# Thoughts on the "what martial art should I take for self-defense" question



## skribs (Feb 7, 2020)

Like some other members here, I hang out both on here and on the Martial Arts subreddit (r/martialarts).  One of the big differences between this site and Reddit, is I feel this site has a good mix of people from all different backgrounds, while Reddit seems to focus heavily on combat sports that make it into MMA, with a lot of bashing of TMAs and RBSDs in the process.  I was thinking about making this post over there (since it's more in response to the threads I've seen over there), but figured since I'm not going to be bowing before the golden calf of the UFC, I'll probably just get downvoted to oblivion and my message will be missed.  So I'll make the post here, and I'll try to keep it in the context of this site.

The question that often comes up from beginners is "what art should I take for self-defense?"  Another common question is experienced students who haven't ventured outside of their gym will ask "is my art effective for self-defense?"

The typical answer to this question on the MMA Cult Fan Club...I mean r/martialarts...is that if your art has a high representation in MMA, and you do live sparring in class, then your training is good.  If your art doesn't have a sport component (like Krav Maga), or is based on non-resistive drills (like Aikido), then your art isn't good for self defense.  It is this answer which I would like to discuss.

Before I get into it, I'd like to clarify that I have nothing against MMA, UFC, or any combat sport.  I think combat sports are fun and exciting, and I think the live sparring they do is invaluable towards building skill and confidence.  I think MMA and the UFC are excellent tests of martial arts, probably the best test we have.  My only issue is with the gate-keeping mentality that if it's not MMA, it's bullshido.  

*Situation 1: The Pre-Fight*
Before the fight even begins, there's usually a build-up.  Sometimes it's a sucker-punch or you get jumped, but in my experience it's far more likely that someone needs to be amped up before actually getting into a fight.  In my adult life, I've never been jumped out of the blue.  I've had people outright tell me they want to fight or beat me up, and I've had people try to play into my fight-or-flight response.  By remaining calm and collected, I was able to avoid the fight in the first place.

I think most martial arts will do this.  The confidence from class will help you to not lose your mind when someone tries to get you riled up.  The discipline you learn will help you be patient and rational in a situation where they're trying to get you to think with your lizard brain.  Even the exercise helps calm your mind and make you less likely to react out of anger.  The number one solution to a bad dog (one that chews on everything or barks all night) is to take it for a walk to get it exercise.  Same thing for a terror of a cat - get it some toys that will get it exercise so it's not laying around all day penting up all that energy.

This is also where sparring really helps.  Not only is sparring going to give you the most confidence in your abilities, but it's also the best way to get rid of that pent-up aggression, so you're not seeking a fight when you go out at night.  However, I think almost any martial art will help keep you poised under pressure.

One thing I hear a lot is that if the martial arts you've learned doesn't do a very good job of teaching the techniques (because of poor quality control, lack of resistive sparring, or fantastical techniques that won't work in real life), that someone is going to get into fights and get hurt.  While it is true that they are less likely to win a fight if they haven't sharpened their technique, this misses the point entirely.  A martial artist shouldn't be looking to get into fights, no matter how skilled they are.  You're not "more likely" to get hurt, because you shouldn't be more likely to get into a fight.

*Situation 2:  The Typical Self-Defense Scenario*
Typically you're not fighting against UFC champions when you need to defend yourself in the street.  For one, I think most people who train martial arts get their aggression out in class and don't need to pick fights to get their fix.  (Not everyone, but most people).  If someone pulls a gun on you, chances are they aren't John Wick.  If someone throws a punch, they're probably not as skilled as Mike Tyson.  

A lot of people believe cross-training (or training a generalist art) is required to be able to defend yourself.  In a typical situation, you can easily control where a fight happens and make it work to your advantage.  Most of the time it takes a good shot from a boxer or a good take-down from a wrestler for the other person to realize "they actually know how to fight and this is going to be too much work."  While you'd need a broader range of technique to compete in MMA, having a one-dimensional skill is generally fine for a street fight.

What about the more maligned arts, such as an RBSD or a TMA?  These can still be successful, especially in a typical self-defense scenario.  Aikido gets a really bad rap, but I recently saw a news clip of a convenience store clerk who disarmed a gunman using his Aikido training.  Does this mean you will always have success disarming someone?  No.  But it can work, and saying it absolutely doesn't work (which I hear a lot from the MMA Jocks) is a break from reality.

Speaking of breaks from reality, arts that are completely based on fantasy are not likely to work in a self-defense situation.  

We already discussed that you should be able to avoid most fights.  Of those potential fights that remain, a large number of them can be handled by someone with training in almost any art.

*Situation 3:  The Competent Attacker*
Let's say you weren't able to avoid a fight, and that the person you're fighting with actually has some idea of what they are doing.  It is at this point that non-resistive arts will start to fall off the map, and join the fantasy-based arts in irrelevance.  

RBSD arts will have some viability...as long as what the attacker provides fits with the scenarios provided in the system.  The more you spar, and the less you rely on specific drills to make that happen, the more likely you are to succeed.

One-dimensional sport fighters will still have a good chance, if they can keep the fight in their dimension.

*Situation 4:  The Skilled Attacker*
Instead of the enemy from #3 being merely competent, let's say they are actually skilled.  In this case, you either need to be a *very *skilled 1-dimensional fighter that can keep the fight where you want it, or you need to have multiple disciplines in order to press every advantage you can get.  

The alternative is to "cheat".  This is where using the threat of a weapon or an actual weapon to defend yourself becomes a much better option.  (And I would argue a good option in most cases for Situations 1-3, because you won't know ahead of time if they are skilled or not).  This is where having friends or other backup would be helpful.  This is also why we should try and stick to situation #1 and just avoid the fight in the first place.

*Situation 5:  The Cheater*
What if the other person cheats?  What if they have a weapon of their own?  Well, the same rules apply as going down the list.

Try to avoid the fight entirely
If they are stupid with it, then even arts that are much-maligned can be successful (the aikido anecdote I mentioned above)
If they are competent with it, you either need to be more skilled than them or you need to cheat, too
What if they have friends?  Same rules again. Try to avoid the fight.

Most groups that attack you are going to have a leader who wants to fight, and a bunch of others there out of moral support.
If they have good teamwork and are each competent fighters in their own right, you need to be much more skilled than them, or you need to cheat, too.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 7, 2020)

Rather than the art being of no use, it is imo, the practioner, and how well they apply themselves or what they have learnt and understood, to say Aikido is useless at SD because they do ABC is not accurate, in your opinion and others opinions this may be true.
Of course avoidance should be everyones first choice, keeping calm, relaxed but ready is also vital, having the mentality, I dont want to fight, but its ok to fight if I have to, is also key. As for the rest of your comments, in theory you are correct, but in reality in my opinion go straight to cheating (a weapon involved or not), it is a matter of survival, no wait and see if they are any good, make your chance and take it, yes it will be harder the more skill your adversary has, the more difficult it will be, and 
 this is where ma training from any legit art helps, distance, timing, speed, power, the last 2 are variable in a fighter, having said that the only way to practice this effectively is by sparring, and the further you go with sparring the better. Drills are ok, but you need to understand movement and moving constantly, rather than concertrate on the specific drills of class, the opportunities will reveal themselves once you have created the space/opening, and in my experience the mma types shouting their mouths off about this or that art is trash, probably have never fought other than in the gym or at school. Having said that I do see a lot of static sparring in tma, the striker will put in a front kick, the receiver will apply a technique to deal with said kick, then stand completely still, not just the beginners, the mid and senior belts as well. The more you do, the more you see, this is why sparring is great, it gets rid of tension and aggression, it sharpens up your responses, so my list would be.
1) avoid
2) keep calm and relaxed its ok to fight
3) move and keep moving
4) when the time comes, cheat before they do or strike and keep striking, keep moving, until they give up, run away, or take an involuntary nap.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 7, 2020)

What Martial Art should I take for self defense? Couple of answers for you.

First art: PutYourPhoneAway Ryu - In this art you learn to put your phone away when walking down the street, or across the parking lot. Being buried in your phone, makes you a very easy target... which is what the bad guy is looking for.

First self defense idea - Win! - But, winning has a very different definition than most people think. Winning means "I can go to work tomorrow" or "I can go to school tomorrow." Be aware of what is happening around you. If things start to get uncomfortable, or a problem starts... go some where else... don't get closer to see what is going on. If the bad guy does corner you and want your wallet... how much money is really there? $40? How much will your medical bills be if you get hurt? How much will your lawyer charge if the other guy gets hurt? How much money do you lose if you can't go to work tomorrow? Give up the $40, and go home. Do whatever you have to to walk away, run away or get out of the situation as quick as possible. Giving them your cash, apologizing (even if its not your fault), ignoring what they called your mom, or crossing the street early to avoid the whole situation are all wins... because you can go to work tomorrow... and not the hospital, jail or the morgue.

Okay, so really which "Martial Art" should I take? The answer to this is easy... the art you are willing to practice the most, will be the most effective art for you. Danzan Ryu might be the most effective art for taking out the bad guy. I may have all the data, video, stories and actual evidence to prove it. But, if you won't practice and train it... it won't work for you, no matter how effective it may be. Something that you are willing to train in, practice in and spend time doing will always be more effective than something you make excuses not to do. Sure, kick boxing may be way better than aikido, because it has tons of full contact sparring and aikido has none. But, if my experience with kick boxing is a few classes, separated by a lot of time... and therefore my full contact sparring consists of me trying a technique, and getting countered and then pounded on... its not going to work. However, if you are at aikido 3 times a week, every week, getting thousands of repetitions in moving offline, and redirecting... hopefully, where the school ups the power and speed the better you get.... that may actually work better for you. Especially if you consider what winning is. The Aikido guy probably won't pull off the beautiful, flowing, turning, multi-part arm whip throw... but he may stay calm, get offline, redirect a little and run away.... keeping the ability to go to work, without having to deal with cops.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 7, 2020)

You still should start by being able to fight. 

"Do MMA" is a base line. So you should be able to handle one guy under a rule set. And then branch out in to whatever tactical process you want. 

Otherwise it is a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 8, 2020)

The art of click bang.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 8, 2020)

But in a serious light, many things would work, but some things you should tell somone to avoid.       If they state they want it for self defence, then Kendo, Aikido and several other things are out, as they arent comabtive, about hurting people or about surviving in the modern world.       


Most things would require some altertion though, due to the fact "killing" arts have basically died out or became about something else.   

Good point here, if somone for example cant slaughter a animal without bawling their eyes out or being emotionally crippled for a year, then what hope do they have to bash somones skull in with a rock, drive a knife into them until they stop working etc.        So if you go to a TMA school that has many things that work, you can get disconnected with what they will do to people as you dont see it done often and dont go through conditoning to death.

Also as for the aikdo disarm, just because it works once in a blue moon doesnt mean it works enough to be valid. There is a video on ASP on yotuube of somone using the kick disarm, does that mean that technique is valid and should be taught?  No.     Everything was stacked in the kickers favour, distracted knife weildier, not facing him etc etc.    You need something far more reliable than that, you only love up once in this situation after all.
(isnt that a sterotypcial TKD knife defence also?)


And competion is not a bad base to start from.    It doesnt translate 1:1 to realty, but it is by far not the worst thing.    If you can  go 20 minutes stuck in a ring with somone being able to do pretty much anything, a pretty good start.   Some adaptation and you are on a good road.       There is also the TMA and RBSD nerd/cultist about eye gouging and groin kicking being the equal to a nuclear bomb, or a tornado kick being viable  in a pub etc.


Not many places to draw experiences from the only really prolific controlled envirment you can do it in, is sport/competion.     (by controlled i mean, you arent going to die, not that the events are scripted)     Military gets this issue as well.   you dont know what getting shot at i like until it happens.  So (presuming they have a good training programe) the training exists to expose you as much as possible to the stress in hopes you dont shut down when it happens and follow the SoP's that have been drilled into you.   (police also get this issue, but i would argue crime is more prolfic than some places war record)


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> Good point here, if somone for example cant slaughter a animal without bawling their eyes out or being emotionally crippled for a year,



So if someone in your opinion cannot slaughter a defensless animal, then their ma is bogus, what a load of bollocks, I would do my absolute best to evade control or destroy anyone who wishes to fight or attack me, but I could not destroy a defensless animal or human


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 8, 2020)

skribs said:


> What if the other person cheats?



There is no such thing as cheating in a real fight.

You take every advantage you can get to win.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 8, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> There is no such thing as cheating in a real fight


Oh yes there is, and I have taken advantage of it, several times


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2020)

*what martial art should I take for self-defense*

I don't like the term "self-defense". It sounds like you are the only good guy. Everybody else on earth are all bad guys and try to beat you up.


CB Jones said:


> There is no such thing as cheating in a real fight.
> 
> You take every advantage you can get to win.


Agree! Fighting is a big cheating game.

- I drop my guard.
- You punch my face.
- I kick your groin.

- I raise my guard.
- You kick my groin.
- I catch your leg and take you down.

- I twist you clockwise.
- You resists.
- I borrow your resistance force, and twist you counter-clockwise.

- In jacket wrestling, before the match, if you are a right hand person, you put on your wrestling jacket with your left arm through the sleeve first. This way your opponent may think you are a left hand person.

...


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 8, 2020)

@Kung Fu Wang , i do like your posts, but they are bit like a recipe,
10g sugar
15g kick em in the the plums
How many real fights have you had (sorry in 1 of them moods)?
I enjoy your posts but they are a bit boys own magazine, a=B=c.
I do not wish to appear rude, but its a bit comic book


----------



## Buka (Feb 8, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> @Kung Fu Wang , i do like your posts, but they are bit like a recipe,
> 10g sugar
> 15g kick em in the the plums
> How many real fights have you had (sorry in 1 of them moods)?
> ...



What is a “real fight”? I'm not trying to nitpick or be a jerk, just wondering what the parameters are. For instance, I've had to subdue a lot of people as a cop, and sometimes I've been injured, but it's not really a "real fight, as HE may be trying to fight but all I'm doing is trying to subdue him, sometimes for his own protection.

As a bouncer you sometimes get in skirmishes, sometimes stopping people from coming in, trying to get them out, or separating inebriated people who are fighting each other. But I don't consider them real fights.

So....what be we talkin' about exactly?


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 8, 2020)

A real fight, is, your oppnent will not rest until he they have made you quit, made you run away, or made you take an involantry nap, or hurt you so you cannot continue, 

.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> How many real fights have you had?


If you only talk about street fight, I only had street fight (to protect world peace and enhance human civilization) when I was in high school.

Back in high school, sometime during the evening, someone would knocked on my window and said, "... just got beaten up and we need to get even with." I grabbed my weapon (no fire arm in Taiwan), had no idea who I was going to fight against. It was an unwritten rule that everybody had responsibility to protect our neighbor.

This is why I don't use the term "self-defense". If A beats up B, and C beats up A. I may call that "for justice", but I won't call that for self-defense.

If you are talking about challenge fight (both be a challenger and being challenged) or tournament fight, It will be hard for me to count the number.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 8, 2020)

Buka said:


> So....what be we talkin' about exactl


Back in the early 90's I participated in unliscensed fighting, if you like you can call it mma without the ring or a referee, the ring was composed of straw bails, the fight ended when your opponent could not move or continue, there was a ref, but he was there to stop clinching, and holding, because the betting guests wanted to be entertained, and had money on you, and I was there to make money.for other people.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 8, 2020)

Buka said:


> So....what be we talkin' about exactl


Back in the early 90's I participated in unliscensed fighting, if you like you can call it mma without the ring or a referee, the ring was composed of straw bails, the fight ended when your opponent could not move or continue, there was a ref, but he was there to stop clinching, and holding, because the betting guests wanted to be entertained, and had money on you


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Back in the early 90's I participated in unliscensed fighting, ...


Back in the 70's I formed a fighting club. I still remember we had

- MT professional fighter,
- TKD black belt,
- Hapkido black belt,
- Okinawan karate black belt,
- Kenpo Karate guy,
- Kung Fu guy (myself),
- ...

We sparred with each other. That was the best time I ever had in my life.

I used to watch a Karate school class. At the end of the class, I would walk toward a guy and asked him if he was interested to spar with me outside of his class. I strongly believe in to test my MA skill outside of my area.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 8, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Back in the 70's I formed a fighting club. I still remember we had
> 
> - MT professional fighter,
> - TKD black belt,
> ...



You may of asked, but how many accepted, as I said before, I do respect your comments, but your abc methodology seems to come from someone that trains hard, but has little conflict experience.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 8, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! Fighting is a big cheating game.
> 
> - I drop my guard.
> - You punch my face.
> - I kick your groin.



I was thinking more like....

You throw punch at me
I hit you in the face with a glass beer bottle


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> I was thinking more like....
> 
> You throw punch at me
> I hit you in the face with a glass beer bottle


I was thinking more like ...

- I serve you a pot of tea. I then throw hot tea on your face and beat you up.
- I open the car door for you. You step on the car. I smash the car door and jam your leg. I then beat you up.
- ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> You may of asked, but how many accepted,


It was almost 100%. excepted one day 3 of us went to invited a YMCA Karate instructor to joint in our fighting club. But he turned down our invitation. I believe because I beat up one of his young brother (from Dallas) in a challenge fight before.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> your abc methodology ...


You call it abc methodology. I call it plan. You try to bring your opponent to fight the way that you want to fight and not the way he wants to fight.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 8, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I was thinking more like ...
> 
> - I serve you a pot of tea. I then throw hot tea on your face and beat you up.
> - I open the car door for you. You step on the car. I smash the car door and jam your leg. I then beat you up.
> - ...



Not sure how you claim that as self defense....but I like how you are thinking.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> Good point here, if somone for example cant slaughter a animal without bawling their eyes out or being emotionally crippled for a year, then what hope do they have to bash somones skull in with a rock, drive a knife into them until they stop working etc.        So if you go to a TMA school that has many things that work, you can get disconnected with what they will do to people as you dont see it done often and dont go through conditoning to death



My cats are much better humans than most people.  

Just sayin’.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 8, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> Not sure how you claim that as self defense....but I like how you are thinking.


We need to know how a bad guy may think. We don't need to know how a good guy may think.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 9, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> So if someone in your opinion cannot slaughter a defensless animal, then their ma is bogus, what a load of bollocks, I would do my absolute best to evade control or destroy anyone who wishes to fight or attack me, but I could not destroy a defensless animal or human



If you cant slaughter a animal without serious mental repercussions you should rethink plunging a knife into somone as a self defence option etc etc.    Its a sound point though.   Some people just cannot kill or go to the same brutality others can and with that as effectively as others can.       If you havent seen the effects of breaking bones in people, shattering jaws etc it could be a shock after the effect.

Basically the more varibles you elimate the less chance anything will go wrong, if you can slaughter a animal fine, then chances being you wont exactly freeze stabbing somone.    Likewise with other stress innoculation.


You cannot say for certain what you will do in a stressful situation until you have gone through it.  this issue plauges this area, like i stated militaries have this issue, you dont know if you are going to freeze up getting shot at, do soemthing stupid etc.  Its why the training (should) test you under extreme stress to see if you can actually handle it and they do the best at emulating the real things stresses as they can in training.  

And i will repeat the above*:  You cannot say for certain what you will do*.    Thats just the reality of it.  Better to find out before said situation what your limits are and if you will freeze up etc.


Addendum: For clarification, the martial art isnt ******** content wise if it doesnt add it in, but if you want something for actually fighting you should condition yourself to it.   eg if a knife is your main weapon for self defence, then getting used to blood and killing things fairly brutally will help.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 9, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> My cats are much better humans than most people.
> 
> Just sayin’.



Wait until you are starving, we shall see how quickly the bond fades. 

(people have eaten sledding dogs and other pets and even taboos of food when they are starving, you either do it or die)



Now, that was quite grim. But hey ho, thats the subject matter.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> If you cant slaughter a animal without serious mental repercussions you should rethink plunging a knife into somone as a self defence option etc etc.    Its a sound point though.   Some people just cannot kill or go to the same brutality others can and with that as effectively as others can.       If you havent seen the effects of breaking bones in people, shattering jaws etc it could be a shock after the effect.
> 
> 
> Basically the more varibles you elimate the less chance anything will go wrong, if you can slaughter a animal fine, then chances being you wont exactly freeze stabbing somone.    Likewise with other stress innoculation.
> ...



I couldnt plunge a knife into an animal, and in self defense, I would try to avoid stabbing my opponent with their own knife, as its against the law to carry a knife in the uk on the street, but the chances are I would get a custodial sentance for manslaughter, if they where to die. I would have no problem breaking their arm or leg, or stamping on their chest.



Rat said:


> (people have eaten sledding dogs and other pets and even taboos of food when they are starving, you either do it or die)



I am a meat eater, and killing an animal for food in a life or death situation is quite normal, but to suggest, if your not capable of barbaric things, you wont be any good in a life or death self defense senario is silly imo, however I do agree, some people lose a fight when they crumble because of a hard strike they are not use to taking, or see their own blood, or are meet with aggression or voilence.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> Wait until you are starving, we shall see how quickly the bond fades.
> 
> (people have eaten sledding dogs and other pets and even taboos of food when they are starving, you either do it or die)
> 
> ...


Oh, I was just considering who I would be more willing to kill.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 9, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> So if someone in your opinion cannot slaughter a defensless animal, then their ma is bogus, what a load of bollocks, I would do my absolute best to evade control or destroy anyone who wishes to fight or attack me, but I could not destroy a defensless animal or human


I agree @Rat may have taken it a little too far but I get what he is saying. Conditioning for, whatever, will create an environment that is easier to handle. I do have a hard time translating killing an animal into easier self defense mentality however. Emotional factors like fear and the effects of adrenaline are powerful and have to be considered.

If someone is killing an animal out of pure meanness that is simply evil. If you are killing/slaughtering an animal for purpose I have no problems and have been around it my whole life. The only time I have a problem with it in the sport sense is when people leave the game laying where it was shot. Not much sport in that. 
There is not too many things more satisfying to me than raising livestock and crops for consumption. Something we learned at a very young age was to give thanks to the animal right after taking it's life.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 10, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I agree @Rat may have taken it a little too far but I get what he is saying. Conditioning for, whatever, will create an environment that is easier to handle. I do have a hard time translating killing an animal into easier self defense mentality however. Emotional factors like fear and the effects of adrenaline are powerful and have to be considered.
> 
> If someone is killing an animal out of pure meanness that is simply evil. If you are killing/slaughtering an animal for purpose I have no problems and have been around it my whole life. The only time I have a problem with it in the sport sense is when people leave the game laying where it was shot. Not much sport in that.
> There is not too many things more satisfying to me than raising livestock and crops for consumption. Something we learned at a very young age was to give thanks to the animal right after taking it's life.



I agree entirley, good animal husbandry is paramount for a good quality meat products, I am also in favour of using as much as possible of a slaughtered animal. The phyche element of ma, is something we train in constantly, in my current art, we do strike each other in a controlled manner during class, this gives the striker the feedback on striking correctly, and dealing with the impact of a strike, physically, and mentally, we constantly remain relaxed in our body, removing tension, and using that tension in the striking limb, i.e heavy fist, foot knee elbow etc, we also use our breathe to calm, restore, and add stress to our bodies during excercise. I did react to the stabbing an animal, as I thought it was a silly analogy, and some of the idiots around nowdays may have read it as literal, but I do agree with the overall points he was making.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2020)

So we are basically discussing developing  mental toughness. 

And still trying to worm our way against the importance of competition to do that?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 10, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I agree @Rat may have taken it a little too far but I get what he is saying. Conditioning for, whatever, will create an environment that is easier to handle. I do have a hard time translating killing an animal into easier self defense mentality however. Emotional factors like fear and the effects of adrenaline are powerful and have to be considered.
> 
> If someone is killing an animal out of pure meanness that is simply evil. If you are killing/slaughtering an animal for purpose I have no problems and have been around it my whole life. The only time I have a problem with it in the sport sense is when people leave the game laying where it was shot. Not much sport in that.
> There is not too many things more satisfying to me than raising livestock and crops for consumption. Something we learned at a very young age was to give thanks to the animal right after taking it's life.



Worth noting i wasnt detailing extremists in that.  eg if you have a relgious beleif not to kill things, you probbly wont.        Just the average sort of person.

But we can have that argument and about pacifism and how it can lead to victimisation all day and such things like it.    

Also, i am renown for my hyperbole.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 10, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So we are basically discussing developing  mental toughness.
> 
> And still trying to worm our way against the importance of competition to do that?



Not at all, competition is important for mental toughness, as is sparring, but they are not the only methods, my only quarm with competition is when its under very very strict rules, and someone scores a point for tapping the ear, or striking to the head is not allowed rule, and someone only participate in play sparring and vever pressure test themselves. Is this a continuance of a conversation we had a little while back?


