Are professional fighters or TMA practitioners fighting against groups of drunken thug wannbees or experienced street fighters?
> 
> But regardless, your assertion that training to fight against more than one attacker would not make you better at that, is frankly, quite ridiculous.  That can be expanded to say that no training will help anyone to fight better.  TMA, newer MA, boxing, nothing.  So either you can fight or not.  No training will help you.  Do you support that?
> 
> If you want to argue the odds of any fighter, TMA or otherwise, winning against 2 attackers, or 3, or 4, 7 or 10, that would make more sense.  But there are so many possible variables I think it would be very difficult.



His assertion was the pro fighter failed because of his training. Mine was there are a lot of a professional fighter's skills that can applied fighting multiple opponents and there are multiple videos illustrating that. Him finding one video to try and prove his point, but ignoring so many others that provide a counter point is what I objected to. Is training for multiple opponents useful? Absolutely. Does that mean pro fighters can't defend themselves against multiple opponents? No.


----------



## Anarax (Dec 10, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Looking through this post it seems the op thinks that everyone should share the same values and opinions that he does. Well no buddy sorry it doesn't work that way. If martial art schools only accepted people who were extremely dedicated then there'd be maybe 5 or 6 in each club. The majority of kids In kids classes simply don't care about martial arts. It's a little hobby for them after school. Same with adults it's something to do after work to keep active. They simply don't care about being amazing martial artists and that's absoloutely fine. You're dedicated to it good on you but your way isn't the only way and frankly thinking that everyone /should/ be taking it as seriously as you sounds very arrogant in my eyes.
> 
> Why do you even care about what other people do..just get on with your own stuff and let them do there's.



Absolutely not, I posted to start a discussion. Replying to other people's posts to clarify my position isn't to say your wrong and I'm right. If someone's makes illogical assertions or generalizes then I reply as well. However; that's not to say if you disagree with me you're illogical, but some are illogical in how they come to their conclusions. Exploring how some come to their conclusions and replying isn't saying "you must agree with me." I posted what I've seen first hand and wanted to know other people's view of what they've seen. Clarifying my stance and replying in a respectful manner isn't arrogant either. I've already stated I don't say anything to the other students who train in that manner. I'm not the student telling everybody in class they're "training wrong".


----------



## Buka (Dec 10, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> There's only 1 way to deal with multiple opponents. Run like hell. Anything else is pretty much a waste of time because it simply won't work. It's pretty much impossible to beat more than 3 guys on your own



I partly disagree. I've been teaching Fighting Multiples for years now. To students, Leos and security forces. Unfortunately [but fortunately from an instructor's viewpoint] I've experienced it first hand. Been in too many melees, riots and crowd control to remember them all.

But there's a caveat to this. First, you have to know how to fight going in. If you have no idea how to fight, what I can teach you is limited to  information only. You know, a nice little week long course where you had some fun. But, if you know how to fight to start with - that's an entirely different story.

There are some oddities to this, at least in my experience. I've always found it easier to fight three people as opposed to two. And the smaller the space you use, the better off you are. Natural instinct tells us to move, create space. But you want just the opposite. You want to close, to move in, always. You vortex them, using position and the taking away of their space.

And here's another couple of caveats. If you are fighting three people who have a plan, and have done this before, you just might have a bad day. But most instances of multiple against one person aren't usually planned.

If you are hit first, especially if you didn't see it coming, you might be in trouble. But if you already know how to fight, getting hit first is just another day of taking a hit. Getting into a real fight and learning how to take a hit, really shouldn't happen on the same day.

And it depends on who we're talking about. I can't really run well any more. Eventually, they'll catch me, and I'll be tired and out of position, and breath, when they do. Advantage them. 
But if I dictate when we start, advantage me.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 10, 2017)

Danny T said:


> 5 maybe 6 years back a group of UFC fighters were involved in a training program with the U.S. Marines where they were either attacked by 2 man teams of Marines or they attacked the marines. Most of the attacks had the fighters with more numbers than that of the marines with the fighters losing almost every encounter even when they had the upper hand with surprise as well as numbers. That said the marines had the advantage of home territory (being outside in the rough terrain and snow), having trained as two man teams with weapons vs 4 or 6 man teams. All encounters were hand to hand with and without weapons.
> Training vs multiple opponents is different than fighting a single person. The overall strategies are different and some important tactics are different. The idea of engagement is different, when to engage and how is different.