----------



## jobo (Feb 10, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So we are basically discussing developing  mental toughness.
> 
> And still trying to worm our way against the importance of competition to do that?


yes competition is good for '' mental toughness'' but it doesnt have to be fighting competition any competition works , even completely against your own previous best

once youve developed a competition mentality you can apply that to anything


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> once youve developed a competition mentality you can apply that to anything



Train how you fight.   Something as close as you are preparing for will help more and then the habits built wont nessisarily be detrimental.    eg Track competions for self defence vs doing boxing or comabt sports.  Obviously boxing would work better.  (unless your the running type)

Hunting for example is a pretty good method for learning practical shooting skills and decisveness via to shoot or not to shoot and to seize oppertunities etc.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 10, 2020)

skribs said:


> Reddit seems to focus heavily on combat sports that make it into MMA, with a lot of bashing of TMAs and RBSDs in the process.
> 
> 
> I'm not going to be bowing before the golden calf of the UFC,



I find it weird how people fixate on the term MMA,as if it were a style into itself that could be better or worse than other styles. I used to see MMA as a 'style' but now that I've been training at an MMA club for a few years now I've come to realize it's not.

It's a methodology...like science.

Once you are testing your skills live in an environment where you can use all of your weapons(with various exceptions depending on laws and regulations that vary from place to place and promotion to promotion) you are doing 'mixed martial arts'.

It doesn't matter where your skills come from as long as you can make it work against someone fighting back.


So yes, when a style 'doesnt work in MMA' that means it has been tested and failed. That doesn't always mean the technique contained isn't potentially effective(although it sometimes does), it sometimes means nobody has put it to the fire long enough to really learn how to use it.

When people erect this wall between MMA and TMA, it really helps nobody. TMA has the syllabus, and MMA is testing and personalizing this to each martial artist.

This should be a synchronicity rather than a standoff.



As far as the sd part of your post...not even going to touch that


----------



## jobo (Feb 10, 2020)

Rat said:


> Train how you fight.   Something as close as you are preparing for will help more and then the habits built wont nessisarily be detrimental.    eg Track competions for self defence vs doing boxing or comabt sports.  Obviously boxing would work better.  (unless your the running type)
> 
> Hunting for example is a pretty good method for learning practical shooting skills and decisveness via to shoot or not to shoot and to seize oppertunities etc.


we are discussing mental toughness, the quality of refusing to be beaten until you have expounded every last bit of effort your body will allow, you get that from running as much as you do from boxing, though its better if threes a pain barrier to go through, as there is with some types of running

the absolute toughest people ive ever met are rugby players, they would take most people on here out with out breaking sweat , but then fell runners are pretty dam tough as well, but you can see the quality with some thing as unathletic as snooker, you just know they wont go down with out a fight, coz thats there personality type, whether they can muster much of a fight is another matter


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 10, 2020)

This question has been around forever and it will probably be around forever.  The correct answer is always "it depends," followed by an interrogatory that seldom varies.  Different people will find different answers based on traversing that decision tree.

Unfortunately, newcomers tend not to do two things.  

First, they fail to look to see if the question has been asked/answered before.

Second, assuming they do find such threads, they seem not to believe them and feel the need to ask anew.

The question itself is so generic as to demand followup questions, as have been mentioned in this thread and by the OP.

1) What do you mean by 'self-defense'?
2) What is available in your area?
3) Are you willing to train?

As simple as these questions sound, answers still tend to vary.

I ask the first question because people live in different areas of the world, and face different kinds of threats.  If one lives in a war-torn area with bombs going off and roaming armed bands of warlords, I suspect that 'self-defense' means something different than it means to a person living in a suburban zone of a modern first-world city that has a fairly low crime rate and 'self-defense' is more often going to involve random drunken barroom fisticuffs of the voluntary sort.

I ask the second question because there's no point in setting one's hopes on a style or type of training that simply isn't available where one lives.  I am setting aside distance learning via book and video because that's garbage and doesn't work for initial training (sorry, facts hurt).

I ask the third question because it seems many fantasize about magic arts that give results without serious and continuing effort.  The best way to learn to take a punch is...to get punched.  A lot.  The best way to learn to deliver a punch is to punch.  A lot.

As to the art - meh.  Horses for courses.  I like mine, you like yours, and we can go around and around about that - there is no way to resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction.

But to cut to the chase; Isshinryu is best.  You're welcome.


----------



## skribs (Feb 10, 2020)

Martial D said:


> I find it weird how people fixate on the term MMA,as if it were a style into itself that could be better or worse than other styles. I used to see MMA as a 'style' but now that I've been training at an MMA club for a few years now I've come to realize it's not.
> 
> It's a methodology...like science.
> 
> ...



It has been tested and failed, but with a few caveats:

It has been tested and failed in the specific rules of MMA
It has been tested and failed against someone who has a pretty good idea of what you're going to do
It has not been proven the technique is bad, only that the person trying it failed to execute


----------



## Martial D (Feb 10, 2020)

skribs said:


> It has been tested and failed, but with a few caveats:
> 
> It has been tested and failed in the specific rules of MMA
> It has been tested and failed against someone who has a pretty good idea of what you're going to do
> It has not been proven the technique is bad, only that the person trying it failed to execute


The first point is a non starter. Anyone that believes their style would work 'if only they could go for the eyes and the crotch' just doesn't understand the requisite skills involved - do you really think the guy that can out punch you, out kick you, out grapple you and has a better understanding of distance and timing than you can't also out eyegouge and nutshot you? This is a fantasy.

The second I see as a cop out honestly. I mean, if something only works on someone with no idea how to defend it, does it really work? 

The third I agree with, as I stated previously; the failure of a martial artist doesn't always mean the failure of the technique. But sometimes, it does.


----------



## skribs (Feb 10, 2020)

Martial D said:


> The first point is a non starter. Anyone that believes their style would work 'if only they could go for the eyes and the crotch' just doesn't understand the requisite skills involved - do you really think the guy that can out punch you, out kick you, out grapple you and has a better understanding of distance and timing than you can't also out eyegouge and nutshot you? This is a fantasy.
> 
> The second I see as a cop out honestly. I mean, if something only works on someone with no idea how to defend it, does it really work?
> 
> The third I agree with, as I stated previously; the failure of a martial artist doesn't always mean the failure of the technique. But sometimes, it does.




On the one hand, something like an eye gouge can work in situations were a punch wouldn't.  If you're in the clinch, you can easily poke someone's eye in a situation where you wouldn't be able to throw a punch.  On the other hand, there is a much wider net of techniques that don't work in the UFC, that would work in a real situation.  Standing armbars (where you're standing over someone and pull their elbow against your shin) would work very well if fully executed to break an arm, but would be easy to roll out of in UFC.
It depends.  A lot of arts are fairly 1-dimensional.  If you know someone is a good boxer and has no other skills, it would be easy to beat him with kicks or to take him down.  This is actually what happened a lot in the early days of UFC.  If you fight someone who trains Aikido, you know to avoid wrist locks.  Aikido doesn't have much success in UFC, or even pressure-tested against MMA fighters.  However, the techniques are very useful for cops who apprehend suspects, and there's been news stories of guys disarming folks with their aikido training.  But it fails in MMA, which means that it must not work.  If the test doesn't line up with real world data, then it's proof the test isn't perfect.


----------



## Parzival (Feb 10, 2020)

From what I've heard Aikido is pretty good for street practicality. It was made by an old man, so you don't have to worry about being strong for it.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 10, 2020)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This question has been around forever and it will probably be around forever.



I would dispute and say the answer has always been, carry a weapon.



jobo said:


> we are discussing mental toughness, the quality of refusing to be beaten until you have expounded every last bit of effort your body will allow, you get that from running as much as you do from boxing, though its better if threes a pain barrier to go through, as there is with some types of running
> 
> the absolute toughest people ive ever met are rugby players, they would take most people on here out with out breaking sweat , but then fell runners are pretty dam tough as well, but you can see the quality with some thing as unathletic as snooker, you just know they wont go down with out a fight, coz thats there personality type, whether they can muster much of a fight is another matter



fair enough then.


----------



## Parzival (Feb 10, 2020)

Rat said:


> I would dispute and say the answer has always been, carry a weapon.



Brah, I'd get arrested if I carried a scredriver


----------



## Martial D (Feb 10, 2020)

skribs said:


> On the one hand, something like an eye gouge can work in situations were a punch wouldn't.  If you're in the clinch, you can easily poke someone's eye in a situation where you wouldn't be able to throw a punch.  On the other hand, there is a much wider net of techniques that don't work in the UFC, that would work in a real situation.  Standing armbars (where you're standing over someone and pull their elbow against your shin) would work very well if fully executed to break an arm, but would be easy to roll out of in UFC.
> It depends.  A lot of arts are fairly 1-dimensional.  If you know someone is a good boxer and has no other skills, it would be easy to beat him with kicks or to take him down.  This is actually what happened a lot in the early days of UFC.  If you fight someone who trains Aikido, you know to avoid wrist locks.  Aikido doesn't have much success in UFC, or even pressure-tested against MMA fighters.  However, the techniques are very useful for cops who apprehend suspects, and there's been news stories of guys disarming folks with their aikido training.  But it fails in MMA, which means that it must not work.  If the test doesn't line up with real world data, then it's proof the test isn't perfect.


1: I already answered the bit about eyepokes and such. If you think guys that do live training can't do it better then guys that  don't you are simply, demonstrably, wrong.

The last bit though has me puzzled. So a standing armbar can be easily escaped in a cage, but not so in the street. At which point does the physics change?

Or is it back to the quality of the opponent again? I mean, anything will work on an old lady or a child, and I guess if that's the standard you want to measure with, then sure. Or maybe we bring it up to the level of drunk guy, or weak guy, or guy that randomly charges in and holds out his arm for a few moments to give you some time to get off a three beat throw on him, like in the demos. But why settle for a weak standard? I measure by what works against guys that know what they are doing, and thus works against anyone.

2: LOL


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes competition is good for '' mental toughness'' but it doesnt have to be fighting competition any competition works , even completely against your own previous best
> 
> once youve developed a competition mentality you can apply that to anything



Yeah. But if you are doing martial arts you may as well make it fighting. It would probably be simpler.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Not at all, competition is important for mental toughness, as is sparring, but they are not the only methods, my only quarm with competition is when its under very very strict rules, and someone scores a point for tapping the ear, or striking to the head is not allowed rule, and someone only participate in play sparring and vever pressure test themselves. Is this a continuance of a conversation we had a little while back?



The thread was basically prefaced with the "do MMA" concept.

Which people pick because of the rule set that allows more flexibility.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 10, 2020)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This question has been around forever and it will probably be around forever.  The correct answer is always "it depends," followed by an interrogatory that seldom varies.  Different people will find different answers based on traversing that decision tree.
> 
> Unfortunately, newcomers tend not to do two things.
> 
> ...



And then people complain when I say self defense is a weasel word.


----------



## skribs (Feb 10, 2020)

Martial D said:


> 1: I already answered the bit about eyepokes and such. If you think guys that do live training can't do it better then guys that  don't you are simply, demonstrably, wrong.



It's still a different technique.  A boxer may not defend against an eye poke, because his training is that a punch that only travels a couple of inches isn't a threat for a knockout blow.

Regardless, it's something you *can't* test in MMA, because it isn't allowed.  (And when it does happen, almost invariably the fight stops because the victim is completely defenseless).  And because it isn't allowed, an MMA fighter isn't going to prepare to defend it.



> The last bit though has me puzzled. So a standing armbar can be easily escaped in a cage, but not so in the street. At which point does the physics change?



The physics "change" when you pause to allow the person to tap.  The submissions that work in the UFC work because the person is pinned down and can't escape.  It allows you to apply even pressure until they tap out.  If you were to yank and armbar as hard as you could and break their elbow, you'd hopefully face a serious penalty for doing so.

The standing armbar works to break an arm.  It doesn't work as well to pin someone in place as compared to when your legs are across their body to pin them down.  And it is easily defeated *if you see it coming*, but someone who has practiced it thousands of times will be able to read that resistance and transition into another technique (just like any seasoned grappler would with any of their techniques).


----------



## Buka (Feb 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> we are discussing mental toughness, the quality of refusing to be beaten until you have expounded every last bit of effort your body will allow, you get that from running as much as you do from boxing, though its better if threes a pain barrier to go through, as there is with some types of running
> 
> the absolute toughest people ive ever met are rugby players, they would take most people on here out with out breaking sweat , but then fell runners are pretty dam tough as well, but you can see the quality with some thing as unathletic as snooker, you just know they wont go down with out a fight, coz thats there personality type, whether they can muster much of a fight is another matter



Me too. Rugby players are the toughest athletes I've ever met.


----------



## Buka (Feb 10, 2020)

IMO, in my experience, trying to get a standing armbar in a MMA context is nearly impossible. 
Way easier in the street if you practice it in the dojo with resistance, with the old push/shove pre fight bs as a way of learning it's application. I've found it easy to hold someone on the ground with one - but in a lot of dojos I've seen very important details are usually left out - which sets it up for failure in application against resistance.

As for beating a boxer with kicks. Okay, sure, but only if you first have good, long experience in the boxing ring with boxers and trainers. And THEN only if you actually train kicks against a boxer in the boxing ring. Otherwise, buyer beware.

As for eye gouges...I think they're one of the most over rated techniques in the arts. They work great as a distraction if you can get one in. But as a long time fighter, I'll tell you what, you go for a persons eyes you just changed the level of what you are doing big time. Getting eye stuck makes a fighter want to kill you.


----------



## skribs (Feb 10, 2020)

Buka said:


> As for eye gouges...I think they're one of the most over rated techniques in the arts. They work great as a distraction if you can get one in. But as a long time fighter, I'll tell you what, you go for a persons eyes you just changed the level of what you are doing big time. Getting eye stuck makes a fighter want to kill you.



I mean, that's definitely a possibility.  But when they were brought up last time, I found a youtube video of pokes that landed in UFC fights (wasn't hard, "MMA eye poke" brought it as the first result) and nearly every one when the poke hit the victim immediately dropped their guard, collapsed their structure, and their awareness went to 0.


----------



## Cynik75 (Feb 10, 2020)

1. Illegal in MMA/other sport matches techniques like eyepokeing or kicking the groin works very well and it has been proven in many MMA/other sport matches. MMA/other sport fighters use them accidentally and intentionally all time. An hundreds of times referees broke fights because of temporary inability to fight caused them.
2. It is proven than MMA/other sport fighters can successfully use those techniques in a fight, without training them 24/7. Changing very very small detail in sport technique makes it "deadly street only" one. Million times more important than learning how to poke the eye is to learn how to understand, create or find and use the right tactical situation and positional advantage (angles and distance control in boxing, position in bjj etc). Everything in live, quickly changing situation under stress with high adrenaline bump and tunel vision. Learnig this is possibly only by sparring or full contact competition. 
3. There is no evidence that those "street" techniques work provided by TMA/RBSD side from non-sport frays (rooftop-beimo-leitai-old school master-death only-no rules fights). Maybe because so called TMArtist and RBSDist do not fight or fight 8766766574 times less than sportsmen.
4. 1:1 duel is one of many fight scenarios but it's quite common and being able to deal with one unarmed attacker should be the real base of self defence
5. **** happens, so "street" fighters should be able to survive scenarios with many attackers or armed attacker. But this is not a problem of proper technique but proper tactic and goal
6. Go to MMA learn how to fight at all then go to RBSD to learn right tactic and awareness
7. Sorry for my english.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> we are discussing mental toughness, the quality of refusing to be beaten until you have expounded every last bit of effort your body will allow, you get that from running as much as you do from boxing, though its better if threes a pain barrier to go through, as there is with some types of running
> 
> the absolute toughest people ive ever met are rugby players, they would take most people on here out with out breaking sweat , but then fell runners are pretty dam tough as well, but you can see the quality with some thing as unathletic as snooker, you just know they wont go down with out a fight, coz thats there personality type, whether they can muster much of a fight is another matter


I like the post but, to be fair, the mental toughness this thread is talking about would never apply to playing snooker. When the physical component is removed from the equation nearly everything changes. Determination, calculation, and craftiness in snooker? Sure. Being mentally tough (driven) enough to endure what some athletes go through is a whole different thing. It is worth noting that the mental toughness can be there but physical 'accomplishment' will be different from person to person. Otherwise everyone would be an Olympic gold medalist. 
Some of the hardest working athletes out there are "D" league players. They have all the drive (some more) than the starters, they just do not have the body, mechanics, or maybe some other mental ability.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 10, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's still a different technique.  A boxer may not defend against an eye poke, because his training is that a punch that only travels a couple of inches isn't a threat for a knockout blow.
> 
> Regardless, it's something you *can't* test in MMA, because it isn't allowed.  (And when it does happen, almost invariably the fight stops because the victim is completely defenseless).  And because it isn't allowed, an MMA fighter isn't going to prepare to defend it.
> 
> ...


Ok I'll reiterate it again for you in different words - if two guys fight, one has experience with live action, understands range and distance, and has been hit/delivered hits against people that are fully fighting back, and knows how to grapple..and this is how this guy trains day in and day out...

And the other does katas, breaks boards, and does cooperative sequence training that involve poking the eyes..

And eyepoking is allowed..

The first guy still wins 100/100 times.

As for your standing armbar..

If they worked to end fights at any sort of reasonable percentage, you would see them in competition. The reason you don't is that they are next to impossible to get against someone that resists even a little bit. Do you really think there is some unspoken gentleman's agreement not to do that even though it's totally legal? This is a terrible example.

Unless and until you train against real resistance, you won't understand just how off the mark you are here.


----------



## skribs (Feb 10, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Ok I'll reiterate it again for you in different words - if two guys fight, one has experience with live action, understands range and distance, and has been hit/delivered hits against people that are fully fighting back, and knows how to grapple..and this is how this guy trains day in and day out...
> 
> And the other does katas, breaks boards, and does cooperative sequence training that involve poking the eyes..
> 
> ...



You picked the two sides of the argument.  I didn't make any claim that matches either side.



Martial D said:


> If they worked to end fights at any sort of reasonable percentage, you would see them in competition. The reason you don't is that they are next to impossible to get against someone that resists even a little bit. Do you really think there is some unspoken gentleman's agreement not to do that even though it's totally legal? This is a terrible example.
> 
> Unless and until you train against real resistance, you won't understand just how off the mark you are here.



It's a perfect example.  It's a technique that works against resistance (and yes, we do train against resistance), but is low percentage in the ring.  The fact you don't think it works is because you're too stubborn to think outside the box of what works in MMA.  The fact you don't understand it isn't a fault of the technique.


----------



## skribs (Feb 10, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> 1. Illegal in MMA/other sport matches techniques like eyepokeing or kicking the groin works very well and it has been proven in many MMA/other sport matches. MMA/other sport fighters use them accidentally and intentionally all time. An hundreds of times referees broke fights because of temporary inability to fight caused them.
> 2. It is proven than MMA/other sport fighters can successfully use those techniques in a fight, without training them 24/7. Changing very very small detail in sport technique makes it "deadly street only" one. Million times more important than learning how to poke the eye is to learn how to understand, create or find and use the right tactical situation and positional advantage (angles and distance control in boxing, position in bjj etc). Everything in live, quickly changing situation under stress with high adrenaline bump and tunel vision. Learnig this is possibly only by sparring or full contact competition.
> 3. There is no evidence that those "street" techniques work provided by TMA/RBSD side from non-sport frays (rooftop-beimo-leitai-old school master-death only-no rules fights). Maybe because so called TMArtist and RBSDist do not fight or fight 8766766574 times less than sportsmen.
> 4. 1:1 duel is one of many fight scenarios but it's quite common and being able to deal with one unarmed attacker should be the real base of self defence
> ...



What you have to understand (because I've had this argument before), is that these people we're arguing with have a narrow field of vision.  Only that which happens in the UFC, and *is in the rules of UFC*, is worth discussing (according to them).  If it doesn't work in UFC, you can provide all the evidence in the world, but they have excuse after excuse to throw it out.


----------



## jobo (Feb 10, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I like the post but, to be fair, the mental toughness this thread is talking about would never apply to playing snooker. When the physical component is removed from the equation nearly everything changes. Determination, calculation, and craftiness in snooker? Sure. Being mentally tough (driven) enough to endure what some athletes go through is a whole different thing. It is worth noting that the mental toughness can be there but physical 'accomplishment' will be different from person to person. Otherwise everyone would be an Olympic gold medalist.
> Some of the hardest working athletes out there are "D" league players. They have all the drive (some more) than the starters, they just do not have the body, mechanics, or maybe some other mental ability.


snooker demands a fairly high level of fitness, in particular significant hand eye coordination and concentration and agility and perhaps most importantly andenialin control. there was a dopping scancdal a few decades ago where snooker players were taking beta blockers to slow their heart rate.

 those are the same key eliments as most sports require, getting good aerobic capacity is quite straight forward. getting superb hand eye coordination and emotion control is not, you wouldnt dismiss a baseball pitcher as not an athelete coz they dont run much would you ?

i can tell you from experiance that playing even an hour of match  snooker leaves you both physicaly and mentaly exausted, far far more than say a five hour hike, its no coincidence that profesional snooker players are over the hill by the time they turn 40, they cant cope with it physicaly much after that


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> What you have to understand (because I've had this argument before), is that these people we're arguing with have a narrow field of vision.  Only that which happens in the UFC, and *is in the rules of UFC*, is worth discussing (according to them).  If it doesn't work in UFC, you can provide all the evidence in the world, but they have excuse after excuse to throw it out.



I would have given 2 agree ticks if I could of.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 11, 2020)

jobo said:


> i can tell you from experiance that playing even an hour of match snooker leaves you both physicaly and mentaly exausted, far far more than say a five hour hike, its no coincidence that profesional snooker players are over the hill by the time they t



This part of your statement I disagree with, the control of emotions, eye hand co ordination yes I agree, but and hour of snooker is more knackering than a 5 hour hike, they must be some steps to get to the playing hall.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's still a different technique. A boxer may not defend against an eye poke, because his training is that a punch that only travels a couple of inches isn't a threat for a knockout blow.



You get eye poked in MMA by the way. I had a mate who did a fight and got hit so hard he couldn't see out of his eye for basically the whole match. 

Real physical sparring will result in more realistic  eye pokes, groin kicks and head butts. Than all the drills. 

And there are elements of boxing like striking off line and good footwork that already defend the eye gouge. 

There are a lot of misconceptions about how sports people train I think.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's a perfect example. It's a technique that works against resistance (and yes, we do train against resistance), but is low percentage in the ring. The fact you don't think it works is because you're too stubborn to think outside the box of what works in MMA. The fact you don't understand it isn't a fault of the technique.



Let's be clear here. Claiming to understand a technique that almost nobody can do with no evidence is a pretty tall order for people to accept.

If this is the difference between the do MMA crowd who can produce consistent results and the do something else who quite simply can't then that is pretty much your problem you face in a nutshell.

In that you have these claims but nothing to support it.

I don't have to understand a technique to see it work. I don't understand berimbolo. And trust me it sounds pretty far fetched. But people make it work so they create a case for its legitimacy. You haven't.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

This is how you would make your standing arm bar argument.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You get eye poked in MMA by the way. I had a mate who did a fight and got hit so hard he couldn't see out of his eye for basically the whole match.



This does happen, but its not allowed in the unified rules, it comes under one of the 25 or so fouls, no headbutting, no small joint manipulation and in capital letters NO UNSPORTSMAN like conduct, penalties can be points deduction or even disqualification. So for a points deduction, the referee will have declared it an ACCIDENT, and a disqualification for what is deemed reckless or dangerous or deliberate. Nobody here doubts the training regime, or the physical abilities, or the fighting prowess of a very good mma practitioner, but what us disputed is their claim that something does not work, if it does not work in mma, and when you dont train in these options, because if you did, and the governing authority found out, your club would be heavily fined or banned from competition. I think most of the disagreement with tma and mma, is the fact mma practioners (not all) have this beleif that the mma way is the only way, when most of them have never had a proper fight, and those who have, only have 2 or 3 a year.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> This does happen, but its not allowed in the unified rules, it comes under one of the 25 or so fouls, no headbutting, no small joint manipulation and in capital letters NO UNSPORTSMAN like conduct, penalties can be points deduction or even disqualification. So for a points deduction, the referee will have declared it an ACCIDENT, and a disqualification for what is deemed reckless or dangerous or deliberate. Nobody here doubts the training regime, or the physical abilities, or the fighting prowess of a very good mma practitioner, but what us disputed is their claim that something does not work, if it does not work in mma, and when you dont train in these options, because if you did, and the governing authority found out, your club would be heavily fined or banned from competition. I think most of the disagreement with tma and mma, is the fact mma practioners (not all) have this beleif that the mma way is the only way, when most of them have never had a proper fight, and those who have, only have 2 or 3 a year.



So you have sparring that allows eye gouges then?


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 11, 2020)

jobo said:


> snooker demands a fairly high level of fitness, in particular significant hand eye coordination and concentration and agility and perhaps most importantly andenialin control. there was a dopping scancdal a few decades ago where snooker players were taking beta blockers to slow their heart rate.
> 
> those are the same key eliments as most sports require, getting good aerobic capacity is quite straight forward. getting superb hand eye coordination and emotion control is not, you wouldnt dismiss a baseball pitcher as not an athelete coz they dont run much would you ?
> 
> i can tell you from experiance that playing even an hour of match  snooker leaves you both physicaly and mentaly exausted, far far more than say a five hour hike, its no coincidence that profesional snooker players are over the hill by the time they turn 40, they cant cope with it physicaly much after that


What a load of bovine scat. My parents bought a pool table when I was about 10 years old. We played for hours on end and we all got quite good. But you Never get exhausted (mentally or physically)from playing pool (snooker). 
Sure, like practicing anything in repetition is improves things like hand/eye coordination WITHIN the confines of playing the game. Walk away from the table and you are not magically better fit.
Is it an advantage to be able to control you emotions/heart rate when playing pool? I suppose so. Just part of the game same as say, crocheting. Especially since there is no resistance in the game  of snooker it can never be compared to a physically demanding and/or contact sport.
None of what you have said has anything to do with mental toughness within the context of the thread.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You get eye poked in MMA by the way. I had a mate who did a fight and got hit so hard he couldn't see out of his eye for basically the whole match.
> 
> Real physical sparring will result in more realistic  eye pokes, groin kicks and head butts. Than all the drills.
> 
> ...


Agree. When I may my Olympic run I had a nasty eye from an illegal elbow. At the end of the match it was completely closed. Wit a lot of ice and time I could go again the next day but I sure got a lot of funny looks. Anyone who knows anything about WT sparring knows an elbow is pretty far outside the norm. In my case it was 1/2 a fluke and 1/2 my opponent taking advantage of the fluke to take a cheap shot. Taking cheap shots up to the level of getting point deductions were common practice back then. 

One thing that has to be considered is the fact that everything in the confines of legal technique within TKD sparring or Any other TMA sparring in tournament competition that I have ever seen (which includes JMA, CMA, KMA) is legal in MMA. Possibly more as I do not fully know the contact rules of MMA.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Let's be clear here. Claiming to understand a technique that almost nobody can do with no evidence is a pretty tall order for people to accept.
> 
> If this is the difference between the do MMA crowd who can produce consistent results and the do something else who quite simply can't then that is pretty much your problem you face in a nutshell.
> 
> ...


To help make your point; Is a standing arm bar legal in MMA? Yes, just not a high percentage technique so it is never used. Legal or illegal is irrelevant.


----------



## Martial D (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> You picked the two sides of the argument.  I didn't make any claim that matches either side.



You are the one drawing the line in the Sand. 




> It's a perfect example.  It's a technique that works against resistance (and yes, we do train against resistance), but is low percentage in the ring.  The fact you don't think it works is because you're too stubborn to think outside the box of what works in MMA.  The fact you don't understand it isn't a fault of the technique.



This is a great example of what I was talking about in my first post. Thank you for providing an example.

I'll leave you to your anecdotes.


----------



## jobo (Feb 11, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> What a load of bovine scat. My parents bought a pool table when I was about 10 years old. We played for hours on end and we all got quite good. But you Never get exhausted (mentally or physically)from playing pool (snooker).
> Sure, like practicing anything in repetition is improves things like hand/eye coordination WITHIN the confines of playing the game. Walk away from the table and you are not magically better fit.
> Is it an advantage to be able to control you emotions/heart rate when playing pool? I suppose so. Just part of the game same as say, crocheting. Especially since there is no resistance in the game  of snooker it can never be compared to a physically demanding and/or contact sport.
> None of what you have said has anything to do with mental toughness within the context of the thread.


yea you can knock balls round a pool table for hours, you can kick a soccer ball around for hours with little physical toll, thats not the same as playing a match. its the concentration and emotions that leave you mentally and physically exhausted, even more so if your part of a team and playing to a reasonable sized audience, ive had to sit down for half an hour after a 1 hour match to recover, i dont need to do that after an hour of five a side or an hour of ma training,

a lot of my 8 ball pool matches ( single frames) lasted an hour or so, as that was the only way i could beat people who were substantial better than me, that got me in the England team., i took the south African national champ out  over 5 frames that lasted 3 and a half hours, on a simple measure that i had much better concentration level to off set his skill levels and the longer i dragged it out the more that advantage showed. he was far from pleased by the whole process, and refused to shake my hand but a looser is a looser. and winning by attrition is still a win

thats much the same way i win at monopoly, eventually every ones got bore and gone home and i win which is why no one will play monopoly or with me twice. that what i mean by mental toughness and competitive spirit

are you fitter after playing pool ? that rather depends on your definition of fitness, that reasonably includes hand eye co ordination, spacial awareness and concentration to perform under pressure, so yrs playing pool at comp level increases certain aspects of fitness, quite drastically or if you dont have those aspects of fitness you cant perform at that level.
 but if you lacking those aspects you cant perform at  most comp sport

chess comps are pretty exhausting as well for much the same reason,


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 11, 2020)

Well, if it worked in pride and early UFC, it probbly would outside the rule sets.   (given the first UFC's rules were basically none barring permenent incapcitation rules ie eye pokes and throat shots)     And pride kept headbutts and stomps as far as i know when UFC got rid of them.   Last i know UFC brought out pride, but there arent that many rules in UFC.  


Also, there really isnt a good way to train a lot of this, like there wasnt before simunitions and laser systems cropped up for firearms. (and then they have their issues as does everything)     And pure experience leads survivour bias and the other person matters as much as you.     Its just really hard to pin all of this down into good training standards without some form of expereince bloc behind it.  Like the police would have constant case reports coming back that would alter their training and usually people die, or something goes terribly wrong before something is picked up.  (thats the trend in U.S police firearm tactics anyway)   We can all agree police and military case reports arent going to be 100% useful for civilians and what civilians need for self defence as nether the police or military can run away from situations and most situations you should have ran away from. 


And we can all agree we live in a society that violence is taboo in and that violent crimes are going down in.  (at least on the grand sceme of things)

Competition is never the end all be all in my eyes, but its one of the only really pressure testing fromats you can do thats live and isnt going to put your life at risk.   (**** does happen, but its not like the other combatant is there to kill you, just win the match)     if you stick with sparring in house you get issues like learning the habits of the other person and using that to your advantage when you wont have that if you were dealing with a stranger.      Some trends and things that dont work against a trained person in a 1:1 fight, could against a untrained oned so fourth.  


And lets be honest here, if you can carry weapons for self defence in your area, do so.  Thats the ultimate form of self defence.  It also negates some arguing here as it doesnt really matter how you hold a weapon so long as you hit your enemy without them hitting you. Obviously while not hitting innocent bistanders.  (incoming, you need to go into a isolese shooting stance, or weaver.   Or need to hold your knife in XYZ position, none of that really matters)


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So you have sparring that allows eye gouges then?



No, that would be stupidity, each month we work on a subject, this month is groundwork, in perticular this month is striking whilst on the ground, so we cover basics guard, passing guard, making space, filling the space, submission techniques, at various points we will discuss opportunities, this does consider the use of eye pokes etc, at the end of each month, for the last week, we do pressure circle, where students will spar on that months topic, class forms a circle, 2 students spar, 1the attacker, 1 the receiver who has to have an idea of what they want to acheive, at the end of the round, the receiver will be asked, what they thought they did well, what they thought they didnt do well, and what they would try next time, in this discussion the opportunities of eye pokes etc is also discussed, in classes involving strikes, students gave the opportunity to learn these types of strikes on a punch dummy, Systema is about surviving, using what ever works, when needed.


----------



## skribs (Feb 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Let's be clear here. Claiming to understand a technique that almost nobody can do with no evidence is a pretty tall order for people to accept.
> 
> If this is the difference between the do MMA crowd who can produce consistent results and the do something else who quite simply can't then that is pretty much your problem you face in a nutshell.
> 
> ...



Actually it's a very easy technique to do at speed.  Person is on the ground, you pull their arm against your shin and hyperextend the elbow.  I can teach most people how to do the basic motion in only a few minutes.  It's very intuitive.  Catch someone who isn't expecting it and their arm is broken before they have a chance to resist.  Train the variants of the techniques long enough and you can apply the appropriate variant depending on their resistance.  It's the same concept as training anything else.  It's a low percentage in MMA because if you give them a chance to tap instead of just cranking their arm, they have a chance to escape.  In MMA you have to pin or lock in order to submit.  In real life, you just have to extend the joint to break the arm.

And I've had this discussion before, regarding this specific technique.  I'm having trouble finding the specific video that was linked last time (because "standing arm bar" can mean one of about 15 different techniques), but there was video evidence of a similar technique being used in a Judo match, where the person had his arm broken during a throw.

When people ignore the video evidence (like happened with the eyepokes) I assume it's willful ignorance.  I'm not going to go to great lengths to do the research if the person has a history of turning into a blind guy the moment video evidence is presented.  It's a waste of my time.  



Martial D said:


> You are the one drawing the line in the Sand.



I'm trying to figure out which is worse, your lunacy or your hypocrisy.  You're the one drawing a line in the sand, not me.  You're the one putting words in my mouth, not the other way around.

You put words in my mouth and ridiculed the outcome.  You're arguing against me for things I haven't even said.  It would be like me calling you a flat-earther, and then making fun of you for believing in flat earth.  When you've never said anything about flat earth.  Give me a break.  Argue against what I'm talking about, or don't waste my time.


----------



## Buka (Feb 11, 2020)

My old dojo was a 6,000 sq foot room that used to be the pool hall I grew up in. I've spent entire days in one loss elimination tournaments playing straight pool. They usually started at ten a.m. and the eventual winner would usually finish up by eight or nine at night. I won my share of those. But I can't recall anyone ever getting tired physically. Mentally, sure, it wears you down, but physically, nah, no more so that any other activity you spend the day on. But your hands get dirty and sore.


----------



## Parzival (Feb 11, 2020)

Buka said:


> My old dojo was a 6,000 sq foot room that used to be the pool hall I grew up in. I've spent entire days in one loss elimination tournaments playing straight pool. They usually started at ten a.m. and the eventual winner would usually finish up by eight or nine at night. I won my share of those. But I can't recall anyone ever getting tired physically. Mentally, sure, it wears you down, but physically, nah, no more so that any other activity you spend the day on. But your hands get dirty and sore.



Sick gig brah, swimming in that pool would be good martial art training. Also dojo pool parties would be awesome


----------



## Buka (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> I mean, that's definitely a possibility.  But when they were brought up last time, I found a youtube video of pokes that landed in UFC fights (wasn't hard, "MMA eye poke" brought it as the first result) and nearly every one when the poke hit the victim immediately dropped their guard, collapsed their structure, and their awareness went to 0.



I completely agree with you, brother. I was referring to an actual fight. Getting poked in the eye competing or sparring really, really sucks. I'm sure all of his here have experienced it. It's just such a pain in the ****. It can screw up your night. It sure makes it difficult to pick up approaching kicks or punches from that side for several minutes, or longer.

In a real fight if someone pokes me in the eye, or bites me, I consider that an act that he's trying to permanently disable me or kill me in the case of a bite. All bets are now off. Even if I'm working and even if he's drunk or crazy.

It's a weakness in my personality and I know that. I still don't care, even if it means my job and an impending law suit. I will try to beat him within an inch of his life. Unless it's a kid. If it's a kid I'll try to slap him unconscious.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> Actually it's a very easy technique to do at speed. Person is on the ground, you pull their arm against your shin and hyperextend the elbow. I can teach most people how to do the basic motion in only a few minutes. It's very intuitive. Catch someone who isn't expecting it and their arm is broken before they have a chance to resist. Train the variants of the techniques long enough and you can apply the appropriate variant depending on their resistance. It's the same concept as training anything else. It's a low percentage in MMA because if you give them a chance to tap instead of just cranking their arm, they have a chance to escape. In MMA you have to pin or lock in order to submit. In real life, you just have to extend the joint to break the arm.



Inoki did it once is not the same as easy to apply.

You don't have to give someone a chance to tap in mma. It is just generally arms don't break that quickly or easily.

Edit. Aoki. Sorry.

Anyone who doesn't want to see a dude messed up shouldn't watch this.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> No, that would be stupidity, each month we work on a subject, this month is groundwork, in perticular this month is striking whilst on the ground, so we cover basics guard, passing guard, making space, filling the space, submission techniques, at various points we will discuss opportunities, this does consider the use of eye pokes etc, at the end of each month, for the last week, we do pressure circle, where students will spar on that months topic, class forms a circle, 2 students spar, 1the attacker, 1 the receiver who has to have an idea of what they want to acheive, at the end of the round, the receiver will be asked, what they thought they did well, what they thought they didnt do well, and what they would try next time, in this discussion the opportunities of eye pokes etc is also discussed, in classes involving strikes, students gave the opportunity to learn these types of strikes on a punch dummy, Systema is about surviving, using what ever works, when needed.



So you would still be more likely to get eye poked in MMA than the eye poking arts.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> To help make your point; Is a standing arm bar legal in MMA? Yes, just not a high percentage technique so it is never used. Legal or illegal is irrelevant.



Yeah it is legal. And just wrenching the arm until it breaks is legal as well. 

Unfortunately people know this and tend to keep their arms bent. 

There are even cranks on the elbow you could do if you had an overhook in wrestling or crank the Russian two on one. But they have to be pretty terrible.


----------



## Buka (Feb 11, 2020)

Parzival said:


> Sick gig brah, swimming in that pool would be good martial art training. Also dojo pool parties would be awesome






 

Yeah, would be kind of fun. I'm trying to picture a bunch of guys in gis playing some nine ball for sawbucks.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. When I may my Olympic run I had a nasty eye from an illegal elbow. At the end of the match it was completely closed. Wit a lot of ice and time I could go again the next day but I sure got a lot of funny looks. Anyone who knows anything about WT sparring knows an elbow is pretty far outside the norm. In my case it was 1/2 a fluke and 1/2 my opponent taking advantage of the fluke to take a cheap shot. Taking cheap shots up to the level of getting point deductions were common practice back then.
> 
> One thing that has to be considered is the fact that everything in the confines of legal technique within TKD sparring or Any other TMA sparring in tournament competition that I have ever seen (which includes JMA, CMA, KMA) is legal in MMA. Possibly more as I do not fully know the contact rules of MMA.



Otherwise a lot of the concepts are similar. So I can't take  a good clinch and jam my finger in a eye or head butt. 

Which I can't really do as well from a bad clinch. 

When you clinch and strike for example it is the ability to gain the inside line that creates a good strike not being able to have some clever ninja fist or something.


----------



## skribs (Feb 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Inoki did it once is not the same as easy to apply.
> 
> You don't have to give someone a chance to tap in mma. It is just generally arms don't break that quickly or easily.
> 
> ...



I've had my elbow nearly broken several times by someone who lost his balance taking me down with an arm bar.  These techniques can cause a lot of damage with relative ease if not done properly.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 11, 2020)

Buka said:


> View attachment 22689
> 
> Yeah, would be kind of fun. I'm trying to picture a bunch of guys in gis playing some nine ball for sawbucks.


Just hitting the  que ball could be a challenge.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 11, 2020)

Rat said:


> Good point here, if somone for example cant slaughter a animal without bawling their eyes out or being emotionally crippled for a year, then what hope do they have to bash somones skull in with a rock, drive a knife into them until they stop working etc.




Two very different things. A great many people can't slaughter an animal which is neither sick nor attacking them however a slim, light mother whose children are in danger will turn into a raging ninja hell bent on destroying that danger, stick a knife in them, she'd rip someone to pieces. A father defending his family, a spouse defending their other half will not only bash someone's skull in with a rock they will smash it wide open and spread the brains over the street. Many people are timid until it's time not to be.




Gweilo said:


> Back in the early 90's I participated in unliscensed fighting, if you like you can call it mma without the ring or a referee, the ring was composed of straw bails, the fight ended when your opponent could not move or continue, there was a ref, but he was there to stop clinching, and holding, because the betting guests wanted to be entertained, and had money on you




With the Butlins by any chance?


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 11, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Two very different things. A great many people can't slaughter an animal which is neither sick nor attacking them however a slim, light mother whose children are in danger will turn into a raging ninja hell bent on destroying that danger, stick a knife in them, she'd rip someone to pieces. A father defending his family, a spouse defending their other half will not only bash someone's skull in with a rock they will smash it wide open and spread the brains over the street. Many people are timid until it's time not to be.


Damn, that is strong. I feel largely true, but strong.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> I've had my elbow nearly broken several times by someone who lost his balance taking me down with an arm bar.  These techniques can cause a lot of damage with relative ease if not done properly.



Yeah. If you have locked your arm out at let them.

The issue with MMA is that they tend to keep their elbows in which stuffs most arm bar attempts.


----------



## skribs (Feb 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. If you have locked your arm out at let them.
> 
> The issue with MMA is that they tend to keep their elbows in which stuffs most arm bar attempts.



If someone keeps their elbows tucked, I'll change my anchor point and target a different joint, or target the side of the elbow instead of the back of it.

I would normally use this technique immediately after a throw, when the person is more focused on how to land without smashing their face or their head into the ground.  Or done after a throw that results in the arm being mostly extended already.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> If someone keeps their elbows tucked, I'll change my anchor point and target a different joint, or target the side of the elbow instead of the back of it.
> 
> I would normally use this technique immediately after a throw, when the person is more focused on how to land without smashing their face or their head into the ground.  Or done after a throw that results in the arm being mostly extended already.



In that gigantic pause between being thrown and starting to defend?

At the end of the day. I can see MMA working. Jump on you tube and for example watch people hit berimbolos successfully.

And on the other side we have these for example standing arm bar guys that we can't see work. And honestly don't really follow the dynamics of how a fight works.

And it is precisely the sort of thing that the comment. "It doesn't work in MMA" was designed to challenge.

And so I can jump on YouTube and show how a takedown and scramble to the feet basically looks.






Rather than say the romantic notion. Which is how you are describing the scenario.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Damn, that is strong. I feel largely true, but strong.



Too many dismiss people as being 'weak' or unable to defend themselves but everyone has that point which when crossed they will explode, not always in a good way but they will turn even if they themselves don't think it could happen. It's not just a 'personality' thing but adrenaline comes into play as well as the natural feelings of wanting to protect your nearest and dearest.
Much is made about courage but the bravest people are those who do a thing when they are afraid, I do hate this martial arts bravado stuff about whether you can kill an animal etc. During the last world war many people who would never kill an animal killed fellow human beings because there was no choice and they were defending their country. In the First World War how many of those in the trenches would never have killed an animal before 1914?

All this macho talk is just about talking yourself up, making it seem that martial artists are above the 'normal' person. It's simply not true.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 12, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Rather than say the romantic notion. Which is how you are describing the scenario.



A lot of people watch a Hapkido training video, and misunderstand, they think its pretty, not workable in other situations, thats not being romantic, romantic is a video of someone kicking a bag in their yard with sloppy and so telegraphed technique, others have seen faster drying paint, now thats romantic.


----------



## skribs (Feb 12, 2020)

drop bear said:


> In that gigantic pause between being thrown and starting to defend?



What pause?  I have the technique lined up as soon as they hit the ground.



> At the end of the day. I can see MMA working.



I've never said it doesn't.  Just that it's not infallible as a proxy for a real fight.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2020)

skribs said:


> What pause?  I have the technique lined up as soon as they hit the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never said it doesn't.  Just that it's not infallible as a proxy for a real fight.



As soon as they hit the ground is actually too late. Unless you are doing some very specific things which you haven't really touched on. Fighting is a bit different to what you are describing. This idea that he falls to the ground sticking his arm out for you is pretty rare. Especially in a sports fighting context because they tend to know what they are doing.

Drills work like you describe. Fighting really doesn't.

Anyway. Show me your technique working or someone making it work or something. Someone who can consistently get these arm bars.


----------



## skribs (Feb 12, 2020)

drop bear said:


> As soon as they hit the ground is actually too late. Unless you are doing some very specific things which you haven't really touched on.



That might be what's going on.  I don't think I can really explain it any better than I have, so I'm just going to stop this particular part of the thread.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2020)

Judo is a good example because they do both. So drills kind of look like this.






But live tends to look like this.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 12, 2020)

skribs said:


> That might be what's going on.  I don't think I can really explain it any better than I have, so I'm just going to stop this particular part of the thread.



Just show a video of your concept.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 12, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Just show a video of your concept.


If he does you still are not going to agree, but I will point out, if you throw and hold the arm, wrist etc, as long as you have contact, the next techniques should be seamless.


----------



## skribs (Feb 12, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> If he does you still are not going to agree, but I will point out, if you throw and hold the arm, wrist etc, as long as you have contact, the next techniques should be seamless.



Yeah, I was thinking that.  In order for me to demonstrate my partner would need to be compliant (otherwise I'd most likely end up transitioning into another move) and I'd get the "see it only works because your partner is compliant" spiel.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 12, 2020)

A technique mentioned by DB earlier, the Berimbolo, is a good example, by remaining in contact, you can negate your intitial move, and counter this move, by staying in contact, I found a Bjj vid to show my point.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 12, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> making it seem that martial artists are above the 'normal' person. It's simply not true.


What can make you to think this way?

Do you agree that,

no training < 1 year training < 5 years training < 10 years training?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 12, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What can make you to think this way?
> 
> Do you agree that,
> 
> no training < 1 year training < 5 years training < 10 years training?




I might agree if I understood what you meant.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 12, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> I might agree if I understood what you meant.


I think he was saying, do you really believe, someone who has had  training is a better person than those with none


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 12, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> I think he was saying, do you really believe, someone who has had  training is a better person than those with none


The reason that we train is because we want to be stronger than average people.

If we have

- punched 10,000 time on heavy bag, our punch will be stronger than those who has no heavy bag training.
- kicked 10,000 time on heavy bag, our kick and our shin bone will be stronger than those who has no heavy bag training.

This has nothing to do with any MA style. It only has to do with the time that we have spent.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 12, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The reason that we train is because we want to be stronger than average people.
> 
> If we have
> 
> ...


I agree with you, I was just translating


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> If he does you still are not going to agree, but I will point out, if you throw and hold the arm, wrist etc, as long as you have contact, the next techniques should be seamless.



He is not going to show though. They never do. 

I mean people constantly wonder why mma with its wealth of evidence is considered more important than someone saying they can arm bar everyone in their dojo. 

Where I don't understand how objectively anyone could consider both with equal weight.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> A technique mentioned by DB earlier, the Berimbolo, is a good example, by remaining in contact, you can negate your intitial move, and counter this move, by staying in contact, I found a Bjj vid to show my point.



More importantly it looks ludicrous. If you saw that in a drill you would discount that as woo woo rubbish.

The only thing that separates that from pressure point KOs is the actual evidence that it works.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Where I don't understand how objectively anyone could consider both with equal weight.



Because most TMA has been proven for centuries on battlefeilds (which is what they are designed for), some military styles are still being proved in modern day, to claim these arts have no evidence is proof of 2 things, your misunderstanding, and arrogance. I and others have stated, we really respect and enjoy mma, yes what you do works in your niche area, and yes lots of it will work in a sd senario, but to label other arts as useless, because they do not fit in with you, or your style, or your sport has become the norm with mma types, they seem to be brain washed into a cult like state of omnipotence.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> More importantly it looks ludicrous. If you saw that in a drill you would discount that as woo woo rubbish.



One of them is a current black belt in bjj, the other a 2x world champ, theres that omnipotence I was speaking about.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 13, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> I think he was saying, do you really believe, someone who has had  training is a better person than those with none



Ah thank you. 
My point was absolutely nothing to do with training versus no training, it was about boastful people who say you have to be macho to survive.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Because most TMA has been proven for centuries on battlefeilds (which is what they are designed for), some military styles are still being proved in modern day, to claim these arts have no evidence is proof of 2 things, your misunderstanding, and arrogance. I and others have stated, we really respect and enjoy mma, yes what you do works in your niche area, and yes lots of it will work in a sd senario, but to label other arts as useless, because they do not fit in with you, or your style, or your sport has become the norm with mma types, they seem to be brain washed into a cult like state of omnipotence.



Yeah because you can see MMA working. You can collect real data and even test it. You can't see for example standing arm bars working as well. I know i asked and nobody could provide it.

I mean what would you prefer. Something that actually works or some tale about ancient battle fields.






I mean check this out. Please show me your proven on the battlefield martial art. So like this.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> One of them is a current black belt in bjj, the other a 2x world champ, theres that omnipotence I was speaking about.



Actually who was demonstrating that doesn't really matter. 

It is if there is evidence of the method working.

Which in the case of berimbolos there is. 

In the case of standing arm bars there isn't.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 13, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Ah thank you.
> My point was absolutely nothing to do with training versus no training, it was about boastful people who say you have to be macho to survive.


I did not take it as being macho. I just took it as a person willing to put the work in to do 10,000 drills vs. the person who has not. The first person is going to be the more learned person, (assuming they did the drills correctly!).


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah because you can see MMA working. You can collect real data and even test it. You can't see for example standing arm bars working as well. I know i asked and nobody could provide it.
> 
> I mean what would you prefer. Something that actually works or some tale about ancient battle fields.
> 
> ...