Yeah but marines don't win at that sneaker course either. So again it was not a case of specialized training winning that situation either.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 10, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Over the years I have witnessed an interesting concept both the trained and untrained believe. The concept is based around the idea that showing up for practice is the *only *thing required to improve martial prowess. This isn't directed to the differently abled, but more towards those that don't wish to put the work in for various reasons.


I get the occasional one of those.  The first no-change they get on a promotional testing is a bucket of cold water in the face.


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 10, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i understand your _"that guy"..._the one who sees the world through their own eyes and refuses to try to understand the underlying point that someone is trying to make...so be it....
> 
> What do children know of their own mortality?
> 
> ...



It seems to me sir your opinion is a bit narrow. One head doctors opinion of the younger population is in no ways concrete evidence. Especially in the U.S. violence is regional, yes that means mortal violence. If you are referring to the McDojo concept of teaching MA then I agree that a lot of your argument has merit. What any good instructor will do is to stretch a student, not only physically but mentally. This is vital when teaching younger students. Teach them adversity and failure. Teach them what fear feels like and how to deal with it. Make certain you explain this to parents. The best saying my GM says is "something that is always bad is bad, something that is always good is bad, it takes a healthy balance of both to understand how to appreciate the good in something (I'm paraphrasing). Your argument has merit when speaking about the general population. But do you want your Dojo/Dojang to be full of the bland general population. We teach to be exceptional. If we do not teach this way and believe it we are not fulfilling our obligation to the MA community. 
You also cannot start out arguing generalities then be specific and point out 15-16 year olds. If that is part of your argument then I am going to say spend a day in a children's hospital. Then you will see just how much children can understand about mortality.


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 11, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> How the heck did this thread get into more of this pro fighter self defence multiple attacker bs


It usually does


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 11, 2017)

dvcochran said:


> But do you want your Dojo/Dojang to be full of the bland general population. We teach to be exceptional. If we do not teach this way and believe it we are not fulfilling our obligation to the MA community.



As far as Japan is concerned: Again your premise is based on a Western concept. In the country it comes from? It's little league. That's how it survived WWll. To be reinstituted after a five year suspension as a cultural sportlike tradition. No way will a dojo have "bland population". It far too intense. At least it should be! Will everbody be good. I dont really mind as long as the try their best and at 
least one of them will be good enough to carry the flag for me.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 11, 2017)

dvcochran said:


> It seems to me sir your opinion is a bit narrow. One head doctors opinion of the younger population is in no ways concrete evidence. Especially in the U.S. violence is regional, yes that means mortal violence. If you are referring to the McDojo concept of teaching MA then I agree that a lot of your argument has merit. What any good instructor will do is to stretch a student, not only physically but mentally. This is vital when teaching younger students. Teach them adversity and failure. Teach them what fear feels like and how to deal with it. Make certain you explain this to parents. The best saying my GM says is "something that is always bad is bad, something that is always good is bad, it takes a healthy balance of both to understand how to appreciate the good in something (I'm paraphrasing). Your argument has merit when speaking about the general population. But do you want your Dojo/Dojang to be full of the bland general population. We teach to be exceptional. If we do not teach this way and believe it we are not fulfilling our obligation to the MA community.
> You also cannot start out arguing generalities then be specific and point out 15-16 year olds. If that is part of your argument then I am going to say spend a day in a children's hospital. Then you will see just how much children can understand about mortality.


You are 100% correct.  My opinion is both "general" and regional.  I have not travel around the globe to get  cross section as a reference for my thoughts on this issue.  I can say I have been been exposed to maybe a hundred schools or more in my regional location.  Not one school addresses actual violence other than lip service on how to deal with an imaginary bully or the usual "don't talk to strangers".   It is not until the age of about 15 when the child is allowed to join the adult classes that violence is addressed in an adult manner.  Things are different in other parts of the world. It is a mistake to think otherwise. Perhaps I failed a bit in this respect but I stand by my original premise.
Which I should add was a specific response to someone's comment.
For a child, superficial understanding of violence is one matter. Having the full emotional understanding and capacity , empathy, apathy, and the maturity to work on these topics in a class is somthing different