Great videos and impressive "OORAH". It really took me back to my LEO days and some of the scenario training we would do. To be fair, the section of the video of the guys rolling (looked like both military and non-military) are at the peak of fitness and age. So they are definitely at the higher end of the curve in terms of ability. In this context it all works and those guys can keep going until they figure out something that works. 
In the idea of the 'typical' self defense scenario that is not the norm. One side is going to be at a disadvantage (usually the victim). The goal is Avoid first, Get Away second, and Get in and Get out third. Not hang around and fight or roll with the assailant. 
How this fits into the MMA/TMA argument I am not sure. I do know most folks can continue doing TMA into their later years in a more 'rounded' way. That is not to say there are not outliers who can roll into an old age. 
I do have to say some of this is internalized. If I was on the ground and someone started cranking on my legs it would be over. My legs are Way too broken up to be cranked on very hard. Kind of odd because I can still do standing drills/attacks decently well. 

Corporately, we mildly practice falls but really only a rolling fall in the event of loosing balance, not as a takedown. There are step drills for the higher belts that have follow through techniques (takedown/finish). 

At the end of the day, they are just two different martial art styles who both have a lot of merit.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 13, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I did not take it as being macho. I just took it as a person willing to put the work in to do 10,000 drills vs. the person who has not. The first person is going to be the more learned person, (assuming they did the drills correctly!).




I think you are looking at a different post from me. Nothing to do with training, doing drills and all to do with this......



Rat said:


> If you cant slaughter a animal without serious mental repercussions you should rethink plunging a knife into somone as a self defence option etc etc. Its a sound point though. Some people just cannot kill or go to the same brutality others can and with that as effectively as others can.


----------



## Cynik75 (Feb 13, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Because most TMA has been proven for centuries on battlefeilds (which is what they are designed for), some military styles are still being proved in modern day, to claim these arts have no evidence is proof of 2 things, your misunderstanding, and arrogance...


1. In battle much important than individual skills are: weapon, tactic, cooperation with other combatants. Please show me single TMA school which learns people how to behave in combat bigger than 1:1 or how to repeal cavalry charge. All today learned traditional martial arts are designed for single person not for group/unit melee
2. There is no martial art with proven lineage longer than about 150 years. 150 or even 200 years ago guns have won battles not fists, swords or knives


----------



## skribs (Feb 13, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> 2. There is no martial art with proven lineage longer than about 150 years. 150 or even 200 years ago guns have won battles not fists, swords or knives



This is absolutely false.  Boxing started in 1681.  The origins of wrestling go back 15,000 years.  HEMA is from the time period of 1300-1800 AD.  Fencing is from the 1600s.  Karate can be traced back to the 1300s, when it was introduced to the Japanese from Chinese Kung Fu masters (which the art existed long before that).


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 13, 2020)

I read it to say within the last 150 years, although not perfectly worded that way. In this context I have to agree with the statement.

_EDIT:_ That is not said to diminish the value of knowing a hand-to-hand combat. There is still the very real possibility to things ending up there in battle.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 13, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> 1. In battle much important than individual skills are: weapon, tactic, cooperation with other combatants. Please show me single TMA school which learns people how to behave in combat bigger than 1:1 or how to repeal cavalry charge. All today learned traditional martial arts are designed for single person not for group/unit melee
> 2. There is no martial art with proven lineage longer than about 150 years. 150 or even 200 years ago guns have won battles not fists, swords or knives



Ok modern day warfare, is weapons based, so unarmed combat for the every day soldier is an add on, as the regiments become moee elite the unarmed combat training becomes more intense.
Many TMA were taught with the unarmed techniques to fall back on if they lost their weapon, the samurai for example would have learnt a form like Daito ryu aki jutsu for this purpose, which dates back the 9th century, daito ryu is still taught today, and the history has evolved to include Aikido and Hapkido that are founded from Daito ryu.
Modern day military styles include Krav maga and systema, which are still taught to military units today, A different form of Krav maga to most you see in the gyms today is used by the Isreali military, which has also been adapted by north and south Korean military.
 System has a couple of linages, that again date back from the 10th century, although modernised in the 20th century for Russian military, its heritage can be found in Kossack/Slavic traditions, so there is a couple of arts beleived to be modern that have linage way over 200 years of age.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Great videos and impressive "OORAH". It really took me back to my LEO days and some of the scenario training we would do. To be fair, the section of the video of the guys rolling (looked like both military and non-military) are at the peak of fitness and age. So they are definitely at the higher end of the curve in terms of ability. In this context it all works and those guys can keep going until they figure out something that works.
> In the idea of the 'typical' self defense scenario that is not the norm. One side is going to be at a disadvantage (usually the victim). The goal is Avoid first, Get Away second, and Get in and Get out third. Not hang around and fight or roll with the assailant.
> How this fits into the MMA/TMA argument I am not sure. I do know most folks can continue doing TMA into their later years in a more 'rounded' way. That is not to say there are not outliers who can roll into an old age.
> I do have to say some of this is internalized. If I was on the ground and someone started cranking on my legs it would be over. My legs are Way too broken up to be cranked on very hard. Kind of odd because I can still do standing drills/attacks decently well.
> ...



There is a misconception that certain arts have a monopoly on either street experience or military use. Therefore giving that martial arts an extra depth that a sport doesn't have. The video shows that it is not really true. 


As far as weighing the merits of an art equally I don't think we can based solely on evidence. On one side we can see a martial art working and on the other we only have assurances that it works. 

I mean that can't be close to even when comparing anything. 

And there are plenty of TMA,s that compete in MMA. So it is not like a good TMA can't do it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> 1. In battle much important than individual skills are: weapon, tactic, cooperation with other combatants. Please show me single TMA school which learns people how to behave in combat bigger than 1:1 or how to repeal cavalry charge. All today learned traditional martial arts are designed for single person not for group/unit melee
> 2. There is no martial art with proven lineage longer than about 150 years. 150 or even 200 years ago guns have won battles not fists, swords or knives



And this is not a guns thing.

And even back in the day wars were won with tactics and numbers. Not martial arts.

Look for example at the phalanx (I think there is a more accurate term) Which was a Roman superweapon.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is absolutely false.  Boxing started in 1681.  The origins of wrestling go back 15,000 years.  HEMA is from the time period of 1300-1800 AD.  Fencing is from the 1600s.  Karate can be traced back to the 1300s, when it was introduced to the Japanese from Chinese Kung Fu masters (which the art existed long before that).



Unbroken linage?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

Roman formations are really clever by the way.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 13, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah because you can see MMA working. You can collect real data and even test it. You can't see for example standing arm bars working as well. I know i asked and nobody could provide it.
> 
> I mean what would you prefer. Something that actually works or some tale about ancient battle fields.
> 
> ...



Where do you think the techniques you use in mma came from, the very arts you are knocking.
Anybody who questions the effectiveness of TMA, does not have indepth knowledge of these arts. You know what they say, knowledge is king, but a little knowledge is dangerous.


----------



## Cynik75 (Feb 13, 2020)

With reference to flying armbars - a broken neck in grappling match in Sankt-Petersburg (Russia): 






skribs said:


> This is absolutely false.  Boxing started in 1681.  The origins of wrestling go back 15,000 years.  HEMA is from the time period of 1300-1800 AD.  Fencing is from the 1600s.  Karate can be traced back to the 1300s, when it was introduced to the Japanese from Chinese Kung Fu masters (which the art existed long before that).


First: please write down a coach-student lineage from 1840 to Mike Tyson. And please write down which techniques and tactics used by 1840 unknown pugilist Mike Tyson used too. Or please write down how 1681 year boxing takedowns, elbows, headbutts, kicks (what was allowed in boxing matches in this time) work for Mike Tyson. BTW Broughton's Rules are from 1743. 
Second: HEMA has no unbroken lineage. It is a re-creation from old books, not learning directly from old fencing masters. Battle-tested fencing has ended with Maxim's invention. Today we have sport-tested fencing, cause HEMA is sport and fun not a every week bloody onslaught.
Third: Karate was not invented to the Japanese in 1300. Okinawa was fully annexed by Japan in 1879.Till 17th century it was independent kingdom with own language an culture. And ther is no evidence (like with HEMA) that nowadays Oyama's karate, Funakoshi's karate use the same techniques that were used for example in 14th century. 
Fourth: sorry for my english


----------



## drop bear (Feb 13, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Where do you think the techniques you use in mma came from, the very arts you are knocking.
> Anybody who questions the effectiveness of TMA, does not have indepth knowledge of these arts. You know what they say, knowledge is king, but a little knowledge is dangerous.



Not at all.

I am knocking the idea that a case built with no evidence is as good as a case built with evidence.

Anyone who questions that does not understand how critical thinking works.


----------



## Gweilo (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I am knocking the idea that a case built with no evidence is as good as a case built with evidence.
> 
> Anyone who questions that does not understand how critical thinking works.



I will admit, TMA is playing catch up with regards to evidence, which is there,but its the fractured relationship between associations and styles inability to work together, that will cause a problem presenting it. Mma is fortunate enough to have a very clever person, with a lot of cash, who exploited a gap in the sports industry, an industry that demands stats, that makes the most of technologies and sceince available. These technologies and sceince are also available to TMA. 
As for the understanding of thinking, this is why we do ma, its to know thyself, Of course knowing yourself better allows you to see more clearly the same things in others. It became easier to see and feel tension in others, to see the *origin of their movement.* This allowed you to get inside their movement (think OODA loop for those who know) and shut it down or control and lead it. I do not need sports stats as an evidence, to know this to be true.
In your video, this shows your arrogance, yes the way the receiver reacted was imo very suspect, but the bilateral gall bladder points 18 and 19 are very real, as are some other points on the body, and its really quite simple to prove, by getting someone to punch or firmly press them for you. I agree with you that mma is great training, its great sport, and it would be effective in sd, but its a trend, one that is demand led, a few years ago it was must train muay thai, then its must train bjj, then judo, then catch wrestling (examples not actual), and when the next person to win a superbout, trains in another mix, you will all like sheep follow the trend, and tell the rest of the world they are wrong, mma is better, because of whatever that trend is, there are a lot of martial artists out there that train in blind faith, and dont really care if it works real world, and thats fine, but there are a lot of ma that do care, and they dont have the platform mma does, they understand what they do, they push themselves beyond the absolute limit to find that extra 20-30%, the 20-30%, that is more than just physical ability or strength, a resource very few know they have, and that is evidence enough for me, so for now, I have more important things to attend to.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> I will admit, TMA is playing catch up with regards to evidence, which is there,but its the fractured relationship between associations and styles inability to work together, that will cause a problem presenting it. Mma is fortunate enough to have a very clever person, with a lot of cash, who exploited a gap in the sports industry, an industry that demands stats, that makes the most of technologies and sceince available. These technologies and sceince are also available to TMA.
> As for the understanding of thinking, this is why we do ma, its to know thyself, Of course knowing yourself better allows you to see more clearly the same things in others. It became easier to see and feel tension in others, to see the *origin of their movement.* This allowed you to get inside their movement (think OODA loop for those who know) and shut it down or control and lead it. I do not need sports stats as an evidence, to know this to be true.
> In your video, this shows your arrogance, yes the way the receiver reacted was imo very suspect, but the bilateral gall bladder points 18 and 19 are very real, as are some other points on the body, and its really quite simple to prove, by getting someone to punch or firmly press them for you. I agree with you that mma is great training, its great sport, and it would be effective in sd, but its a trend, one that is demand led, a few years ago it was must train muay thai, then its must train bjj, then judo, then catch wrestling (examples not actual), and when the next person to win a superbout, trains in another mix, you will all like sheep follow the trend, and tell the rest of the world they are wrong, mma is better, because of whatever that trend is, there are a lot of martial artists out there that train in blind faith, and dont really care if it works real world, and thats fine, but there are a lot of ma that do care, and they dont have the platform mma does, they understand what they do, they push themselves beyond the absolute limit to find that extra 20-30%, the 20-30%, that is more than just physical ability or strength, a resource very few know they have, and that is evidence enough for me, so for now, I have more important things to attend to.



When the new thing comes around and I would follow it is precisely the point. The evidence changes so my opinions change.

If your nothing became something I would support it.

This is essentially how critical thinking works as opposed to dogma.






I mean we can see that wrestling throws people on the ground, boxing and kick boxing knocks people out and bjj ties people in knots. It is a proven method that works. It works pretty consistently we can predict with accuracy how a fight will go.

As compared to what exactly? What evidence that their methods work in the real world? or pushes them that extra 20% or works at all.

If that were the case MMA would be a cake walk and you could just dominate and basically take care of that argument all together.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> In your video, this shows your arrogance, yes the way the receiver reacted was imo very suspect, but the bilateral gall bladder points 18 and 19 are very real, as are some other points on the body, and its really quite simple to prove, by getting someone to punch or firmly press them for you



Ok. So here are some examples of people punching and firmly pressing down on other people.






Why do they seem to be able to take a lot more punishment than you are suggesting is needed via pressure points?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

Or make a case on real world incidents. Let's use wrestling as an example.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not at all.
> 
> I am knocking the idea that a case built with no evidence is as good as a case built with evidence.
> 
> Anyone who questions that does not understand how critical thinking works.


So that I make sure I understand where you are going with the video; are you calling BS?


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> When the new thing comes around and I would follow it is precisely the point. The evidence changes so my opinions change.
> 
> If your nothing became something I would support it.
> 
> ...


​
@drop bear , I am just curious what kind of work do you do? I have been an electrical engineer (control & automation) most of my adult life. Critical thinking is a tool we often actively use but I think you and I may interpret the definition differently.

crit·i·cal think·ing
_noun_
noun: *critical thinking*

the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.
"professors often find it difficult to encourage critical thinking amongst their students"
The five critical thinking skills are :  analysis, interpretation, inference, explanation, self-regulation, open-mindedness, and problem-solving.

In the classic definition of the noun it says to form a judgement.  Per the five skills, the judgement is dependent on interpretation, inference, self-regulation, and open-mindedness, along with other skills. So evidence alone is not enough to justify critical thinking. By far, self-regulation, and open-mindedness are the toughest to maintain in most analytical processes. 
I can think of Way too many times when myself or others have spent days, weeks, even months analyzing a process in an effort to improve or modify it to result in improvements. At some point we got fixated on one part of the process, thinking this was the only or main area to focus on, and forgot or missed how the actions or areas around the process impacted each other. The results were often less improvement than calculated or sometimes no improvement at all. What happened? We got fixated on one or more things and missed the bigger picture. Even though we had tons of evidence that supported out beliefs.  

What's my point? MMA is a style just like TMA is a style. MMA is excellent in a one on one situation. It is less effective in a multiple person or multiple attack tool encounter. Conversely,  Many TMA's are excellent in a one on one situation and is more effective in a multiple person or multiple attack took encounter.
MMA, BJJ, wrestling, often get lumped together even though they are very different tools. Various TMA get lumped together although they are very different tools. TMA has splintered into so many styles and ideas it is misleading to group them all under the same banner. 
At the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of the instruction and more importantly what the person (student) does with it. Casually learning MMA or TMA in an ineffective way results in a ineffective or less effective tool. This is where the style bashing comes from and it is all too easy to find Youtube for ALL styles of effective and/or crap tools.  EVERY style has humorous video of fails or ineffective technique/skills. Grabbing only these videos without weighing them against proof of the same or similar skills being performed effectively is not critical thinking.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> What's my point? MMA is a style just like TMA is a style. MMA is excellent in a one on one situation. It is less effective in a multiple person or multiple attack tool encounter. Conversely, Many TMA's are excellent in a one on one situation and is more effective in a multiple person or multiple attack took encounter.



Ok. This is what I am getting at. 

This is a big statement with no evidence. 

So let's look at that wrestling video. And we can see that the fights go pretty consistently. Even within the style we can see than a back take and suplex is probably the highest percentage move to train followed by a double leg. 

So now we make the statement that against multiple oponants that process will be countered .

Instead of any logical process we jump straight to this idea that TMA has the solution to that problem. This is without evidence that this method doesn't work against multiple attackers and that whatever alternative is suggested even works against one guy. Let alone multiple guys. 

If TMA (or anyone) makes a claim of being able to be a solution to multiple attackers they would need evidence that their solution works. 

Then we can judge both methods based on these ideas of personal preference or better for a specific goal. 

Then we could have a comparison. 

But we are not even to the point that TMA can be considered anything to compare MMA to in self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> So that I make sure I understand where you are going with the video; are you calling BS?



Don't know the style could also just be training people to be pussies.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> At the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of the instruction and more importantly what the person (student) does with it.



It comes down to the amount of scientific method that is used to test martial theories. 

MMA is about the best testing method we have at the moment. 

I mean we can find fault with it. So say mma mostly doesn't fight multiples. But then your testing would have to fight multiples. Not also not fight multiples but talk about it more.


----------



## skribs (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not also not fight multiples but talk about it more.



In Medicine, you go to class and talk about medicine.  Then you go to a dummy, a VR component, or a live patient and you practice what you learned.  Then you go back to class and talk about it.  Then you go back to practice and put it into effect.

Everything you've learned in martial arts, I guarantee you that at some point you had to talk about it.  You don't just take a student and say "go do 1000 punches, a hundred double-leg takedowns, and set 100 arm-bars."  You show them how to punch, and when they punch mostly with their arm you tell them how to put their hips into the punch.  You show them the double leg, and when they can't get it in sparring you explain how to set it up or how to finish it.  You show them the armbar, and when their opponent isn't tapping, you teach them the proper leverage points and hand position to make it work.  Or you explain these things when you demonstrate.

I agree that if all you do is talk about it and never practice it, then yes that doesn't work.  But the fact people talk about it isn't proof they don't practice it or test it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> In Medicine, you go to class and talk about medicine.  Then you go to a dummy, a VR component, or a live patient and you practice what you learned.  Then you go back to class and talk about it.  Then you go back to practice and put it into effect.
> 
> Everything you've learned in martial arts, I guarantee you that at some point you had to talk about it.  You don't just take a student and say "go do 1000 punches, a hundred double-leg takedowns, and set 100 arm-bars."  You show them how to punch, and when they punch mostly with their arm you tell them how to put their hips into the punch.  You show them the double leg, and when they can't get it in sparring you explain how to set it up or how to finish it.  You show them the armbar, and when their opponent isn't tapping, you teach them the proper leverage points and hand position to make it work.  Or you explain these things when you demonstrate.
> 
> I agree that if all you do is talk about it and never practice it, then yes that doesn't work.  But the fact people talk about it isn't proof they don't practice it or test it.



Ok then show me where you have practiced it. In medicine the method should have been scientifically tested at some point.






Because we are still arguing something vs nothing.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It comes down to the amount of scientific method that is used to test martial theories.
> 
> MMA is about the best testing method we have at the moment.
> 
> I mean we can find fault with it. So say mma mostly doesn't fight multiples. But then your testing would have to fight multiples. Not also not fight multiples but talk about it more.


Agree. But it is also true that many of the techniques taught in TMA that have been proven to work cannot be practiced with full intent all the time. It would become more of a Mortal art rather than a Martial art.

_Edit: _Before you say it; I imagine there are videos of the techniques I mention in action but I hope there are not too many videos of when they are actually used with full intent. I picture them as being at the fight outside the bar, the LEO in service, or a military situation. Not a lot of video going on there. Does that sound lame? Maybe but it is the best answer I have.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. This is what I am getting at.
> 
> This is a big statement with no evidence.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I had to disagree with that one.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It comes down to the amount of scientific method that is used to test martial theories.
> 
> MMA is about the best testing method we have at the moment.
> 
> I mean we can find fault with it. So say mma mostly doesn't fight multiples. But then your testing would have to fight multiples. Not also not fight multiples but talk about it more.


But the testing does fight multiples and singles who are tapping out or debilitation. Decades (centuries?) equaling tens of thousands practitioners and witnesses who bring this to bear. Are there tons of Youtube videos? Apparently not to a degree that satisfies you. Do they exist at all? Yes, I believe they do. Change your search parameters and I am sure you can find them. 

Not being a dxxk but I have seen and been a part of too much in my lifetime to buy what you are selling. I love MMA. It has been a boon to the martial arts industry. It is Not the only valid game in town however.


----------



## skribs (Feb 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I love MMA. It has been a boon to the martial arts industry. It is Not the only valid game in town however.



Big agree with this.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> But the testing does fight multiples and singles who are tapping out or debilitation. Decades (centuries?) equaling tens of thousands practitioners and witnesses who bring this to bear. Are there tons of Youtube videos? Apparently not to a degree that satisfies you. Do they exist at all? Yes, I believe they do. Change your search parameters and I am sure you can find them.
> 
> Not being a dxxk but I have seen and been a part of too much in my lifetime to buy what you are selling. I love MMA. It has been a boon to the martial arts industry. It is Not the only valid game in town however.



Ok. Then show this evidence.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 14, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree. But it is also true that many of the techniques taught in TMA that have been proven to work cannot be practiced with full intent all the time. It would become more of a Mortal art rather than a Martial art.



So far nothing has been proven to work. Like literally none of the concepts you are suggesting have been proven to work. 

I mean if I suggested I could take a guys back, suplex him and jump on his head until he dies. 

At least we know some of that is possible. Because we have seen some of it work. 

We literally have a whole thread supporting a system with no real basis to believe it works at all. 

Some story about a battlefield we never saw isn't proof.


----------



## skribs (Feb 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So far nothing has been proven to work. Like literally none of the concepts you are suggesting have been proven to work.
> 
> I mean if I suggested I could take a guys back, suplex him and jump on his head until he dies.
> 
> ...



The only way to get the results that would satisfy you would be unethical.

I'd rather you think I'm wrong than injure a bunch of people.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> The only way to get the results that would satisfy you would be unethical.
> 
> I'd rather you think I'm wrong than injure a bunch of people.



Yeah. That definitely the reason you can't show a single video of anything you say doing anything you say it does.

Because it is too deadly.

This squirming around refusing to show any sort of evidence for a system is exactly why the. Does it work in MMA? Test is so important.

It is a very easy BS detector for people who potentially don't want to spend ten years training to defend themselves only to find that nothing they have trained really works very well.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 15, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> I think you are looking at a different post from me. Nothing to do with training, doing drills and all to do with this......



Going to the other comment as a reply.   I am still adamantly on the view you would have at least on average a better time if you were used to the sight of blood or at least lawfully killed soemthing beforehand.    There is a reason why butchering and/or killing animals is included in survival courses, you sort of need to know how to do it and it aclumitises you to the idea and process of it.   Hell the entire course sort of exists to aclumatise you to the condtions and give you a skill set so you can survive if you ever need to and arent just dropped off into a foreign enviroment in its entirery.   

Like you might be able to bring yourself to do it, but you wouldnt have had any experience or means to devolope a coping mechnism while doing it if you go in blind.



drop bear said:


> Look for example at the phalanx (I think there is a more accurate term) Which was a Roman superweapon.



I would techncially call that a martial art by my own usage of it.  The art of warfare is very much martial and a art.  Granted i will side with anyone who proposes it being diffrent nowdays and the term meaning soemthing diffrent now days rather than its literal meaning.      Because when you say martial art or tradtional martial art, most people go to either CMA or Karate/JMA Doing kata in gi's etc.  Rather than what contemporary systems do, like what is done in the military and police so fourth.




Cynik75 said:


> 1. In battle much important than individual skills are: weapon, tactic, cooperation with other combatants. Please show me single TMA school which learns people how to behave in combat bigger than 1:1 or how to repeal cavalry charge. All today learned traditional martial arts are designed for single person not for group/unit melee
> 2. There is no martial art with proven lineage longer than about 150 years. 150 or even 200 years ago guns have won battles not fists, swords or knives



I would say SOME FMA styles have a battlefield undertone to them.      But i would largely agree, more goes into fighting militarily than individual vs individual and the amount fo training you have to give people varies with weapon(s).  Spearmen didnt require a lot of training to be effective historically.

And to the second point, pet peeve of mine as firearms were taught and used EVERYWHERE after they were introduced, yet i dont see many if any what you think of when you say Martial arts schools teach them.     Its more or less either seperate firearm training or part of a contemporary system


----------



## skribs (Feb 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. That definitely the reason you can't show a single video of anything you say doing anything you say it does.
> 
> Because it is too deadly.
> 
> ...



First off, we've established that it doesn't work in MMA.  If that is the only evidence you use for what techniques work and don't, then you're artificially narrowing the scope of what works and doesn't.  That may be fine for you, but others are capable of weighing other evidence.

What are the best forms of self-defense?

De-escalation
Run
Prevention (awareness, buddy system)
Carry a weapon
None of those can be tested in MMA.  According to your logic, none of those must work.  

Second, since we've established that it doesn't work in MMA, the only way to prove it works is to show it's effectiveness.  If I stop before I injure someone, you'll just say I didn't prove it worked.  

What you've created is a circular logic, in which the only way for me to prove to you that it works is to actually hurt someone.  Because you are so narrow-minded as to only see what works in one test environment, and throw out all other evidence, you are being purposefully ignorant as to what works and what doesn't.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. That definitely the reason you can't show a single video of anything you say doing anything you say it does.
> 
> Because it is too deadly.
> 
> ...