----------



## jobo (Dec 11, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> You are 100% correct.  My opinion is both "general" and regional.  I have not travel around the globe to get  cross section as a reference for my thoughts on this issue.  I can say I have been been exposed to maybe a hundred schools or more in my regional location.  Not one school addresses actual violence other than lip service on how to deal with an imaginary bully or the usual "don't talk to strangers".   It is not until the age of about 15 when the child is allowed to join the adult classes that violence is addressed in an adult manner.  Things are different in other parts of the world. It is a mistake to think otherwise. Perhaps I failed a bit in this respect but I stand by my original premise.
> Which I should add was a specific response to someone's comment.
> For a child, superficial understanding of violence is one matter. Having the full emotional understanding and capacity , empathy, apathy, and the maturity to work on these topics in a class is somthing different


your point NOW is that under 15s don't get schooled in violence at their ma class. Your point previously was that under 15s don't have the capacity to understand the concept of violence, this is not the same thing.


----------



## Hyoho (Dec 11, 2017)

jobo said:


> your point NOW is that under 15s don't get schooled in violence at their ma class. Your point previously was that under 15s don't have the capacity to understand the concept of violence, this is not the same thing.



I guess we had better tell that one to people like my father that went off to Africa at the outset of WWll aged fifteen. He lied about his age so that he could go.

Probably before fifteen was the most violent part of my life. I was constantly bullied until I realized I had a certain natural ability. After that with training it became and still is controlled violence.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 15, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am very interested in this idea. can you elaborate on this?


Sure...

For me, the majority of my friends, in fact every single one from undergrad, except one notable exception, are non-MA type guys.  There's a group of about 20 with whom I stay in contact on a semi-regular basis, only one of them is a martial artist, a lifetimer like me. Most of the others have never even dabbled.

I compare that group, whom I know very well, I think, with my guys/gals I train with on my mat, and on other mats over the years, again, with whom I stay in semi-regular contact.

The MA, to a person, uniformly believe that every single person on the planet should learn martial arts, and learn it at the truly persistent level of going to class, if not every day, at least 3 times aweek, so as to have the life and survival skills such training delivers, even to the uncoordinated, ungainly, weak and slow.

The non-MA type people don't see much value in it, other than trotting out sayings like, "Yeah, that'd be great that one time in my life when I get in a fight or something. But."  Or, "I've got a concealed carry permit, that's how I'd do it. Why sweat so much?"  Like that.  This difference is what I was talking about, put in one frame of reference.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 15, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Sure...
> 
> For me, the majority of my friends, in fact every single one from undergrad, except one notable exception, are non-MA type guys.  There's a group of about 20 with whom I stay in contact on a semi-regular basis, only one of them is a martial artist, a lifetimer like me. Most of the others have never even dabbled.
> 
> ...


I've seen a similar difference. There are the folks who want everyone to join them, and the folks who seem fascinated but would never be interested in training. A small population seems to exist between the extremes.


----------



## jobo (Dec 18, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Sure...
> 
> For me, the majority of my friends, in fact every single one from undergrad, except one notable exception, are non-MA type guys.  There's a group of about 20 with whom I stay in contact on a semi-regular basis, only one of them is a martial artist, a lifetimer like me. Most of the others have never even dabbled.
> 
> ...


yes, but, if every one learn martial arts, then any advantage you get from learning ma is cancelled out,

we get a lot of one, two three night newbies, they last as long as it takes them to realise that this is a years long commitment and not a quick fix to their self  defence concerns.

the most amusing are the ones who think that they are tough and its a walk in the park this Ma stuff, they suddenly realised they are slow and weak and unco ordonated and rather than work on that, they can't live with the reality and go and do something else that doesn't knock their self esteem


----------



## Balrog (Dec 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes, but, if every one learn martial arts, then any advantage you get from learning ma is cancelled out


Not really.  If everyone studied martial arts, we'd have a LOT less violence in the world because of the discipline and self-control they would learn.  My $0.02 worth....


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

Balrog said:


> Not really.  If everyone studied martial arts, we'd have a LOT less violence in the world because of the discipline and self-control they would learn.  My $0.02 worth....