Like I said in a previous post, it is out there. You just need to spend Your time surfing Youtube or whatever to find it. 
I understand your position; you are passionate about MMA. That is a very good thing. The mindset has been drilled into your or was possibly already there. You spend a lot of time finding video  'evidence' to support your opinion. Not a bad thing. I really enjoy some of the photos I have seen of you at various events and whatnot. Your active in what you do. Another good thing. I get it, I have been there. Hell, I only missed going to the Olympics by two matches.
Some of it may be a generational thing but most people do not need overt confirmation to know whether how they workout is working for them. There is a good amount of cultural bias as well. Western styles like MMA are culturally more overt than most TMA styles. That said, I am certain there are videos out there if that is what you need. 

Another food for thought idea. It is very true that there is a good amount of compliance in how a MMA match goes. That is true in any style of martial art competition. Much of what "works" as you put it that is in TMA is for non compliant situations. 

I know none of this will change you mind. Just know you are in the minority with your opinion.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is absolutely false.  Boxing started in 1681.  The origins of wrestling go back 15,000 years.  HEMA is from the time period of 1300-1800 AD.  Fencing is from the 1600s.  Karate can be traced back to the 1300s, when it was introduced to the Japanese from Chinese Kung Fu masters (which the art existed long before that).



Boxing is quite old. It more than likely preadates records of it, even if its not "boxing" but just brawling with no rules.  The evolution of it came in stages which would be denoted as rulesets etc.    There are people who can go back a while and cite all the rulesets in boxing, fights before the rulesets, in which ever rulesets, founders of rulesets etc.    I am not one of them, just know its quite old, and modenr boxings foundations were from when brawling was just civilised into a sport. I only know of prise fighting days, queensberries rules and modern as boxing peroids.   At least this is english boxing. (might vary by region, but you didnt prefix a region)

HEMA is not from any time peroid, HEMA is a collective term for all european martial arts before X point.     I know of a English/British isles system that had  a treatise written in 1200AD so it probbly predated that time.  Cant remmeber its name, but at time of reading thats the oldest one found to be a weapon system or a complete system for the region.*   By definition for HEMA, it goes back as far as europeans (as occupants of the contintent) go back.   I would call it at around WW1-2ish the term stops and it becomes modern combatives.

Karate i am not touching with a stick, all i know is modern karate started around 1900.  Might be wrong, might not, i am not of the view it hasnt changed at all since its inception.


*  I am enthisising, it is a proper system and can be called a system of martial arts/fighting.


----------



## skribs (Feb 15, 2020)

@dvcochran see, you and I can agree on some things!


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> @dvcochran see, you and I can agree on some things!


It happens more than you think.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> First off, we've established that it doesn't work in MMA.  If that is the only evidence you use for what techniques work and don't, then you're artificially narrowing the scope of what works and doesn't.  That may be fine for you, but others are capable of weighing other evidence.
> 
> What are the best forms of self-defense?
> 
> ...



So you literally do not know if anything you train actually works. 

So you haven't tested your training in a competitive setting. You haven't even seen these techniques work in a competitive setting.

You haven't seen if your system creates the skills neccecary to achieve your objectives.

You can't test techniques that are so vital to your success that the whole system is compromised by their removal. 

And you are hoping that because these techniques might have been used on a battlefield somewhere that they will work for you under the stress of attack. 

And you think that me asking for a single kernel of truth that supports your theorys is somehow willfully ignorant. 

This is a mindset that has no place in self defense.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Like I said in a previous post, it is out there. You just need to spend Your time surfing Youtube or whatever to find it.
> I understand your position; you are passionate about MMA. That is a very good thing. The mindset has been drilled into your or was possibly already there. You spend a lot of time finding video  'evidence' to support your opinion. Not a bad thing. I really enjoy some of the photos I have seen of you at various events and whatnot. Your active in what you do. Another good thing. I get it, I have been there. Hell, I only missed going to the Olympics by two matches.
> Some of it may be a generational thing but most people do not need overt confirmation to know whether how they workout is working for them. There is a good amount of cultural bias as well. Western styles like MMA are culturally more overt than most TMA styles. That said, I am certain there are videos out there if that is what you need.
> 
> ...



You can't just say it is out there. What if it isn't out there? What if it is just half truths and stories?

I can show you MMA works. On the street in the ring, I can show you police and soldiers and civilians using MMA or MMA principles effectively. That is not opinion you can see it working. 

You can't show me what you suggest works working anywhere. 

That isn't a passion for MMA. 

That is a passion for the truth. 

And self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be an ethical training system.


----------



## skribs (Feb 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So you literally do not know if anything you train actually works.



I do know.  Your opinion is irrelevant to my knowledge.



> So you haven't tested your training in a competitive setting. You haven't even seen these techniques work in a competitive setting.



I have even admitted they won't.  You keep bringing this up like a "gotcha", but we agree they won't.  Stop trying to convince me they won't, because I already agree with you on that.  Competitive setting is not the place for these techniques.



> You haven't seen if your system creates the skills neccecary to achieve your objectives.



Yes I have.  I'll go back to my point above.  Your opinion is irrelevant to my confidence in my abilities.



> You can't test techniques that are so vital to your success that the whole system is compromised by their removal.



I don't even know what you mean here, so...no comment.



> And you are hoping that because these techniques might have been used on a battlefield somewhere that they will work for you under the stress of attack.



No.  I know how these techniques work based on my own drills and sparring, and knowing what would happen if I cranked the arm instead of stopping my motion.



> And you think that me asking for a single kernel of truth that supports your theorys is somehow willfully ignorant.



A single kernel of truth?  You've been given buckets and reject it.  You don't want a single kernel.



> This is a mindset that has no place in self defense.



And yours has no place in discussion.  You reject everything that's thrown at you and then say "you've given me nothing."


----------



## skribs (Feb 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You can't just say it is out there. What if it isn't out there? What if it is just half truths and stories?
> 
> I can show you MMA works. On the street in the ring, I can show you police and soldiers and civilians using MMA or MMA principles effectively. That is not opinion you can see it working.
> 
> ...



Why do you now accept "police and soldiers and civilians using..." as proof?  When we were discussing wrist locks a while back, we pointed to use by police and civilians in making arrests or in self-defense, and the attitude was that since it wasn't in the ring, it doesn't matter.

You have a huge double standard here.  If it's MMA, everything that works is proof that it works.  If it's not MMA, then everything that works is anecdotal and wouldn't work if the opponent knew what they were doing.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So you literally do not know if anything you train actually works.
> 
> So you haven't tested your training in a competitive setting. You haven't even seen these techniques work in a competitive setting.
> 
> ...


Ok, so if I spend a bunch of time on Youtube and find events that are TMA to me,  whether it is standing or on the ground, what is going to keep you from just claiming it is MMA? Are only standing punches and kicks TMA in your opinion? That is just not true. That immediately unbalances the equation because of bias. 
I suspect much of what You see as MMA is seen as TMA by many others so, again, it is out there. 
Most people who practice a TMA are tested under resistance. I for one know I have been about as high as you can go in the realm of competition both in TKD and a fair amount of PKA. 
It don't have a ton of video and it is all on thumb drives converted from VHS so it is hard to see anyway. I have a ton of pictures. For me, that is good enough.  

By the way; "And self defense needs to be grounded in truth to be an ethical training system."  This is a Great quote.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> Why do you now accept "police and soldiers and civilians using..." as proof?  When we were discussing wrist locks a while back, we pointed to use by police and civilians in making arrests or in self-defense, and the attitude was that since it wasn't in the ring, it doesn't matter.
> 
> You have a huge double standard here.  If it's MMA, everything that works is proof that it works.  If it's not MMA, then everything that works is anecdotal and wouldn't work if the opponent knew what they were doing.



Yeah. Used by police is probably the flagship for anecdotal nonsense and use of weasel words. 

I mean I don't think you could create a conclusion from a more vague and inconsistent source.

It wasn't even a police officer consistently wrist locking people. It was just "police"

And from there we jumped to wrist locks work without any idea how to make them work. Because you can't seem to train anything without killing your partner.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Ok, so if I spend a bunch of time on Youtube and find events that are TMA to me,  whether it is standing or on the ground, what is going to keep you from just claiming it is MMA? Are only standing punches and kicks TMA in your opinion? That is just not true. That immediately unbalances the equation because of bias.
> I suspect much of what You see as MMA is seen as TMA by many others so, again, it is out there.
> Most people who practice a TMA are tested under resistance. I for one know I have been about as high as you can go in the realm of competition both in TKD and a fair amount of PKA.
> It don't have a ton of video and it is all on thumb drives converted from VHS so it is hard to see anyway. I have a ton of pictures. For me, that is good enough.
> ...



MMA is a competitive setting that allows striking grappling and ground work.

Rather than it really being a MMA vs TMA thing that you guys are trying to set up.

I just use the distinction because otherwise we get in to a 20 page semantic argument.

But I could just as easily say it has to work consistently under a bunch of conditions.

With fighting or self defence. Striking, grappling and ground work is pretty good.

If we say added weapons. It would be better. And we can, there are hema, dog brothers and gun games. And when we do. We don't suddenly see wrist locks and arm bars.

We see MMA with additional situational elements. So the order of priorities changes.

But not only do we have consistency within MMA we get consistency across platforms.

And from there we have a framework that is based in evidence that we can work with if we wanted results based self defense.

Half the arguments here are hoodoo nonscence.


----------



## jobo (Feb 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> MMA is a competitive setting that allows striking grappling and ground work.
> 
> Rather than it really being a MMA vs TMA thing that you guys are trying to set up.
> 
> ...


welll yes, mma works consistantly50% of the time

from an indevidual basis there are some, a very few who make it work a 100% of the time, its therefore a logical conclusion that there are others who can make it work 0% of the time. thats probebly much the same as any fighting style


----------



## skribs (Feb 15, 2020)

@drop bear Nobody is saying MMA is bad (or if they are, it's a small voice).  Just that it's not an infallible test for what happens outside of MMA.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> @drop bear Nobody is saying MMA is bad (or if they are, it's a small voice).  Just that it's not an infallible test for what happens outside of MMA.



What is this test you are comparing it too?


----------



## skribs (Feb 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> What is this test you are comparing it too?



That's the thing.  It's not just one.  It's a combination of what I've experienced in class when I do these techniques, what I've experienced when I've had them done on me.  Anecdotal evidence in the form of videos and discussions.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> MMA is a competitive setting that allows striking grappling and ground work.
> 
> Rather than it really being a MMA vs TMA thing that you guys are trying to set up.
> 
> ...



That is not at all my question. I am simply saying there are a Lot of things you see as MMA that many others will see as TMA, on the mat or in the ring. I did not mention weapons or HEMA, for simplicity's sake let's leave them out of the discussion.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Feb 16, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Ok, so if I spend a bunch of time on Youtube and find events that are TMA to me, whether it is standing or on the ground, what is going to keep you from just claiming it is MMA? Are only standing punches and kicks TMA in your opinion? That is just not true. That immediately unbalances the equation because of bias.



Just going to back drop bear in part there.   Some things you might not find any evidence of them working in the modern world.   Really should be taken cas eby case basis.    In other words technique by technique.  


Also, probbly dont have the full story here.   The police does have some **** in some places.  I swear i saw a article somewhere about how U.S police agencies have employed unarmed teachers who absically know nothing down to the employer not knowing much on the subject.      Trainign standards and cot=ntent vary greatly as well.       Basically miltiary, police and civilian sources are not exempt from fallacies going on, luck and bias's.   All cases should be viewed case by case as the amount of variables that go into making something work are quite high.  

Somone who is stronger than average could probbly get away with a lot of brute force methodly against somone who is weaker than average for example.  


Also first rule for this: Anecdotal evidence is basically useless.     Unless a large amount of people back up what was said that have no vested intrest in it.   but then you should still be dubious of anecdotal evidence.     As in the modern day if soemthing works you should be able to find some video or pictoral evidence of it.  (especially in modern MEDC's)

Mixed reply to muiltiple points here. 




and because this is semi scentific, i got up to a 5th draft on that science thread i was on about, struggling with how to start it and forgot about it, i might try another draft of it later if i dont forget.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> Like you might be able to bring yourself to do it, but you wouldnt have had any experience or means to devolope a coping mechnism while doing it if you go in blind.




Rage and adrenaline can easily over rule your intelligence and your rational thoughts so it's not always a case  of 'bringing yourself to do it'. Alcohol can  overcome any inhibitions which is why fighting a drunk or when drunk can be dangerous. I'm talking about situations when your loved ones are in danger and you react without thinking, you simply don't think which can be a problem in itself. In many situations people act without thinking, in war and peacetime alike. 



On the other subject, MMA is TMA, just more of them all in the same fight.


----------



## dvcochran (Feb 18, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> In many situations people act without thinking, in war and peacetime alike.


I would certainly agree that many people react without rational thinking in stressful situations.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> Well, if it worked in pride and early UFC, it probbly would outside the rule sets.   (given the first UFC's rules were basically none barring permenent incapcitation rules ie eye pokes and throat shots)     And pride kept headbutts and stomps as far as i know when UFC got rid of them.   Last i know UFC brought out pride, but there arent that many rules in UFC.
> 
> 
> Also, there really isnt a good way to train a lot of this, like there wasnt before simunitions and laser systems cropped up for firearms. (and then they have their issues as does everything)     And pure experience leads survivour bias and the other person matters as much as you.     Its just really hard to pin all of this down into good training standards without some form of expereince bloc behind it.  Like the police would have constant case reports coming back that would alter their training and usually people die, or something goes terribly wrong before something is picked up.  (thats the trend in U.S police firearm tactics anyway)   We can all agree police and military case reports arent going to be 100% useful for civilians and what civilians need for self defence as nether the police or military can run away from situations and most situations you should have ran away from.
> ...



@Rat how many really dangerous or potentially deadly situations have you been in and/or trained for?  You make is sound like you have a lot of experience at training to survive such things.


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 26, 2020)

belaid7 said:


> You should try one of these
> *Best 7 types of martial arts:*
> *1. Kickboxing *
> *2. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu*
> ...


Best for what?

weight loss?
Self defence?
Competition fighting?
Strength building?
Relaxation?
Striking?
Grappling?
Weapon fighting?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2020)

oftheherd1 said:


> @Rat how many really dangerous or potentially deadly situations have you been in and/or trained for?  You make is sound like you have a lot of experience at training to survive such things.



Well the standard for instruction in self defense is zero. 

So I am not sure what the bar should really be on a comment.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

oftheherd1 said:


> @Rat how many really dangerous or potentially deadly situations have you been in and/or trained for?  You make is sound like you have a lot of experience at training to survive such things.


I think rats post is bob on, its a shame its not experience talking


----------



## Steve (Jun 26, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Best for what?
> 
> weight loss?


Tae Bo or cardio kickboxing, but only if you stay with it.





> Self defence?


LOL.  Hard to say.  Are we talking about self defense orientation, self defense emphasis, defense against a group of cops who are strangling you, gang member defense, barfight defense, defense against ninja in a dark alley, or defense against the dark arts?





> Competition fighting?


Dumb question, because the competition will dictate the style.  





> Strength building?


I'm going to go with Tae Bo again.





> Relaxation?


Massage or Tai Chi





> Striking?


Ooh, so many good ones.  Can we start with what it ain't?





> Grappling?


See above.





> Weapon fighting?


Which weapon?


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

Dumb question, because the competition will dictate the style.
This I agree with, whole heartedly
In restrictive competition


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> I think rats post is bob on, its a shame its not experience talking



The point is it doesn't have to be. 

You can externally mesure performance. Self defense guys just really don't want you to.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The point is it doesn't have to be.
> 
> You can externally mesure performance. Self defense guys just really don't want you to.



Now Im confused with you, before we have talked about pressure testing skill, making sure the foundations of what we do, is prevelant to what is claimed in the teaching we receive from our instructors. In previous conversation Rat has claimed he has little or no training in ma, infact, he is undecided in his training path (appologys if this has changed), how can you externally measure performance, with no experience, or pressure testing


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 26, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Now Im confused with you, before we have talked about pressure testing skill, making sure the foundations of what we do, is prevelant to what is claimed in the teaching we receive from our instructors. In previous conversation Rat has claimed he has little or no training in ma, infact, he is undecided in his training path (appologys if this has changed), how can you externally measure performance, with no experience, or pressure testing


I very much doubt it has changed


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Now Im confused with you, before we have talked about pressure testing skill, making sure the foundations of what we do, is prevelant to what is claimed in the teaching we receive from our instructors. In previous conversation Rat has claimed he has little or no training in ma, infact, he is undecided in his training path (appologys if this has changed), how can you externally measure performance, with no experience, or pressure testing



In the same way Richard Dawkins can mesure the performance of dowsing without ever having been a dowser.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> In the same way Richard Dawkins can mesure the performance of dowsing without ever having been a dowser.



Are you smoking something


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Are you smoking something



It is a pretty wild idea that someone could make a claim and then be able to demonstrate that claim on demand under laboratory conditions.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

Ok watched the Youtube video, but it confirms other conversation, you will only know if you experiment.
Something I agree with


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It is a pretty wild idea that someone could make a claim and then be able to demonstrate that claim on demand under laboratory conditions.


Is there a underlying point to this comment


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

Would you like to meet up, and (friendly) test our theories against each other?


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

We could film it for MT subscribers


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Is there a underlying point to this comment



Yes. The amount of ducking and diving that some systems will go to, to avoid ever being put in a situation that requires them to demonstrate a claim is quite impressive. 

While also producing intentionally flawed information. 

E.g.. Chinese tai chi. Is a good example.

There is these videos that make it appear that they have real application.





And then of course you put them on a mat with a fighter and they last about ten seconds. Literally the same amount of time as an untrained guy.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 26, 2020)

Anyhow 1/4 -to 23.00, got to be up at 04.30, I got to go night nights very soon, so will answer posts tomorrow.


----------



## Steve (Jun 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> In the same way Richard Dawkins can mesure the performance of dowsing without ever having been a dowser.


From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."


----------



## Steve (Jun 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yes. The amount of ducking and diving that some systems will go to, to avoid ever being put in a situation that requires them to demonstrate a claim is quite impressive.
> 
> While also producing intentionally flawed information.
> 
> ...


That evasiveness suggests that the belief in the system isn't sincere.  In the video you shared of dowsing, the folks all seemed very confident that they would succeed, and so experienced genuine cognitive dissonance when they didn't.  The lengths that some systems go to in order to avoid any objective testing of their skill suggests that, on some level at least, they are concerned about their expected performance.  Frankly, if my livelihood was based on my reputation as a guru of street fighting, and my reputation was based on questionable skills, I'd be anxious to avoid testing those skills, too.  It's a reasonable response, if not entirely ethical.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."



Yeah but that is something crazy like dowsing. Not something practical like martial arts. 

I mean that works because I have used it.


----------



## Christopher Adamchek (Jun 26, 2020)

If the goal is ONLY self-defense then ONLY  a modern statistic based self defense class should be taken.  One that encompass empowerment, situational avoidance, verbal deescalation, psychological profiling, and wild attacks.  

Often i hear people taking X martial art for self defense and that should never be done unless self defense isnt the main goal such as for the FITNESS, COMMUNITY, FIGHTING SKILL, and self defense.


----------



## Steve (Jun 26, 2020)

Christopher Adamchek said:


> If the goal is ONLY self-defense then ONLY  a modern statistic based self defense class should be taken.  One that encompass empowerment, situational avoidance, verbal deescalation, psychological profiling, and wild attacks.
> .


One that also encompasses some measurable, data driven results, as well.  Right?  I'd love to hear about some of those.  I'm aware of one self defense program that is truly statistics based, but would love to be able to point to others.  Could you share some examples?


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yes. The amount of ducking and diving that some systems will go to, to avoid ever being put in a situation that requires them to demonstrate a claim is quite impressive.
> 
> While also producing intentionally flawed information.
> 
> ...



In this video, you are using a demonstration of a technique, to quantify your argument(as you regularly do), if real, or in a fight senario, neither would have stood still for that long. Although one would question the weightlifters credentials, because had he dropped his centre of mass to the same level as mr Wangs, he would of been able to do one of your mma/wwf suplex thingys.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> In this video, you are using a demonstration of a technique, to quantify your argument(as you regularly do), if real, or in a fight senario, neither would have stood still for that long. Although one would question the weightlifters credentials, because had he dropped his centre of mass to the same level as mr Wangs, he would of been able to do one of your mma/wwf suplex thingys.



They were straight up made up China propaganda pieces.

Which was my point.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 27, 2020)

@Gweilo
@drop bear

I have actually nearly been ran over several times, so those do indeed classify as "deadly" situations.   So i do indeed have some experence.  (TKD at any level would not help you there, you need to learn how to roll and ****)

Now onto proper experience, all i have to say is, if my point is correct, then bringing experience into it is just a fallacy, as my point is correct.  (thats not arrogance, it is actually a fallacy to do that)


Also, i love how that persons list necroed this.    (havent read entire thread might be another post shortly)


----------



## jobo (Jun 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> That evasiveness suggests that the belief in the system isn't sincere.  In the video you shared of dowsing, the folks all seemed very confident that they would succeed, and so experienced genuine cognitive dissonance when they didn't.  The lengths that some systems go to in order to avoid any objective testing of their skill suggests that, on some level at least, they are concerned about their expected performance.  Frankly, if my livelihood was based on my reputation as a guru of street fighting, and my reputation was based on questionable skills, I'd be anxious to avoid testing those skills, too.  It's a reasonable response, if not entirely ethical.


 ive point out to him, that his dowsing analogy is no good, but he is so on script it makes no difference

if dowsing doesnt work9(and it probably doesnt)then there only a remote chance it will be successful, . exactly the same odds against no matter how much you have practised

defending yourself against attack is a very different stastical proposition

everyday millions of untrained people successfully defend themselves against attack, with out any specific  data its fair to considered that this is just as likely as it is unlikely, so its a 50/50 chance

so if the untrained are running even odds, the trained cant be running worse odds

then if the training has increased their odds by even 5 % they are now in a considerably better position than when they started

my particular estimate is ive increased my odds by 20% , that is im confident of a successful defence against 70 % of the adult male  population, if that is anywhere near accurate its a good investment in time, more especially as when i started  sorting my self out, long before i returned to lessons ,my physical conditioning was so far below the mean average that i was probably nearer to 20 %


----------



## Steve (Jun 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive point out to him, that his dowsing analogy is no good, but he is so on script it makes no difference
> 
> if dowsing doesnt work9(and it probably doesnt)then there only a remote chance it will be successful, . exactly the same odds against no matter how much you have practised
> 
> ...


It's exactly the same. Because there are techniques for identifying groundwater that are much more accurate.  And there are tools and devices that detect humidity and moisture very reliably.  So, the idea that one would need to rely on water witching, dowsing, or whatever else you might call it, is more akin to a religious belief than a scientific belief.

There are ways to reliably learn to fight.  And there are schools that teach self defense that poo poo these reliable methods.  "We don't compete." to me equals dowsing.  Regarding self defense, it's a big circle jerk.   I've said in the past that the rhetoric around self defense is self serving.  From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."  

Look, here's the bottom line. You are guessing that your odds are increased by 20%.  You're pulling these percentages out of your butt, based on what?  

All that said, I do appreciate that your physical conditioning is considered, but as I've said in the past, if that's what you're basing this on, you could become as fit or more doing things that don't carry the label "martial arts."

Last quick point, I actually think that folks who are untrained CAN be safer in a fight than someone who believes they are trained when they are not.  A guy who trains crossfit but has never been in a fight in his life is going to handle a situation very differently than a guy who trained in ninjutsu and thinks he's got self defense on lock.  But, in the end, it's okay.  If the ninja gets his *** kicked, it's okay.  While there may be a rare crisis of confidence, "what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."


----------



## jobo (Jun 27, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's exactly the same. Because there are techniques for identifying groundwater that are much more accurate.  And there are tools and devices that detect humidity and moisture very reliably.  So, the idea that one would need to rely on water witching, dowsing, or whatever else you might call it, is more akin to a religious belief than a scientific belief.
> 
> There are ways to reliably learn to fight.  And there are schools that teach self defense that poo poo these reliable methods.  "We don't compete." to me equals dowsing.  Regarding self defense, it's a big circle jerk.   I've said in the past that the rhetoric around self defense is self serving.  From the video, "And then what typically happens is they'll make up all kinds of reasons... some might say excuses... as to why they didn't pass that particular test."
> 
> ...


based on the fact that thats where i score, slightly above one standard deviation on the distribution of physical ability, that is i can better 69% of the population for fitness then i know karate, so im trained and there likely not, and im likely fitter than them,, both together my odds are probably higher, but il err on the side of caution

but as said the odds of any two individuals selected at random are 50 50, in the absence of any other data it cant get worse than that no matter how badly they train, but your building a straw man with bad training argument

but even with dowsing, if your divining two hectares of land to find a 1 hectare  aqua fa its 50 50 if you hit it or not, so its % success is heavily tied to the amount of ground water in any given area


the girl( never mind the guy)who does cross fit may perform better, but thats not a fault with the training, thats the fault of the individual to not keep themselves fit


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> based on the fact that thats where i score, slightly above one standard deviation on the distribution of physical ability, that is i can better 69% of the population for fitness then i know karate, so im trained and there likely not, and im likely fitter than them,, both together my odds are probably higher, but il err on the side of caution
> 
> but as said the odds of any two individuals selected at random are 50 50, in the absence of any other data it cant get worse than that no matter how badly they train, but your building a straw man with bad training argument
> 
> ...



Your odds are still 50/50 by your assessment. They don't increase they don't decrease.

You can't random sample the whole human population and get a 50/50 and then bolster your own stats.

Because your bolstered stats debunks the 50/50 myth.

Or in other words you have rejected reality and substituting your own. Again.


----------



## jobo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Your odds are still 50/50 by your assessment. They don't increase they don't decrease.
> 
> You can't random sample the whole human population and get a 50/50 and then bolster your own stats.
> 
> ...


 ive not sampled the whole population just the adult males in this country and yes, its just as likely than any random attack against a random stranger will be settled 50 50, unless you have some data that supports something else


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive not sampled the whole population just the adult males and yes, its just as likely than any random attack will be settled 50 50, unless you have some data that supports something else



Which you debunked by adding individual data. So now the 50/50 isn't true. Because everyone has individual data.


----------



## jobo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Which you debunked by adding individual data. So now the 50/50 isn't true. Because everyone has individual data.


of course they do, but the only individual data i have is mine, everyone else is completely randomised

how ever you look at most people are by definition average, raise your self above average by one standard deviation and your better than 68% of people. i know you dont do stats but come on,, try average people are more likely to be attack as there more average people than not average and there more likely to be attacked by average people for the same reason


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> of course they do, but the only individual data i have is mine, everyone else is completely randomised
> 
> how ever you look at most people are by definition average, raise your self above average by one standard deviation and your better than 68% of people. i know you dont do stats but come on,, try average people are more likely to be attack as there more average people than not average and there more likely to be attacked by average people for the same reason



Then why haven't you accounted for everyone's individual data?


----------



## jobo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Then why haven't you accounted for everyone's individual data?


because we are talking about populations and as far as those go its a toss of a coin who wins

even my own data is in comparison to the average of the population. most people are more or less the same, thats what distribution curve of human populations tells us, i dont need everybody data to know that


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> because we are talking about populations and as far as those go its a toss of a coin who wins
> 
> even my own data is in comparison to the average of the population. most people are more or less the same, thats what distribution curve of human populations tells us, i dont need everybody data to know that



But you have averaged the population then added your extra stats. You are double dipping. 

That is obvious and I don't even do stats.


----------



## jobo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> But you have averaged the population then added your extra stats. You are double dipping.
> 
> That is obvious and I don't even do stats.


but im above average, if i know what the mean average is, then i know the distribution, if i know how far above the mean average i am, i know how many people are better and how many are worse

circa 68% of people are average any random attack is likely to consist of two average people, coz there a lot more of them, any random attack on me has an odds on of being someone less able than i am, as there are far more of those than those who are superior


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> but im above average, if i know what the mean average is, then i know the distribution, if i know how far above the mean average i am, i know how many people are better and how many are worse
> 
> circa 68% of people are average any random attack is likely to consist of two average people, coz there a lot more of them, any random attack on me has an odds on of being someone less able than i am, as there are far more of those than those who are superior



So are other people. But you included them to get your average.


----------



## jobo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So are other people. But you included them to get your average.


i have to include the above average to get an average ???? thats rather how averages work


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> They were straight up made up China propaganda pieces.
> 
> Which was my point.


Yes but you cannotbuse another bs, to force your arguement home, because it bs


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

jobo said:


> i have to include the above average to get an average ???? thats rather how averages work



Then you add your above average.

Double dipping,


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Yes but you cannotbuse another bs, to force your arguement home, because it bs



Yes I can. I am adding evidence. The more I add the less BS it becomes. That is called weight of evidence.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 27, 2020)

Rat said:


> I have actually nearly been ran over several times, so those do indeed classify as "deadly" situations. So i do indeed have some experence.


No, unless you have actually put some form of training to the test, you have analogy, and dreams, you have what you have heard the big boys talk about, until you push yourself, or put into practise what you talk about, its theory, you are entitled to your opinion, but its just that, many here have put years into an art, or many arts, and for you to dismiss it, with little or no training, makes your opinion something that rhymes with runt.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 27, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yes I can. I am adding evidence. The more I add the less BS it becomes. That is called weight of evidence.


This isbyour evidence based on your instructors teachings, I meant what I said last night, I was supposed to go to the US this late August/september, but current talks and restrictions, mean this may not be possible, my air ticket provider, would rather gife me an alternative, rather than refund, never been to oz, but would like to, as the Uk and oz are talking about air corridors, I am fascinated, to see, if my tma/military training, plus another load of stuff, can stand up to your superior training, I have no interest in hurting you, just pressure testing myself, against our current beliefs, followed by beer, bbq, and chat, if you are better than me great (£1000 says you aint), if I am better than you, I will bye you a beer, or 4, to show you there are no bad feelings, we could film our training and encounters, and do a daily blog, and put it on mt, at least we will know for sure, if BA (british airways play ball).


----------



## drop bear (Jun 27, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> This isbyour evidence based on your instructors teachings, I meant what I said last night, I was supposed to go to the US this late August/september, but current talks and restrictions, mean this may not be possible, my air ticket provider, would rather gife me an alternative, rather than refund, never been to oz, but would like to, as the Uk and oz are talking about air corridors, I am fascinated, to see, if my tma/military training, plus another load of stuff, can stand up to your superior training, I have no interest in hurting you, just pressure testing myself, against our current beliefs, followed by beer, bbq, and chat, if you are better than me great (£1000 says you aint), if I am better than you, I will bye you a beer, or 4, to show you there are no bad feelings, we could film our training and encounters, and do a daily blog, and put it on mt, at least we will know for sure, if BA (british airways play ball).



Byron Jacobs isn't my instructor he is a Chinese kung fu guy.

And yeah. Airlie beach is a very good holiday destination.you should make the trip.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 28, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> No, unless you have actually put some form of training to the test, you have analogy, and dreams, you have what you have heard the big boys talk about, until you push yourself, or put into practise what you talk about, its theory, you are entitled to your opinion, but its just that, many here have put years into an art, or many arts, and for you to dismiss it, with little or no training, makes your opinion something that rhymes with runt.



As i stated, diverting the argument to my own circumstance is potetionally a fallacy.    It can be a strawman if its not the argument in question, appeal to authorty or ad hominen.  (or any mix of, those come to mind as common occurancies)


See now if you have dumped years and years into doing something, you should be able to describe why it works as opposed to something that i have written, there should be no need to go into a strawman, appeal to authorty, ad hominen etc.    The issue is, its mostly opinion on the other end as well.



Not fully related but pet peeve of mine:  Appeal to authorty is bad when a "mc dojo" does it, but not when a "legitimate" martial art does it.   Or any fallacy for that matter.    (not accusing anyone, but its a sort of thing i have seen)

Addendum: Forgot to add this, but you assume i do not put information to the test, i dont see it as fully relating to the point i made, but need to relay thats a assumption of yours.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

Rat said:


> As i stated, diverting the argument to my own circumstance is potetionally a fallacy.    It can be a strawman if its not the argument in question, appeal to authorty or ad hominen.  (or any mix of, those come to mind as common occurancies)
> 
> 
> See now if you have dumped years and years into doing something, you should be able to describe why it works as opposed to something that i have written, there should be no need to go into a strawman, appeal to authorty, ad hominen etc.    The issue is, its mostly opinion on the other end as well.
> ...


 the problem is rat, that in almost any topic specific forum, you would be laughed off the internet for giving detailed opinions on something you had very little experience of,,


if i went on the landrover forum to get gear box advice and you told me how to fix it, but it turned out you had not only never done it, but had never owned a land rover, id consider you a buffoon

if it was a rock climbing forum, and i wanted advice on how to free climb a 200 foot cliff and you had never managed to get more than 12 foot of the ground, and were basing it all on watching people climb on you tube, then id treat you and your advice with complete contempt.


if i wanted to know how to bake a flan and you gave advice on watching your gran do it. then.....

i could carry on for a very long time

why do you think, your views on martial arts shouldnt be considered in much the same way ?


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> the problem is rat, that in almost any topic specific forum, you would be laughed off the internet for giving detailed opinions on something you had very little experience of,,
> 
> 
> if i went on the landrover forum to get gear box advice and you told me how to fix it, but it turned out you had not only never done it, but had never owned a land rover, id consider you a buffoon
> ...


Good one Jobo.


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> the problem is rat, that in almost any topic specific forum, you would be laughed off the internet for giving detailed opinions on something you had very little experience of,,
> 
> 
> if i went on the landrover forum to get gear box advice and you told me how to fix it, but it turned out you had not only never done it, but had never owned a land rover, id consider you a buffoon
> ...


Seems like some folks on this forum came to the defense of the “professor.“   Someone who doesn’t have direct experience, but know about things.  You guys can’t have it both ways.  Why aren’t you guys laughing off the folks who teach self defense without experience?  Funny how things work sometimes.


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 28, 2020)

Steve said:


> Seems like some folks on this forum came to the defense of the “professor.“   Someone who doesn’t have direct experience, but know about things.  You guys can’t have it both ways.  Why aren’t you guys laughing off the folks who teach self defense without experience?  Funny how things work sometimes.


You touch on the heart of most forums. A collective of minds; some seeking knowledge, some who have knowledge, and some who have the correct knowledge.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> if i went on the landrover forum to get gear box advice and you told me how to fix it, but it turned out you had not only never done it, but had never owned a land rover, id consider you a buffoon



I would revise your choice of action if that was the case instead of consutling a mechnic. (x 3 just replace mechanic)



This is pretty much a  strawman as to why not attacking the argument is fallicious.     Thats all i care to reply to this with, as i know the rabbit holes these arguments go down and it is completely off topic.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

Steve said:


> Seems like some folks on this forum came to the defense of the “professor.“   Someone who doesn’t have direct experience, but know about things.  You guys can’t have it both ways.  Why aren’t you guys laughing off the folks who teach self defense without experience?  Funny how things work sometimes.


because you seem to eant to take issue,  with things you dont understand, micj as rats explains things he doesnt understand.

somewhere some where on earth is the mythical dojo, that teaches magic to th3 delisional, if you track it down il jo8n you in condeming it.

the rest of us are just doing out best with what we have available what we want to do, what we enjoy,

it may or may not be as effective as what you do, we may ir may not be able to take you in a fight, that not realky the issue,  to be better than steve, is it ?


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

Rat said:


> I would revise your choice of action if that was the case instead of consutling a mechnic. (x 3 just replace mechanic)
> 
> 
> This is pretty much a  strawman as to why not attacking the argument is fallicious.     Thats all i care to reply to this with, as i know the rabbit holes these arguments go down and it is completely off topic.




i got excelent advice from the landrover forum on repairing my gearbox, that how it wirk you find a topic you need to know about and someone with some actual exsperiances gives you free advice


----------



## Christopher Adamchek (Jun 28, 2020)

@Steve 

thank you, i have seen many self defense programs fail in this area.  People ive met that tell me theyve taken self defense are like "oh i know how to get out of a wrist grab" which is great, but one of my students when asked by here church group when they found out she took a few self defense classes, she was like "i look for things like exit routes when i go places"

our self defense program really addresses thing like this, some examples of topics we teach 

loan shark tactics - when people give you information about themselves so that you will feel compelled to give them information that they could use against you later

we watch/read interviews with criminals on why they choose a man or a woman to rob

party safety - avoiding salty foods cause it doesnt slow down alcohol absorbtion, if your going to leave a place with someone to have sex or drugs at least tell a friend where youre going 

handling racism/sexism/etc in the work place and sutble things to do against sexual harrasement 

most all of our knife cirriculum is based on cctv footage of knife attacks

to name a few


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Then you add your above average.
> 
> Double dipping,


no 8 average it out and then see where i am in the average, ! its what they did if you ever took a qualification.

if my admittedly slightly subjective assement is anywhere near correct, then there id greater than a three to one chance, that any attacker is physical inferior  to myself, thers an extremly high but not determined % chance, that he is untrainibg in the ary of fighting, so all in all im doing ok


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Byron Jacobs isn't my instructor he is a Chinese kung fu guy.
> 
> And yeah. Airlie beach is a very good holiday destination.you should make the trip.



Superb, I will see what I can do.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> because you seem to eant to take issue,  with things you dont understand, micj as rats explains things he doesnt understand.
> 
> somewhere some where on earth is the mythical dojo, that teaches magic to th3 delisional, if you track it down il jo8n you in condeming it.
> 
> ...



You can't condemn it if you haven't done the art. You would be laughed of you car forum.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> no 8 average it out and then see where i am in the average, ! its what they did if you ever took a qualification.
> 
> if my admittedly slightly subjective assement is anywhere near correct, then there id greater than a three to one chance, that any attacker is physical inferior  to myself, thers an extremly high but not determined % chance, that he is untrainibg in the ary of fighting, so all in all im doing ok



Slightly subjective?

Your average puts everyone at 50% that is where you are in the average. Like everyone.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Slightly subjective?
> 
> Your average puts everyone at 50% that is where you are in the average. Like everyone.


no my average doesnt put every one at 50 % , just if you randomly select two people then its  50 50  as to which one will win


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You can't condemn it if you haven't done the art. You would be laughed of you car forum.


thats not what i said, you can condem away its a free coumtry . its just your not being rational condeming it for beibg different than you think it should be, when the peolke who do it think its what they want it to be, id get rid if that ausi rules football right away, , its not how i thibk foitball should be played,, you see irrational


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats not what i said, you can condem away its a free coumtry . its just your not being rational condeming it for beibg different than you think it should be, when the peolke who do it think its what they want it to be, id get rid if that ausi rules football right away, , its not how i thibk foitball should be played,, you see irrational



No. You could very easily play Aussie rules and not have your opinion changed though.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> No. You could very easily play Aussie rules and not have your opinion changed though.


 i have played it and american football, i spent a bemused time not understand why i had fouled


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> no my average doesnt put every one at 50 % , just if you randomly select two people then its  50 50  as to which one will win



Not after the first fight. Mark hunt vs Steven Hawkins over 10 fights won't be 50/50.

You randomly selected people to get your 50/50 then you can't factor individual stats. As soon as we factor individual stats Mark hunt will sit well above 50 and Steven Hawkins will sit well below.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Not after the first fight. Mark hunt vs Steven Hawkins over 10 fights won't be 50/50.
> 
> You randomly selected people to get your 50/50 then you can't factor individual stats. As soon as we factor individual stats Mark hunt will sit well above 50 and Steven Hawkins will sit well below.


but youve not used a random selection method, the chances of drawing either, let alone both of those are billions to one


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> but youve not used a random selection method



Neither have you by adding yourself.


----------



## jobo (Jun 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Neither have you by adding yourself.


we have two separate, but associated discussions going on

one about a bell curve and one about random selection, it seems unfortunately you dont under stand either to the point you can differentiate between them

or to simplify for you, you confusing jam and Vegemite


----------



## drop bear (Jun 28, 2020)

jobo said:


> we have two separate, but associated discussions going on
> 
> one about a bell curve and one about random selection, it seems unfortunately you dont under stand either to the point you can differentiate between them
> 
> or to simplify for you, you confusing jam and Vegemite



That you have made up a bunch of statistics to say in your opinion you rate yourself in a fight?

It doesn't matter if you are above average. You still have the same 50/50 shot. That is how you got the 50/50 in the first place.

The 50/50 basically relies on the whole population. So below average still has a 50/50 because they might fight another below average. And above average has a 50/50 because they might fight someone above average. 

You can't increase your 50/50 by saying you are above average.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It doesn't matter if you are above average. You still have the same 50/50 shot. That is how you got the 50/50 in the first place.
> 
> The 50/50 basically relies on the whole population. So below average still has a 50/50 because they might fight another below average. And above average has a 50/50 because they might fight someone above average.



Disagree, someone not very good at fighting will cave in, or avoid the fight, an above average fighter will either avoid, or access and adapt, the random selection of people is being used to support an opinion, fighting is not accidental, a below average v an above average the % will change, wether thats 40/60 or 30/70 or greater, is a debate, sure the below average fighter may have a punchers chance, or a lucky strike,  yes you can increase your 50/50 by being above average, and confidence or beleif plays its role, they say most fighters become 10% better when they become a champion. But in real terms, the more you fight the better you get (for most), but phyche is a vital part of the aquation, same as training, its a spiral, you can go up, or down, work hard get results, the better the results, the better you feel, the better you feel, the harder you work, the harder you work the better the results, and it works on the down, this is the part you have not factored in to your accessment. Then you need to factor in skill levels, a below average on the way up v an above fighter on the way down, this would change the % to perhaps 45/55 or 35/65, its not ramdom enough to call itv50/50 IMO.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

Gweilo said:


> Disagree, someone not very good at fighting will cave in, or avoid the fight, an above average fighter will either avoid, or access and adapt, the random selection of people is being used to support an opinion, fighting is not accidental, a below average v an above average the % will change, wether thats 40/60 or 30/70 or greater, is a debate, sure the below average fighter may have a punchers chance, or a lucky strike,  yes you can increase your 50/50 by being above average, and confidence or beleif plays its role, they say most fighters become 10% better when they become a champion. But in real terms, the more you fight the better you get (for most), but phyche is a vital part of the aquation, same as training, its a spiral, you can go up, or down, work hard get results, the better the results, the better you feel, the better you feel, the harder you work, the harder you work the better the results, and it works on the down, this is the part you have not factored in to your accessment. Then you need to factor in skill levels, a below average on the way up v an above fighter on the way down, this would change the % to perhaps 45/55 or 35/65, its not ramdom enough to call itv50/50 IMO.


your making much the same error as him, human attributes, all of them,including an ability to fight cluster around the mean average, that is fighting ability is not a steady progression across the population, rather most people are very much the same level ergo, if you raise your self above the average, then circa 80 % of the population has less ability than you

this is very much the 80-20 principal. for comparatively little effort you can get 80% of you goal ( your goal being to defend against all comers)

chasing down progression above that becomes increasingly difficult and ends up at the top end with full time fighters who can donate their waking hours to marginal improvements

any adult male of average size/ physical abilities who takes up a MA can reasonably expect that they can raise themselves to the 80% mark


that is they can beat 4 out of every five people who attack them at random, if they are below average physical abilities, its some what harder to predict and they need to focus on increasing their fitness to get in the frame


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 29, 2020)

Has this just become a thread about how to stage experiements using people and the natural issue in the variety of people and ability for making a control group and the like?

I have not read the foundation point but, take 1,000 men as a control group (average people), proceede to take a thousand for experience and another for none.   Making sure they are all at least X fitness and in X health or noting down any potetional health issues, say if one sprains their ankle during the test.

Then come up with a series of tasks to do related to the point, and you should have some percentage that is reasonably accurate.   Repeat as many times as you deem nessisary.   Thats the best i can come up with here, if you want to judge fighting ability, then have one proffesional fight them from a few combat sports, or a few proffesionals and see how each group does, then you could break down a percentage from each group and how well they did. 

this is where i find out i missed the mark completely.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> In the same way Richard Dawkins can mesure the performance of dowsing without ever having been a dowser.


Haha... Dawkins is... not the best example. He frequently speaks of subjects in which he knows nothing at all about, rigorously applying his scientific method in places it simply isn't applicable. He's brilliant in his field of evolutionary biology, in which he needs to stay there and not try to disprove God with his methods (and rather arrogantly too) XD

That being said, there is INDEED alot of nonsense and delusion out there, but there's something to be said about misapplying methods and mixing domains


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Haha... Dawkins is... not the best example. He frequently speaks of subjects in which he knows nothing at all about, rigorously applying his scientific method in places it simply isn't applicable. He's brilliant in his field of evolutionary biology, in which he needs to stay there and not try to disprove God with his methods (and rather arrogantly too) XD
> 
> That being said, there is INDEED alot of nonsense and delusion out there, but there's something to be said about misapplying methods and mixing domains


 but evolutionary biology disproves god or rather those religious book supposedly written by or on behalf of god so he is bang on his topic
and anyway
there are not any topics where the scientific method is not applicable, just some times really hard to apply, so your left only with scientific logic to go on


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> That you have made up a bunch of statistics to say in your opinion you rate yourself in a fight?
> 
> It doesn't matter if you are above average. You still have the same 50/50 shot. That is how you got the 50/50 in the first place.
> 
> ...


ive not made up any statics, ive used data and methods that are in the public domain to make a prediction, you can test the prediction if you wish, but only if you also use data to do so other wise all we are getting is your biased opinion based on no data or defined method  at all, a bit like them water diviners you keep warning us about

that you are incapable of making the distinction between separate topics......  , it really isn't my job to make up for the failure of the Australian education system


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Haha... Dawkins is... not the best example. He frequently speaks of subjects in which he knows nothing at all about, rigorously applying his scientific method in places it simply isn't applicable. He's brilliant in his field of evolutionary biology, in which he needs to stay there and not try to disprove God with his methods (and rather arrogantly too) XD
> 
> That being said, there is INDEED alot of nonsense and delusion out there, but there's something to be said about misapplying methods and mixing domains



It is a very good example of how anecdotal evidence can be misleading. And in martial arts anecdotes is quite often all there is.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> but evolutionary biology disproves god or rather those religious book supposedly written by or on behalf of god so he is bang on his topic
> and anyway
> there are not any topics where the scientific method is not applicable, just some times really hard to apply, so your left only with scientific logic to go on



Sigh... it doesn't disprove divinity. The bible was indeed written by people, the issue is that he then leapt to therefore concluding it disproves divinity.

Scientific method is certainly not applicable to any topic. Can you prove the beauty of art or even predict the emotional reaction someone will have to a painting using the scientific method?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive not made up any statics, ive used data and methods that are in the public domain to make a prediction, you can test the prediction if you wish, but only if you also use data to do so other wise all we are getting is your biased opinion based on no data or defined method  at all
> 
> that you are incapable of making the distinction between separate topics......  , it really isn't my job to make up for the failure of the Australasian education system



I thought you just pulled the 50/50 out of thin air. But ok show us the data.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It is a very good example of how anecdotal evidence can be misleading. And in martial arts anecdotes is quite often all there is.


In relation to MA, for sure. And I think you can use some semblance of scientific method for MA. But not to the degree that it is perfectly guaranteed that learning a system will absolutely protect you in self defence under all circumstances. It's a game of likelihoods as the variables are so tremendously vast (the lab won't always perfectly replicate the SD situation). But evidence based in regards to MA training and self defense related reasons, yeah I think it can be a helpful guide.

That being said I truly think that anecdotes do have their place. But not as a basis of certainty for whether something will work or not.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I thought you just pulled the 50/50 out of thin air. But ok show us the data.


i made my methodology for arriving at that figure clear in the post where i first quoted the 50 50 figure, im not running a remedial class in statistics, go back and read it


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> In relation to MA, for sure. And I think you can use some semblance of scientific method for MA. But not to the degree that it is perfectly guaranteed that learning a system will absolutely protect you in self defence under all circumstances. It's a game of likelihoods as the variables are so tremendously vast (the lab won't always perfectly replicate the SD situation). But evidence based in regards to MA training and self defense related reasons, yeah I think it can be a helpful guide.
> 
> That being said I truly think that anecdotes do have their place. But not as a basis of certainty for whether something will work or not.


  if we are talking one to one ,a lot of the variables are controllable, at least most of the time, if you get attacked whilst wearing slippy shoes thats rather your own fault, dont wear slippy shoes, or pants so tight you cant kick, if you get attacked by someone stronger or faster you should have trained harder

theres really only one uncontrollable variable, that is you know the attack is coming or you dont and even that is to some degree predictability on situation and circumstances, there are times and places where this is more likely than others


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> your making much the same error as him, human attributes, all of them,including an ability to fight cluster around the mean average, that is fighting ability is not a steady progression across the population, rather most people are very much the same level ergo, if you raise your self above the average, then circa 80 % of the population has less ability than you
> 
> this is very much the 80-20 principal. for comparatively little effort you can get 80% of you goal ( your goal being to defend against all comers)
> 
> ...


That sir is what we call 10 gallons of shxt in a 5 gallon bucket. That incorrect crap is running out on all sides.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> That sir is what we call 10 gallons of shxt in a 5 gallon bucket. That incorrect crap is running out on all sides.


well thats the usual standard of discussion and dissection of a concept i expect from you

if you want to take issue with either the standard distribution across human populations or the law of diminishing  returns, both universal accepted models then fine,, try it, otherwise il just note your opinion


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Sigh... it doesn't disprove divinity. The bible was indeed written by people, the issue is that he then leapt to therefore concluding it disproves divinity.
> 
> Scientific method is certainly not applicable to any topic. Can you prove the beauty of art or even predict the emotional reaction someone will have to a painting using the scientific method?