No because not all martial artists are non violent people and some have no discipline or self control. There are thugs and scum bags in every walk of life, martial arts included


----------



## Balrog (Dec 19, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> No because not all martial artists are non violent people and some have no discipline or self control. There are thugs and scum bags in every walk of life, martial arts included


Behavior is learned.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 19, 2017)

And as far as martial arts not being magic.....I'm quite sad that this guy let his web page expire.  However, thanks to the Internet Wayback Machine, we can still laugh at him.

The Magician's Network Self-Defense System: The Art of Destruction


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 19, 2017)

Balrog said:


> Behavior is learned.


I see the age-old nature vs nurture argument coming soon.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

Balrog said:


> And as far as martial arts not being magic.....I'm quite sad that this guy let his web page expire.  However, thanks to the Internet Wayback Machine, we can still laugh at him.
> 
> The Magician's Network Self-Defense System: The Art of Destruction


That's...magic. Thanks for posting that. The story on the home page is worth the visit.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's...magic. Thanks for posting that. The story on the home page is worth the visit.


One of my absolute favorite sites when the eternal "my style is better than yours" or "McDojos" topics raise their heads.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

Balrog said:


> One of my absolute favorite sites when the eternal "my style is better than yours" or "McDojos" topics raise their heads.


Absolutely. I mean, what could be more "deadly" than replacing a gun with a banana??


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 20, 2017)

Balrog said:


> Behavior is learned.


Not by everyone some people are just bad no matter how hard you try


----------



## Buka (Dec 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Absolutely. I mean, what could be more "deadly" than replacing a gun with a banana??



Way ahead of you, bro.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

Buka said:


> Way ahead of you, bro.
> 
> View attachment 21159


Of course you are, man.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2017)

Balrog said:


> Behavior is learned.


no, its not, at least good behaviour as defined by societies norms can be learnt, if you want to learn that is, bad behaviour, the laws of the jungle is quite natral


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> no, its not, at least good behaviour as defined by societies norms can be learnt, if you want to learn that is, bad behaviour, the laws of the jungle is quite natral


Agreed. Just because behavior is learned, doesn't mean people can be taught - they have to make the change for themselves.


----------



## Balrog (Dec 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> no, its not, at least good behaviour as defined by societies norms can be learnt, if you want to learn that is, bad behaviour, the laws of the jungle is quite natral


Babies are a blank slate.  If they are taught by their parents to show what we call good behavior, they will.  If they are not being taught good behavior, then they are being taught bad behavior, usually by example from the parents.  Either way, it's learned.


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2017)

Balrog said:


> Babies are a blank slate.  If they are taught by their parents to show what we call good behavior, they will.  If they are not being taught good behavior, then they are being taught bad behavior, usually by example from the parents.  Either way, it's learned.


have you ever spent time with a young child, they are,NOT a blank state


----------



## jobo (Dec 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Just because behavior is learned, doesn't mean people can be taught - they have to make the change for themselves.


to widen it up, lots, perhaps most people who have reached a high position in society, have done so on the back of lying, cheating, fraudulent claims and general ruthlessness. Yet this is the sort of behaviour society considers bad, but also the sort of behaviour that it rewards. Whilst good behaviour, truthfulness, fairness, consideration for others tends not to end up with you in the white house etal. 

you have to wonder if teaching your child good behaviour is do them any favours in the long run


----------



## JR 137 (Dec 21, 2017)

Buka said:


> Way ahead of you, bro.
> 
> View attachment 21159


When I first saw that pic I thought for a second that it was you.  Then I realized it can’t be you, because no one famous is standing next to you.

Edit:  Then again, if it is you, who took the pic?  Muhammad Ali? Shaq? Trump?  Or if it wasn’t a celebrity, did you force them out of the picture?


----------



## Buka (Dec 21, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> When I first saw that pic I thought for a second that it was you.  Then I realized it can’t be you, because no one famous is standing next to you.
> 
> Edit:  Then again, if it is you, who took the pic?  Muhammad Ali? Shaq? Trump?  Or if it wasn’t a celebrity, did you force them out of the picture?



Well, actually, that's Chiquita's little sister bo-na-na fanna Fofanna. And she's not mooning you, she's just a little camera shy.


----------