Full agree.

an·ec·do·tal
/ˌanəkˈdōdl/
Learn to pronounce

_adjective_

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

When analyzing the definition you can see that what is sometimes considered anecdotal Has been proven by fact or research. A person's life experience is the best testing ground out there. It may not be research in the classical sense but is a much better test bench none the same. 
The running joke within statisticians is that as long as the '0' keeps moving the numbers do not have much meaning. And yes, the '0' moves around quite a lot. For some people, ala Jobo, it never stops moving.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Sigh... it doesn't disprove divinity. The bible was indeed written by people, the issue is that he then leapt to therefore concluding it disproves divinity.
> 
> Scientific method is certainly not applicable to any topic. Can you prove the beauty of art or even predict the emotional reaction someone will have to a painting using the scientific method?


 it depends which particular divinity your disproving, the only '' evidence '' ( and i used the term advisedly) for the Christian god is the bible ( other holy books are available), if you disprove the bible as being accurate then thats the whole lot gone. thers nothing left to disprove

if the evidence is that god talks to you or other manifestation of supernatural beings then that clearly explained by the science of
Psychiatrists

if its that you cant explain the natural world with out resorting to invoking super natural beings you need a few science books

yes science can very much explain beauty , its party cultural, but there are ratio and colour mixes that are more appealing than others, emotional effects of beauty can also be very much explained, my emotional response to a beautiful woman are very predictable

the whole science of advertising is based on prediction of emotional response to visual images or other sensory inputs


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> i made my methodology for arriving at that figure clear in the post where i first quoted the 50 50 figure, im not running a remedial class in statistics, go back and read it



So there is no data. It is now methodology.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> In relation to MA, for sure. And I think you can use some semblance of scientific method for MA. But not to the degree that it is perfectly guaranteed that learning a system will absolutely protect you in self defence under all circumstances. It's a game of likelihoods as the variables are so tremendously vast (the lab won't always perfectly replicate the SD situation). But evidence based in regards to MA training and self defense related reasons, yeah I think it can be a helpful guide.
> 
> That being said I truly think that anecdotes do have their place. But not as a basis of certainty for whether something will work or not.



You want to strive for better than random chance though.


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Sigh... it doesn't disprove divinity. The bible was indeed written by people, the issue is that he then leapt to therefore concluding it disproves divinity.
> 
> Scientific method is certainly not applicable to any topic. Can you prove the beauty of art or even predict the emotional reaction someone will have to a painting using the scientific method?


Just as an amusing aside, ive been reserching vampire myths, and way back when pope Benedict  the 14th, issued a proclimation that vampires were ficticious,,, he new this coz god had told him,???????????, dont ask questions,, just pass the collextion plate


----------



## Headhunter (Jun 29, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> That sir is what we call 10 gallons of shxt in a 5 gallon bucket. That incorrect crap is running out on all sides.


Yeah that sums up the majority of his posts


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You want to strive for better than random chance though.


Yeah for sure that's it. And it seems like it's more a thing of improving likelihoods rather than guaranteeing anything. And what methods will be more efficient in that. But yeah, if anything making it less likely to fall to chance


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> it depends which particular divinity your disproving, the only '' evidence '' ( and i used the term advisedly) for the Christian god is the bible ( other holy books are available), if you disprove the bible as being accurate then thats the whole lot gone. thers nothing left to disprove
> 
> if the evidence is that god talks to you or other manifestation of supernatural beings then that clearly explained by the science of
> Psychiatrists
> ...



.. well it sounds like you know everything about absolutely everything then, and can explain anything away. Carry on I guess... awaiting your book release.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> Just as an amusing aside, ive been reserching vampire myths, and way back when pope Benedict  the 14th, issued a proclimation that vampires were ficticious,,, he new this coz god had told him,???????????, dont ask questions,, just pass the collextion plate



Yeah, you've gotta be careful with that sort of thing for sure, I'm certainly not naive, and am a big fan of questioning things. But in saying that, with humility realising that the mind doesn't have all the neat little answers (and tends to attach itself to viewpoints more as an identity protection thing). I think context matters too


----------



## jobo (Jun 29, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Yeah, you've gotta be careful with that sort of thing for sure, I'm certainly not naive, and am a big fan of questioning things. But in saying that, with humility realising that the mind doesn't have all the neat little answers
> 
> 
> _Simon_ said:
> ...



:have you read the bible, i mean read it from cover to cover like a novel ?

i have( and the Koran   ) and apart from those in the church, im the only person i know, including some devout Christians who have

i keep my bible handy, with post it notes on various pages, so that when the jehovah's witnesses  call, i can invite  them in for a discussion on theology, two hours later we are still on Leviticus and they are edging towards the door. they always seem to want to leave when we get to the parts about infanticide and raping slaves,, funny that

its particularly amusing if they are  Afro american or African which quite a few are, and i say are you alright with this raping slaves bit, their jaw drops , its just like they had never read that bit ???

i did start going out with one very pretty JW lady, she was so pretty i faked considering conversion, then it turned out she had read the bit about sex before marriage so i lost
interest

i similarly considered turning to Islam, at a troubled time in my life coz they have a fantastic support network.  out of the two id definitely choose Islam and you always get coffee and cake at the mosque, just dont make the mistake of walking over the invisible line with your shoes on, or they get really cross


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

jobo said:


> :have you read the bible, i mean read it from cover to cover like a novel ?
> 
> i have( and the Koran   ) and apart from those in the church, im the only person i know, including some devout Christians who have
> 
> ...



I have actually jobo, cover to cover, probably about 10 years ago, and I go back to it every so often. To be honest the way I see things and have grown over the last 10 years has changed dramatically so I will probably go back and read it all again from a new perspective, as I was definitely in a different place then and would be reading it from that particular viewpoint. Also read the gospel of Thomas, which wasn't included in any bible, I think because it runs against the belief that Christ and God were outside of you, whereas this text really focuses you within yourself, nonduality and Christ consciousness within you.

We're actually on the same page here with some stuff, and absolutely, there is alot of... questionable stuff XD. Like I said, it's a collection of books written by people, and I think the error lies in taking it as a whole singular work, trying to prove or disprove it etc, and also in saying it is the literal word of God, which is a very very dangerous position to take. I have personally experienced quite recently people who have hid behind and used bible scripture to justify treating people absolutely horrendously. It was traumatic, and horrible, but alot was learned during it.

I have also had some very interesting conversations with JWs XD (and yes... Leviticus is....... interesting too to put it lightly haha). Some discussions were really lovely, and others there was just nowhere to go once a belief is firmly held onto, it's hard to really openly discuss.

I think that's great you've read those and also explored a little jobo. And what you have, which is a rigorous skepticism can actually be a real strength and serve you, and that in itself could be your own spiritual path.

Where it would have its limitations however is the denial of everything based on only using logic or scientific method, which is only limited to 'provables' and ideas of time and space. For the linear world of cause and effect that's fine, but misapplying it to the nonlinear (ie as seen in quantum mechanics) and it has no bearing or relevance whatsoever. But healthy skepticism is helpful, and it means you're not naive. But imbalanced skepticism leads to pride and lack of humility, lack of openness to growth.

And to me the difference between religion and spirituality is that religion does indeed involve spirituality, but it needs a system, adherence to a belief system, and scripture. It's a nice thing and beautiful when done with integrity, and to me spirituality takes the next step to being dedicated to truth alone, and in a nonreliance or nonattachment to scripture, and dismantling belief systems to reach the core of truth itself.

Anyway, we are potentially well off topic haha. The faking considering conversion just reminds me of George in Seinfeld XD classic.


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 29, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> I have actually jobo, cover to cover, probably about 10 years ago, and I go back to it every so often. To be honest the way I see things and have grown over the last 10 years has changed dramatically so I will probably go back and read it all again from a new perspective, as I was definitely in a different place then and would be reading it from that particular viewpoint. Also read the gospel of Thomas, which wasn't included in any bible, I think because it runs against the belief that Christ and God were outside of you, whereas this text really focuses you within yourself, nonduality and Christ consciousness within you.
> 
> We're actually on the same page here with some stuff, and absolutely, there is alot of... questionable stuff XD. Like I said, it's a collection of books written by people, and I think the error lies in taking it as a whole singular work, trying to prove or disprove it etc, and also in saying it is the literal word of God, which is a very very dangerous position to take. I have personally experienced quite recently people who have hid behind and used bible scripture to justify treating people absolutely horrendously. It was traumatic, and horrible, but alot was learned during it.
> 
> ...



Man oh man; that was freaking..... Awesome. 
Absolutely could not have been said better. Much bigger words than I expect you imagine. 
You very much have my respect and admiration


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 29, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Man oh man; that was freaking..... Awesome.
> Absolutely could not have been said better. Much bigger words than I expect you imagine.
> You very much have my respect and admiration



Naww thanks @dvcochran that's very kind of you


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 30, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Some discussions were really lovely, and others there was just nowhere to go once a belief is firmly held onto, it's hard to really openly discuss.



I think thats something we could all learn from


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> I have actually jobo, cover to cover, probably about 10 years ago, and I go back to it every so often. To be honest the way I see things and have grown over the last 10 years has changed dramatically so I will probably go back and read it all again from a new perspective, as I was definitely in a different place then and would be reading it from that particular viewpoint. Also read the gospel of Thomas, which wasn't included in any bible, I think because it runs against the belief that Christ and God were outside of you, whereas this text really focuses you within yourself, nonduality and Christ consciousness within you.
> 
> We're actually on the same page here with some stuff, and absolutely, there is alot of... questionable stuff XD. Like I said, it's a collection of books written by people, and I think the error lies in taking it as a whole singular work, trying to prove or disprove it etc, and also in saying it is the literal word of God, which is a very very dangerous position to take. I have personally experienced quite recently people who have hid behind and used bible scripture to justify treating people absolutely horrendously. It was traumatic, and horrible, but alot was learned during it.
> 
> ...


people are inherently superstitious, are in that i include all religious deities. there is little difference between praying to the tree gods and praying to a crucifix made of wood, its the same physiological need to have a power higher than yourself to appeal to

there was possibly an evolutionary need for this, but in latter millenia its had a startling effect on slowing down the progress of mankind, though you guest it the scientific method. that is not only has supersticion lead to countless millions of deaths because you pray to the wrong idol, its killed countless  millions more by holding back process in engineering and medication


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 30, 2020)

jobo said:


> people are inherently superstitious, are in that i include all religious deities. there is little difference between praying to the tree gods and praying to a crucifix made of wood, its the same physiological need to have a power higher than yourself to appeal to
> 
> there was possibly an evolutionary need for this, but in latter millenia its had a startling effect on slowing down the progress of mankind, though you guest it the scientific method. that is not only has supersticion lead to countless millions of deaths because you pray to the wrong idol, its killed countless  millions more by holding back process in engineering and medication


We all know you are just trying to stir the pot. Take is somewhere else.

Here is something for you to think about. I believe mother nature is pretty damn smart and has many ways of taking care of her planet, such as mass extinctions. This virus is a very good example. A lot of people are supposed to die to even out some imbalance in the nature equation. Mankind, being so smart, is trying to prevent this to no avail. 
It has happened and will happen again. Who knows? We may be in the precursor of another event right now.
Selfish people refuse to think along these lines and only see what is in front of them.


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2020)

i was having a conversation about superstition with a friend of mine, when we were on a group holiday in north Yorkshire. he told me he wasn't at all superstitious, he was a rational engineer after all  i, i told him he was and whats more id prove it by the scientific method.

as luck would have it we were having this conversation in whitby ( a small sea side town)

so at mid night we went up on the cliff, where lies a a ruined abbey and a small church with an ancient grave yard, this being the very same grave yard that featured as Dracula hiding place in England, in bran stokers novel,, its certainly atmospheric

in the middle of the grave yard is a raised stone grave with a skull and cross bones carved on it. so i sat him on the grave, introduced him to Pete the pirate whose grave it was and then left him there, to stay for an hour for payment of 100 pounds.

i hadnt got 100 yards when he over took me in full flight, pete had touched his arm, he had literally soiled himself and ran all the way home


yes superstition is deep routed even in those who are mostly rational intelligent beings

hers a picture of the grave yard and the second pic shows  petes tomb


----------



## jobo (Jun 30, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> We all know you are just trying to stir the pot. Take is somewhere else.
> 
> Here is something for you to think about. I believe mother nature is pretty damn smart and has many ways of taking care of her planet, such as mass extinctions. This virus is a very good example. A lot of people are supposed to die to even out some imbalance in the nature equation. Mankind, being so smart, is trying to prevent this to no avail.
> It has happened and will happen again. Who knows? We may be in the precursor of another event right now.
> Selfish people refuse to think along these lines and only see what is in front of them.


im confused now are you invoking mother nature as an intelligent deity, or just referring to the process of evolution, which im general in agreement with,


the virus as as much right to life and to reproduce as any other entity, including ourselves, however we generally go round killing things that are a threat to our species, irrespective of their equal status, mother nature gave us the ability to do this and we will in due course eradicate this harmful stain of the virus, whilst at the same time the virus will be come less harmful, to avoid being eradicated, nature is indeed wonderful


the last point is rather my point above, once you considered that this or any other disease is ''gods will'', then you stop trying to cure prevent it and just sit there and wait to die, as to not die would be against '' gods will''obviously


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2020)

skribs said:


> Like some other members here, I hang out both on here and on the Martial Arts subreddit (r/martialarts).  One of the big differences between this site and Reddit, is I feel this site has a good mix of people from all different backgrounds, while Reddit seems to focus heavily on combat sports that make it into MMA, with a lot of bashing of TMAs and RBSDs in the process.  I was thinking about making this post over there (since it's more in response to the threads I've seen over there), but figured since I'm not going to be bowing before the golden calf of the UFC, I'll probably just get downvoted to oblivion and my message will be missed.  So I'll make the post here, and I'll try to keep it in the context of this site.
> 
> The question that often comes up from beginners is "what art should I take for self-defense?"  Another common question is experienced students who haven't ventured outside of their gym will ask "is my art effective for self-defense?"
> 
> ...


speaking only for myself, it’s the tests and application the lead to skill development.  So, you could train in an art that has a bad reputation, but if you test your skills and apply your skills, it may prove to  e very effective.  So, it’s not the TMA or rbsd that is the problem. Look at it this way, when guys train in a TMA and focus on application, like Lyoto Machida, It can be very effective.  But that’s not what everyone does.  The further away the training is from the application, the more unlikely it will succeed.





> *Situation 1: The Pre-Fight*
> Before the fight even begins, there's usually a build-up.  Sometimes it's a sucker-punch or you get jumped, but in my experience it's far more likely that someone needs to be amped up before actually getting into a fight.  In my adult life, I've never been jumped out of the blue.  I've had people outright tell me they want to fight or beat me up, and I've had people try to play into my fight-or-flight response.  By remaining calm and collected, I was able to avoid the fight in the first place.
> 
> I think most martial arts will do this.  The confidence from class will help you to not lose your mind when someone tries to get you riled up.  The discipline you learn will help you be patient and rational in a situation where they're trying to get you to think with your lizard brain.  Even the exercise helps calm your mind and make you less likely to react out of anger.  The number one solution to a bad dog (one that chews on everything or barks all night) is to take it for a walk to get it exercise.  Same thing for a terror of a cat - get it some toys that will get it exercise so it's not laying around all day penting up all that energy.
> ...


I think this can be learned in a lot of ways, and MA is just one.  In my misspent youth, and in the military, I managed to stay calm in a lot of situations without ever training MA.





> *Situation 2:  The Typical Self-Defense Scenario*
> Typically you're not fighting against UFC champions when you need to defend yourself in the street.  For one, I think most people who train martial arts get their aggression out in class and don't need to pick fights to get their fix.  (Not everyone, but most people).  If someone pulls a gun on you, chances are they aren't John Wick.  If someone throws a punch, they're probably not as skilled as Mike Tyson.
> 
> A lot of people believe cross-training (or training a generalist art) is required to be able to defend yourself.  In a typical situation, you can easily control where a fight happens and make it work to your advantage.  Most of the time it takes a good shot from a boxer or a good take-down from a wrestler for the other person to realize "they actually know how to fight and this is going to be too much work."  While you'd need a broader range of technique to compete in MMA, having a one-dimensional skill is generally fine for a street fight.
> ...


i look at it like this.  If you’re going to build a shed, you could theoretically do so with a bunch of trees, a hammer, some nails, and a saw.  But that’s the hard way, unnecessarily hard.  Now, if the journey of doing it the hard way is the goal, knock yourself out.  But if the goal is to have a nice shed, you will have a much nicer shed in far less time if you use a prepared blueprint, precut lumber, shingles, and other fit for purpose materials, And power tools.  With the right tools, and a willingness to leverage what others can do, you’ll see better results.

Also, when you say things like aikido works, how do you really know?  What I mean is, in that situation, did the aikidoka perform better than someone who is untrained?  No real way to know, without a study, but I can share anecdotaL stories about untrained people disarming bad guys too.


> Speaking of breaks from reality, arts that are completely based on fantasy are not likely to work in a self-defense situation.


again, how do you know?  I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a story or two of success.  So, the question is, what’s the real difference between a TMA and a “fantasy art”.  If I trained in Light saber fighting, and used a poster tube to disarm a bad guy, does that mean light saber fighting is no longer a fantasy art because it works (for someone)?





> We already discussed that you should be able to avoid most fights.  Of those potential fights that remain, a large number of them can be handled by someone with training in almost any art.
> 
> *Situation 3:  The Competent Attacker*
> Let's say you weren't able to avoid a fight, and that the person you're fighting with actually has some idea of what they are doing.  It is at this point that non-resistive arts will start to fall off the map, and join the fantasy-based arts in irrelevance.
> ...


I actually like the breakdown.  The only flaw here is that to do any of those things, you need actual skill.  The advantage sports have is that you can test your skill against skilled opponents.  Otherwise, it’s a mystery,  the time to find out you can’t actually fight is NOT when your well-being is on the line.


----------



## Gweilo (Jun 30, 2020)

jobo said:


> im confused now are you invoking mother nature as an intelligent deity, or just referring to the process of evolution, which im general in agreement with,
> 
> 
> the virus as as much right to life and to reproduce as any other entity, including ourselves, however we generally go round killing things that are a threat to our species, irrespective of their equal status, mother nature gave us the ability to do this and we will in due course eradicate this harmful stain of the virus, whilst at the same time the virus will be come less harmful, to avoid being eradicated, nature is indeed wonderful
> ...



I admire your willingness to continue, even when you been done like a kipper


----------



## _Simon_ (Jun 30, 2020)

jobo said:


> people are inherently superstitious, are in that i include all religious deities. there is little difference between praying to the tree gods and praying to a crucifix made of wood, its the same physiological need to have a power higher than yourself to appeal to
> 
> there was possibly an evolutionary need for this, but in latter millenia its had a startling effect on slowing down the progress of mankind, though you guest it the scientific method. that is not only has supersticion lead to countless millions of deaths because you pray to the wrong idol, its killed countless  millions more by holding back process in engineering and medication



... am not sure what that has to do with what I said. Sure, people are superstitious. But you're superimposing this on anything you see as spiritual.

Exactly. Clinging to beliefs and identifying with them leads to some very dubious errors... millions of people dying etc. This is not exclusive to religion. And it's not actually religion that's the cause of that . My comment was not about religious belief and was steering away from that.

I certainly would not say that's just some physiological need. The search for meaning? Purpose? Truth? To limit it to some physiological or chemical process... come on man.

So is your 'scientific method' basically just to call anything that you personally don't understand, superstitious?


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> ... am not sure what that has to do with what I said. Sure, people are superstitious. But you're superimposing this on anything you see as spiritual.
> 
> Exactly. Clinging to beliefs and identifying with them leads to some very dubious errors... millions of people dying etc. This is not exclusive to religion. And it's not actually religion that's the cause of that . My comment was not about religious belief and was steering away from that.
> 
> ...


First, I have no problem with people believing whatever they want.  However, while some fine distinctions between spiritual and superstitious can be made, they are at least in the same family.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> First, I have no problem with people believing whatever they want.  However, while some fine distinctions between spiritual and superstitious can be made, they are at least in the same family.



I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.

But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".

Whether it's believing an act causes something to happen that's not based on logic, or a belief in an event occurring that's a sign of something nonscientific, genuine spiritual enquiry is not based on belief, nor is it a requirement, and is actually a barrier. I think it comes down to definitions...

Even taking Zen as an example. It really cuts through all the fluff of having to adhere to beliefs and/or systems. There are still practices done, but they're not to gain an outcome, or not to reach an end/result, that trajectory is a barrier within Zen practice.


----------



## jobo (Jul 1, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> ... am not sure what that has to do with what I said. Sure, people are superstitious. But you're superimposing this on anything you see as spiritual.
> 
> Exactly. Clinging to beliefs and identifying with them leads to some very dubious errors... millions of people dying etc. This is not exclusive to religion. And it's not actually religion that's the cause of that . My comment was not about religious belief and was steering away from that.
> 
> ...


 of course its superstitious what else do you call a belief in supernatural beings ? and its not that i dont understand, i understand the mental need, its just that no body understands  it even those that are superstitious, thats why you need shaman to explain it to you


 now theres a moral dilemma in this, superstitious people are to my observation generally happier than those who live by logic

im reminded of marxs observation that religion is the opium of the people, so do you have a population that is delusional but happy or correct but now having to face the fact there there is no actual meaning to existence and no reward in heaven and as a result of this truth some what more miserable ?


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 1, 2020)

jobo said:


> of course its supercilious, what else do you call a believe in supernatural beings ? and its not that i dont understand, i understand the mental need, its just that no body understands  it even those that are superstitious, thats why you need shaman to explain it to you
> 
> 
> now theres a moral dilemma in this, superstitious people are to my observation generally happier than those who live by logic
> ...



Best of luck with everything.


----------



## jobo (Jul 1, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.
> 
> But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".
> 
> ...


 if you take zen Buddhism and remove the religious aspects you get mindfulness, which has been subject to the scientific method and shown in studies to have much the same effect on depression/anxiety as drugs

which then supports my point of religion being a substitute for mood enhancing drugs,

i suspect you could do much the same with any aspect of prayer/incantations and get positive results with out the need to pollute it with superstition or you could just take drugs and save the bother, organised religions generally have a down on recreational drugs as it makes them redundant


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.
> 
> But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".
> 
> ...


I think maybe I don't understand your definition of spiritual.  Do you think your definition is common?


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 1, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> I would thoroughly disagree Steve, they are not even close. I actually wish the word spiritual wasn't used, because it's very embedded in that it means something tied in with something "supernatural" that's believed in.
> 
> But it may depend on what you mean by superstitious... I keep seeing definitions of it being related to either "believing in something not based on logic or rationality", and "a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences, especially as leading to good or bad luck, or a practice based on such a belief".
> 
> ...


Agree with slight exception.

Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world. 
Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural. 
This has nothing to do with mysticism and such. It is simply the things beyond our understanding. 

All that said, do I think there is a higher power? Yes. I will leave it right there.


----------



## jobo (Jul 1, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree with slight exception.
> 
> Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world.
> Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural.
> ...


well no, natral is things that occurs  with out the assistance or intervention of mankind, of man kind, our sences have nothing to do with it, there was nature long before, we were here to percieve it.l your other point  has at least a little validity,  supersticipn was used to explain things our brains couldnt othet wise explain, thunder obviously god moving the furniture,

however as iur undrstanding of nature has increased,  the need to invoke a god to explain it has also dininished, that taking into account varius religions murdering scientist, so it took us hundred maybe thousands of years longer to reach this level of undrrstanding.

and the irony that religion is curently used to explain things we have a good grasp of and not at all used to explain things we are currently in the dark about, ive yet to see a religious expkination for quantum gravity for instance, other than the standard  " god did it"  which is raTher an absence of explanation


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree with slight exception.
> 
> Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world.
> Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural.
> ...


in a thread about arts for self defense, I guess the question I have is WWJT?  What would Jesus train?  I think aikido, but I don’t think it would have helped him much.


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> We all know you are just trying to stir the pot. Take is somewhere else.
> 
> Here is something for you to think about. I believe mother nature is pretty damn smart and has many ways of taking care of her planet, such as mass extinctions. This virus is a very good example. A lot of people are supposed to die to even out some imbalance in the nature equation. Mankind, being so smart, is trying to prevent this to no avail.
> It has happened and will happen again. Who knows? We may be in the precursor of another event right now.
> Selfish people refuse to think along these lines and only see what is in front of them.


This is funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, and also quite informative.  You think working to save lives in a pandemic is selfish behavior.  That actually explains a lot about how some folks think.  

for what it’s worth, I disagree completely, and see this as nihilistic amd selfish.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 1, 2020)

Steve said:


> This is funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, and also quite informative.  You think working to save lives in a pandemic is selfish behavior.  That actually explains a lot about how some folks think.
> 
> for what it’s worth, I disagree completely, and see this as nihilistic amd selfish.



Had to look up nihilistic. That is as far from my perspective and belief's as you can get.

I am not at all advocating to not save lives. Never did; never have, never will. It is our moral responsibility to do all we can. How you read that into my comments says a lot about your cynical view of most things/people. 
I put the thought out to Jobo knowing others would run with the notion.
If you think mankind can beat mother nature you are deluded.


----------



## jobo (Jul 1, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Had to look up nihilistic. That is as far from my perspective and belief's as you can get.
> 
> I am not at all advocating to not save lives. Never did; never have, never will. It is our moral responsibility to do all we can. How you read that into my comments says a lot about your cynical view of most things/people.
> I put the thought out to Jobo knowing others would run with the notion.
> If you think mankind can beat mother nature you are deluded.


we are not actually in a war with mother nature, nature is our mother too, every thing we do, is wwmhat nature gave us the ability to do, maybe we could be wiser about what we do, but thats only because nature gave us the ability to be wise


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Had to look up nihilistic. That is as far from my perspective and belief's as you can get.
> 
> I am not at all advocating to not save lives. Never did; never have, never will. It is our moral responsibility to do all we can. How you read that into my comments says a lot about your cynical view of most things/people.
> I put the thought out to Jobo knowing others would run with the notion.
> If you think mankind can beat mother nature you are deluded.


When you say pandemics (like this one specifically) are mother nature’s way of balancing things, that a lot of people are supposed to die, and that mankind’s collective efforts to stop it are selfish....  that’s pretty nihilistic and, in my opinion, quite selfish.  You seemed to be quite clear in your post.  Maybe go back and read it.   You literally said those things.  If that’s not what you meant, I’m looking forward to reading an explanation.  

I don’t know what’s in your heart.  I’m simply reacting to your words.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 1, 2020)

Yeah, I went back and read it and have no clue what you read but to say you are stretching my words is a gross understatement. I suggest you engage your brain before your fingers.  
You have a distinct consistency in twisting what people write. Very bad form. I would say that another way but you would not approve.
Possibly you would feel better if I used a term other than mother nature?


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 1, 2020)

jobo said:


> we are not actually in a war with mother nature, nature is our mother too, every thing we do, is wwmhat nature gave us the ability to do, maybe we could be wiser about what we do, but thats only because nature gave us the ability to be wise


Oh, I am not saying we are in a war. I am just saying there are things way more complex than we can imagine. And I think (mother) nature is ever-changing. 
I agree she has given much more than she has taken away.


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Yeah, I went back and read it and have no clue what you read but to say you are stretching my words is a gross understatement. I suggest you engage your brain before your fingers.
> You have a distinct consistency in twisting what people write. Very bad form. I would say that another way but you would not approve.
> Possibly you would feel better if I used a term other than mother nature?


Are you talking to me?  If so, I didn't twist your words.  I pretty much quoted your words.  If you think it was your use ofth phrase mother nature, boy do you not get it.   

As I said before, I don't know what's in your heart.  Only what you say.  And you say some pretty messed up stuff.  If you meant something else, please share it, instead of getting aggressive.  Use your words.  

If you're talking to someone else, the above still probably applies.


----------



## Steve (Jul 1, 2020)

But you know.  What I'd like to know is, what art should the OP train for self defense.  I'm going with Ambojitsu.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> if you take zen Buddhism and remove the religious aspects you get mindfulness, which has been subject to the scientific method and shown in studies to have much the same effect on depression/anxiety as drugs
> 
> which then supports my point of religion being a substitute for mood enhancing drugs,
> 
> i suspect you could do much the same with any aspect of prayer/incantations and get positive results with out the need to pollute it with superstition or you could just take drugs and save the bother, organised religions generally have a down on recreational drugs as it makes them redundant



There's much, much more to it than that. It isn't just some mindfulness tool to alter endorphins.


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> There's much, much more to it than that. It isn't just some mindfulness tool to alter endorphins.


well it definitely works for that, what else is it provably


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Oh, I am not saying we are in a war. I am just saying there are things way more complex than we can imagine. And I think (mother) nature is ever-changing.
> I agree she has given much more than she has taken away.


of course its complicated, but how can you say its more complicated than we can imagine ? you are clearly imagining how complicated it is, to make that statement ? thus disproving your own statement


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think maybe I don't understand your definition of spiritual.  Do you think your definition is common?


You're probably right there! In terms of what I mean by it, and probably not the common or popular usage. I guess it's commonly thought of as something relating to 'supernatural' or 'beyond the senses' beliefs or occurrences, often involving manipulating energies, talking to those on the 'other side', rituals to gain outcomes etc.

The only similarity is that it refers to beyond mere physical appearance reality (of spirit one could say, but that's not really a good term which all its connotations..). I guess what I mean by it is more existential drive for truth, which requires rigorous honesty, inquiry and surrendering of positionalities. A spiritual path being relinquishing barriers to truth (which is a common element or essence of a great deal of spiritual traditions. Different methods or emphases between them).

Which isn't superstitious or supernatural at all, but the MOST natural. What's real at the core of existence, and bypassing alot of what is deemed as 'spiritual', but are often trappings which just create further delusion. My definition isn't about controlling things/energies, but letting go of control to see what's underneath our labels. I dunno if I made any sense there haha.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Agree with slight exception.
> 
> Trying to break it down into simplest terms, I understand the term 'natural' as the things we are aware of due our senses (see, hear, smell, touch). Being complex beings we are able to integrate our senses to further understand and use things in our natural world.
> Throughout time there have been things beyond our grasp of understanding. Always have been, always will be. There is no argument that, over time, we have grown and figured out that some things once considered 'supernatural' really are not. However, there are 'things' beyond our grasp and understanding. As we know them today they are supernatural.
> ...


Yeah well said, and that's what I meant too, supernatural not really being that, but just what our minds can't really grasp yet.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> well it definitely works for that, what else is it provably


Yeah for sure. But that's more a byproduct. Proof? There is none . Proof refers to the linear domain of understanding, the mind's projected cause and effect. Things of this 'spiritual' nature for lack of a better word are in the nonlinear domain, but this doesn't require just random blind belief, but quite the opposite. Enquiring into beliefs and seeing what labels we cast on reality, including time, space, cause, effect, proof. It's where faith comes in, but faith not being related to belief. Sort of hard to explain but I can try if you want.

Proof requires objectivity, whereas this is within subjectivity of consciousness. So it's confirmable, but not provable. So I can't give you anything


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> in a thread about arts for self defense, I guess the question I have is WWJT?  What would Jesus train?  I think aikido, but I don’t think it would have helped him much.


Hahahaha.. love it XD


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> But you know.  What I'd like to know is, what art should the OP train for self defense.  I'm going with Ambojitsu.


Something that incorporates pre, during, and post-fight... probably something like the Anchorman (and 2) fight scene.


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Yeah for sure. But that's more a byproduct. Proof? There is none . Proof refers to the linear domain of understanding, the mind's projected cause and effect. Things of this 'spiritual' nature for lack of a better word are in the nonlinear domain, but this doesn't require just random blind belief, but quite the opposite. Enquiring into beliefs and seeing what labels we cast on reality, including time, space, cause, effect, proof. It's where faith comes in, but faith not being related to belief. Sort of hard to explain but I can try if you want.
> 
> Proof requires objectivity, whereas this is within subjectivity of consciousness. So it's confirmable, but not provable. So I can't give you anything


 if you are genuinely in a search for '' truth'' you have to set of from a neutral point, that is nothing is proved till you prove it or have it proved to you.

at the moment you seem to be using a belief in spirituality to prove spirituality

there are people who are currently using the scientific method to probe the nature of reality, and its reasonably clear that it is not as our senses perceive it. the whole concept of time, space,matter, number of dimensions even existence are up for grabs, they are not investigating a linear cause and effect universe

for instance theres a credible theory that we live in a deterministic universe, that is not only are you powerless to change anything, your life, in fact the whole course of the universe has already happened, your just experiencing it a second at a time, both the past and the future exist and are as real as the present, ( I was watching a lecture on this very topic last night)

thats a really, liberating idea, your just along for the ride, but you cant accept that as your life is all ready written and you have no choice, but to cling to primitive models of the universe

existentialism works both ways


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> if you are genuinely in a search for '' truth'' you have to set of from a neutral point, that is nothing is proved till you prove it or have it proved to you.
> 
> at the moment you seem to be using a belief in spirituality to prove spirituality



Yeah. This is quite difficult to explain. But not at all. Once you see through that logic simply can't get to any semblance of truth beyond causality, that it's a circuitous process that reinforces itself, breaking out of that is not taking on some belief about spirituality. That's what I'm saying.

And it's not to deny science or the scientific method, but that has its limitations and just isn't applicable to this sort of endeavour. The intellect hits its limits.

Yeah so the process reveals itself, if you want to call it proof then that's fine, but it's not objectively provable to others as that would make it some objective linear 'thing' to replicate. It is literally a stepping into the unknown, which is coming from a neutral place. You can't have something proved to you BEFORE you realise it. That doesn't really make sense.

There are texts and writings, but in the end they're only guideposts, words to point the way, but you've gotta travel it yourself.



jobo said:


> there are people who are currently using the scientific method to probe the nature of reality, and its reasonably clear that it is not as our senses perceive it. the whole concept of time, space,matter, number of dimensions even existence are up for grabs, they are not investigating a linear cause and effect universe
> 
> for instance theres a credible theory that we live in a deterministic universe, that is not only are you powerless to change anything, your life, in fact the whole course of the universe has already happened, your just experiencing it a second at a time
> 
> thats a really, liberating idea, your just along for the ride, but you cant accept that as your life is all ready written and you have no choice, but to cling to primitive models of the universe



Yeah exactly, well said. There's more to everything than we thought, and it certainly isn't as clear cut. And yeah that is a teaching I've come across many times, and it is incredibly liberating. To the ego who needs control, its terrifying, but to really see what that means is to be able to let go of control, worry, anxiety etc, as there's nothing any effort will do. Of course, it can be a dangerous teaching in the wrong hands of someone doesn't really understand it, and uses it for their own agendas.

Edit: saw the additions. Yeah it trips you out considering that the past, present and future are all happening at the same time. Even the idea that we're not driven by our past as previously thought, but that where being pulled by the future, our potential is actually what's driving us forward..


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Yeah. This is quite difficult to explain. But not at all. Once you see through that logic simply can't get to any semblance of truth beyond causality, that it's a circuitous process that reinforces itself, breaking out of that is not taking on some belief about spirituality. That's what I'm saying.
> 
> And it's not to deny science or the scientific method, but that has its limitations and just isn't applicable to this sort of endeavour. The intellect hits its limits.
> 
> ...


 so now we have arrived at a contradiction in your logic

theoretical physicists have using the scientific method, in this case mathematics have arrive at the same conclusion as you that reality as we perceive is not an accurate representation of the universe

that sort of undermines your objection to the scientific method as only being linear and cause and effect.

the difference then only arises that you have jumped to a conclusion about what reality is and they are carrying on trying to uncover what is actually real, which maybe very very different to what you decided it was based on your predetermined goal of proving spirituality

why  not expand your search for truth from holy books to quantum mechanics, so your at least fully informed


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> so now we have arrived at a contrition in your logic
> 
> theoretical physicists have using the scientific method, in this case mathematics have arrive at the same conclusion as you that reality as we perceive is not an accurate representation of the universe
> 
> ...



....I didn't see this as a contest of me trying to prove spirituality to you... ? If that's how you're choosing to see it have fun with that XD.

Okay maybe I don't understand the scientific method as you do.. ? Just a quick wiki page definition: "It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings."

At some point in the testing, when you get down to the nitty gritty subatomic world, measurement breaks down. They use scientific method to GET there, but then things look very confusing and the tools of hypothesis, measurement etc become not so relevant, as consciousness itself now becomes an unknown factor. You'd see this is quantum experiments etc. They bump against the nonlinear but can't put it in a box as such.

Dunno how YOU reached the conclusion that I've reaches a conclusion about reality, I did no such thing, nor defined it. And you've decided that I'm trying to "prove" spirituality?? What are you on about? Use some self-reflection. This isn't the first time I've said this to you.

I always enjoy being challenged, but it just looks like you're trying to prove me wrong, and look for loopholes, rather than learning from my experience, as I'm trying to learn from yours.


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> ....I didn't see this as a contest of me trying to prove spirituality to you... ? If that's how you're choosing to see it have fun with that XD.
> 
> Okay maybe I don't understand the scientific method as you do.. ? Just a quick wiki page definition: "It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings."
> 
> ...


if we chop that down a bit, its about making testable predictions, you can test it in maths, the universe most definitely works by mathematics, which is a philosophical point in its own right of if maths was invented of discovered

but then eventually you need to test it by observation/experiment

quantum mechanics is one of the most successful theories in physics, it makes predictions that regularly are proved in the ladb the higgs boson for instance was predicted and found, then suddenly the nature of reality is a lot clearer
 string theory and it prediction of 12 or even 13 dimensions only exists in maths, they have as yet found no way of testing it, perhaps they never will, detecting dimensions we cant perceive is tricky to say the least, but until they do, most scientists wont accept it

but thats the difference, you only need to persuade yourself its true, which obviously have a certain selection bias, they need to get a few thousand very sceptical people to also agree its true. then we are one small step further in our search for truth


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> why  not expand your search for truth from holy books to quantum mechanics, so your at least fully informed



And to this quote, I have indeed studied from both.


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> And to this quote, I have indeed studied from both.


 but yet you concluded that subjective spiritually was the course of discovery you were going with, that to be honest seems an unlikely outcome if you even began to understand quantum mechanics, its certainly the easiest option as what ever you imagine to be true, becomes true as it has no powers of prediction to test it


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> but yet you concluded that subjective spiritually was the course of discovery you were going with, that to be honest seems an unlikely outcome if you even began to understand quantum mechanics


No. Quantum mechanics does indeed recognise consciousness as a key factor in all this. THAT'S what I mean. By 'subjective' I don't mean relating to opinions, beliefs etc, but the very substrate of consciousness itself. You're twisting things to suit your agenda.


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> of course its complicated, but how can you say its more complicated than we can imagine ? you are clearly imagining how complicated it is, to make that statement ? thus disproving your own statement


Sure it is. Why do you and others keep driving to find the answers to new questions that we do not yet understand?
For example, you are an enigma I doubt anyone will ever figure out.


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> No. Quantum mechanics does indeed recognise consciousness as a key factor in all this. THAT'S what I mean. By 'subjective' I don't mean relating to opinions, beliefs etc, but the very substrate of consciousness itself. You're twisting things to suit your agenda.


well no it doesn't, if your talking about the double slit experiment, that was high jacked by new age fruit cakes to make a statement that isnt intrinsic to the data.

the theory of entanglement doesn't require our consciousness for it to be true, the universe still works if we are in it or not, to believe our existence/ consciousness is required for quantum mechanics to work, is just man is at the centre of the universe nonsense slightly modified

clearly our perception of the universe doesn't exist with out us, but we have already agreed that our perception isnt real


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> well no it doesn't, if your talking about the double slit experiment, that was high jacked by new age fruit cakes to make a statement that isnt intrinsic to the data.



Okay. If you say so.



jobo said:


> the theory of entanglement doesn't require our consciousness for it to be true, the universe still works if we are in it or not, to believe our existence is required for quantum mechanics to work, is just man is at the centre of the universe nonsense slightly modified



I'm not talking about whether humans are in it. It doesn't have anything to do with humans. Consciousness is beyond that, and is not 'ours'. Yes that notion is for sure nonsense.



jobo said:


> clearly our perception of the universe doesn't exist with out us, but we have already agreed that our perception isnt real



Yes. Perception. Again, consciousness is not perception. Different than what I'm talking about. Multiple times I've distinguished between our perception/beliefs and awareness/consciousness. I'm wondering why I bother with posting if you don't even read what I'm writing and choose to take it to mean something else constantly...


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Sure it is. Why do you and others keep driving to find the answers to new questions that we do not yet understand?
> For example, you are an enigma I doubt anyone will ever figure out.


there are only two question, which are how and why, every question answered just gives new questions to be answered, the how we are making good progress on, the why is an anthropomorphic, issue that we expect there to be a purpose to things other than they simply are


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Okay. If you say so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so, lets clarify,,,, you have decided with no evidence what so ever that there is a consciousness other than our own and a few other earth bound things ?

you claim that quantum mechanics supported this idea, but it doesn't, so what process of logic have you used to arrive at this idea,

im predicting you will say none, its just what you feel to be correct, that just happens to be the same conclusion as a few stone aged tribes came to and is contained in a few ancient scripts.

this appears to be a circular argument you are using, that your inner feeling are a better test of reality than science, or you believe in superstition because your superstitious


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> so, lets clarify,,,, you have decided with no evidence what so ever that there is a consciousness other than our own and a few other earth bound things ?
> 
> you claim that quantum mechanics supported this idea, but it doesn't, so what process of logic have you used to arrive at this idea,
> 
> ...



Wwwoooooow. I already said that this is hard to explain, and that standard evidence does not come into it and CANNOT come into it. Different domains. You'll most likely call it (and have called it) superstition, blind faith. I explained the difference already.

It's okay, I'm not asking you to accept it! Spend a few years studying and practicing Zen or something along those lines rather than just thinking about it all alot and you might get where I'm coming from, but of course, your methodology doesn't support that. Ie. Your pride is so deeply engrained you can't open to something other than your way of doing and seeing things.

Quantum mechanics does allude to consciousness but you've written it off already and called it being hijacked by new age folk. Makes sense.

Never said it was a 'better' test of reality. It's speaking to different domains or levels of reality. Again, I've mentioned this, but you're stuck now, so you're trying to 'catch me out', and of course win. As per usual.

It was a bit of a surprise for me to get a chance to get a chance to get a chance of anything being a smartass in a few weeks so I'm gonna get a little bit more settled with this tim throw of my own voice in this case of a job no matter how I performed.

Thought I'd try some auto-suggest words. To see if that does anything...


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Wwwoooooow. I already said that this is hard to explain, and that standard evidence does not come into it and CANNOT come into it. Different domains. You'll most likely call it (and have called it) superstition, blind faith. I explained the difference already.
> 
> It's okay, I'm not asking you to accept it! Spend a few years studying and practicing Zen or something along those lines rather than just thinking about it all alot and you might get where I'm coming from, but of course, your methodology doesn't support that. Ie. Your pride is so deeply engrained you can't open to something other than your way of doing and seeing things.
> 
> ...


 what does '' allude mean in this context, 

 you've now diverged from claims about feelings to actually quoting science as supporting you

so where exactly does quantum mechanics allude to conscious,divine or other wise

im waiting with baited breath


----------



## dvcochran (Jul 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> Are you talking to me?  If so, I didn't twist your words.  I pretty much quoted your words.  If you think it was your use ofth phrase mother nature, boy do you not get it.
> 
> As I said before, I don't know what's in your heart.  Only what you say.  And you say some pretty messed up stuff.  If you meant something else, please share it, instead of getting aggressive.  Use your words.
> 
> If you're talking to someone else, the above still probably applies.



So there is no confusion, yes, I was talking directly to you Steve.
It this clear enough for you? See, I am using my words efficiently. It usually does not take a thesis to get a point across.

Why is what I said 'messed up'? It has led to a very interesting debate between Jobo and Simon that I have enjoyed following. All I did was plant the seed. Nothing else. Yet for some strange reason you took it personally and are trying to use it as a tool to attack me simply because you did not think before typing. Now you are trying to winnow your way out, again in a somewhat defaming manner. 
C'mon man.


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

jobo said:


> what does '' allude mean in this context,
> 
> you've now diverged from claims about feelings to actually quoting science as supporting you
> 
> ...



Allude to means to suggest. Not to outright prove or 100% supporting it.

The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

No I couldn't be bothered finding the actual studies, but this is a good summary. There was also some other experiment, something to do with shooting two electrons directly at each other, and the resulting photons that split out had no spin, until one is observed then it spins. And at the same time it is observed, the other photon that went in the other direction spun at the exact same time, in the opposite direction. I've probably butchered that one, but something along those lines.

Of course, you'll probably decide to find holes. I can't give you what you so desperately want. This proof you're after is not something I can provide, how bloody could I?

All I'm saying is that spiritual enquiry relates to this consciousness. I'm not saying you're wrong. Different 'fields of study'. Science. Spirituality. Whatever!


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Allude to means to suggest. Not to outright prove or 100% supporting it.
> 
> The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics
> 
> ...


 thats entanglement and the double split experiment, any two particles that have interacted go on to be effected by each other, its really weid, Einstein wasnt a fan of this idea, but it seems more and more likely its so


its the use of the term ''measurement'' or observed thats the issue, the same thing can be measured or observed by a computer, which i think we can agree has no consciousness

the other misnomer is that particles exist in a supper position of states until observed/measure., you can set up a camera to observe the world, it to see only one position,. its the act of '' measurement'' that this issue, not that the observer has consciousness

really  they are still in a supper position of states we just cant see that otherwise the whole world would just be a fuzzy blur


----------



## jobo (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Allude to means to suggest. Not to outright prove or 100% supporting it.
> 
> The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics
> 
> ...


 im not sure you read that beyond the title, as it doesn't to the most part agree with you

but there are two interesting takes on it in there

one penroses explanation which encapsulates what i said above

Beginning in the 1980s, the British physicist Roger Penrose suggested that the link might work in the other direction. Whether or not consciousness can affect quantum mechanics, he said, perhaps quantum mechanics is involved in consciousness.

and then the expansion of that, that our mind is a quantum computer, ie it uses super position of states and thats what gives us conscious

this isnt that far fetched, it now seems likely that if we are to develop AI that has consciousness, we will need to build quantum computers to do so  QED

nb quantum computer are only a few decades away, as they are not binary, their potential to think is enormous, with the slight complication, that its impossible to encrypt anything that a quantum computer cant un encrypt, unless you use quantum encryption

the down side of giving computers consciousness, ie an ability to think beyond logic, is they may decided god exists and then decided that they are god, not an unfamiliar scenario with mankind


----------



## Steve (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Something that incorporates pre, during, and post-fight... probably something like the Anchorman (and 2) fight scene.


great scene.


----------



## Steve (Jul 2, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> So there is no confusion, yes, I was talking directly to you Steve.
> It this clear enough for you? See, I am using my words efficiently. It usually does not take a thesis to get a point across.
> 
> Why is what I said 'messed up'? It has led to a very interesting debate between Jobo and Simon that I have enjoyed following. All I did was plant the seed. Nothing else. Yet for some strange reason you took it personally and are trying to use it as a tool to attack me simply because you did not think before typing. Now you are trying to winnow your way out, again in a somewhat defaming manner.
> C'mon man.


I haven't taken anything personally.  You're projecting again.  I was responding to your words.  The ones that are bleak, fatalistic, and lead people to rationalize doing things that are very selfish, like not wearing masks in public. 

What I think is noteworthy is that you do the very things you accuse others of doing.  You get personal, directly attack others, are not accountable for your words, and when someone questions you, you demonstrate very little impulse control. 

One again, your words paint a pretty bleak picture  of a world in which we are selfish to try and stop the pandemic.  You literally wrote this stuff.  So, put on your big boy pants, demonstrate some impulse control and either explain what you meant.  Or don't.  

Regarding the rest, it sounds like you're upset with my vocabulary or writing style. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me because in my posts above, most of the words are yours.  

Look, @dvcochran , I don't like you.  I don't think you like me, either.  So, when I respond to you, I try very hard to remain focused on your words. I explain what they mean to me but, as I have several times in this thread, I give you ample opportunity to elaborate.  What I don't do is attack you. The very idea that I'm using your words to attack you, as you suggest, makes no sense. It's called disagreeing with you.    Getting personal and attacking folks is your play book.  You do it to me. I've seen you do it to others, too. 

So, if you want to respond to me, great.  But focus on the words and the maybe you and I can have a discussion.  If I'm misinterpreting your words, which ones?  Explain what you meant. I paraphrased your words, pretty much verbatim.  Can you explain how they are not selfish in the way I describe above?  What did you actually mean?


----------



## Steve (Jul 2, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Wwwoooooow. I already said that this is hard to explain, and that standard evidence does not come into it and CANNOT come into it. Different domains. You'll most likely call it (and have called it) superstition, blind faith. I explained the difference already.
> 
> It's okay, I'm not asking you to accept it! Spend a few years studying and practicing Zen or something along those lines rather than just thinking about it all alot and you might get where I'm coming from, but of course, your methodology doesn't support that. Ie. Your pride is so deeply engrained you can't open to something other than your way of doing and seeing things.
> 
> ...


I'm really glad you added that last line, because I could not figure out what you were trying to say!


----------



## _Simon_ (Jul 2, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm really glad you added that last line, because I could not figure out what you were trying to say!


Hahaha XD. It's actually hilarious just constantly pushing autosuggest and seeing what story it comes out with. It makes me laugh unreasonably a great deal.


----------

