# Training half of martial arts bugs me.



## drop bear

Sorry I have to go soon so I will flesh this out better later. 

But mentioning the fence made me think of this. Doing a fence but not understanding distancing or angles does not work very well. 

Eye gouging without understanding striking or grappling well enough to employ  it. 

Doing half of the things needed to make martial arts. 

It bugs me.


----------



## skribs

One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is the presence of one does not preclude the presence of the other.

There is a thing I see in a lot of posts and a lot of video comments, which is the assumption that absence of other techniques in the discussion means an absence of techniques in the art.

For example, if I were to show a video from a BJJ school about how to do an armbar, how many people would say "that school sucks, because they don't do chokes"?  Or if a wrestler shows a video on how to do a fireman's carry, how many people would say "lmao, this guy can't even double leg."  Or in a boxing video about a proper hook punch, how many people would say "lol your jab sucks."

It just doesn't make sense.  But then you have a TMA where an eye gouge is brought up, and suddenly it becomes the only thing that school learns.  Because they have eye gouges, the instant assumption is they don't teach distance and control, they don't teach power generation in striking, and they don't spar.  None of these are known facts.  They are assumptions made about the school without knowing anything else about it.

Now, if a school does fall into that category of only teaching the eye gouge, without proper striking or grappling training and without any sparring at all, then I'm inclined to agree with you.  I just don't like the blanket assumption that "because this school does X, they don't do Y or Z."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Eye gouging without understanding striking or grappling well enough to employ  it.


When you swing your palm (face down) across your opponent's eyes, what other training do you need for that?

If your fist can punch on your opponent's face, your fingers can poke his eyes too.


----------



## wab25

This is why I like to study the art completely. That means researching who developed it, how they developed it, why they did things a certain way and how and why things changed. I think too many people stop at "my teacher said so." It could be, that your teacher doesn't know.

I have recently started studying Shotokan Karate. Yes, this is the one with all the fancy line dancing. And for most, thats all it really is... with some fun games of tag thrown in. But, things start to look a little different when you go back to the origin, and learn what they were about and how they used these things.

This is an article I post a lot here, it talks about the famous karate down block. This is the down block that is supposed to block a kick... unless you actually try to block a kick where the other guy is intending to hurt you... then you break your arm on his shin. This article shows that Funakoshi actually taught this technique as a throw. It has demonstrations of it as a throw... demonstrations of early students doing demos, demonstrations of it being used in Karate competition as a throw and demonstrations of it being used in UFC against a Judo player, as a throw.

Lyoto Machida: Old-School Karate

So, why do most karate guys blow this off as a far fetched idea? Their teacher said it was a block, and even showed them how to modify it to possibly work as a block. "Their teacher said so." And that trumps the founder of the art...

Why do they do the fancy line dancing? People make up all kinds of answers for this. But some research will show that it is the first step in a process the Japanese used to transmit knowledge and skill. Its literally, the very first step. The problem is that too many karate teachers never learned the process and thought step one was the whole thing. And now, because their teacher didn't know, and told them that just by doing it enough, the magic would come... thats where things stop. And then over time, they change into new things... some of which, do not accomplish the original goals. To figure that out, you need to know what the original goals were and what the goals are now. This takes lots of research and questioning... which leads to more research.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is the presence of one does not preclude the presence of the other.
> 
> There is a thing I see in a lot of posts and a lot of video comments, which is the assumption that absence of other techniques in the discussion means an absence of techniques in the art.
> 
> For example, if I were to show a video from a BJJ school about how to do an armbar, how many people would say "that school sucks, because they don't do chokes"?  Or if a wrestler shows a video on how to do a fireman's carry, how many people would say "lmao, this guy can't even double leg."  Or in a boxing video about a proper hook punch, how many people would say "lol your jab sucks."
> 
> It just doesn't make sense.  But then you have a TMA where an eye gouge is brought up, and suddenly it becomes the only thing that school learns.  Because they have eye gouges, the instant assumption is they don't teach distance and control, they don't teach power generation in striking, and they don't spar.  None of these are known facts.  They are assumptions made about the school without knowing anything else about it.
> 
> Now, if a school does fall into that category of only teaching the eye gouge, without proper striking or grappling training and without any sparring at all, then I'm inclined to agree with you.  I just don't like the blanket assumption that "because this school does X, they don't do Y or Z."



If absolutely nothing is mentioned about basically all of fighting during the discussion of an eye gouge then the discussion is worthless. In the context of paying someone for something I could have come up with on my own. 

So as an example if someone is using an eye gouge for a mount escape and is not covering the basics of a mount escape. And in demonstration is not doing anything other than frantically trying to hit the eye from the bottom so that the guy on top just gives up and leaves.

The instant assumption is they don't teach the fundamental principles that make martial arts work. 

A person who teaches distance control will use distance control regardless whether he specifically mentions it.


----------



## JP3

skribs said:


> One thing to keep in mind in these discussions is the presence of one does not preclude the presence of the other.
> 
> There is a thing I see in a lot of posts and a lot of video comments, which is the assumption that absence of other techniques in the discussion means an absence of techniques in the art.
> 
> For example, if I were to show a video from a BJJ school about how to do an armbar, how many people would say "that school sucks, because they don't do chokes"?  Or if a wrestler shows a video on how to do a fireman's carry, how many people would say "lmao, this guy can't even double leg."  Or in a boxing video about a proper hook punch, how many people would say "lol your jab sucks."
> 
> It just doesn't make sense.  But then you have a TMA where an eye gouge is brought up, and suddenly it becomes the only thing that school learns.  Because they have eye gouges, the instant assumption is they don't teach distance and control, they don't teach power generation in striking, and they don't spar.  None of these are known facts.  They are assumptions made about the school without knowing anything else about it.
> 
> Now, if a school does fall into that category of only teaching the eye gouge, without proper striking or grappling training and without any sparring at all, then I'm inclined to agree with you.  I just don't like the blanket assumption that "because this school does X, they don't do Y or Z."


But, if they don't do Y or Z, but they Did do P, Q, R, S & even T... would that make them OK?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> if someone is using an eye gouge for a mount escape and is not covering the basics of a mount escape..


If you have spikes ring on, do you still need to train "mount escape"?

A $20 spikes ring can save all your BJJ class tuition.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> If absolutely nothing is mentioned about basically all of fighting during the discussion of an eye gouge then the discussion is worthless. In the context of paying someone for something I could have come up with on my own.
> 
> So as an example if someone is using an eye gouge for a mount escape and is not covering the basics of a mount escape. And in demonstration is not doing anything other than frantically trying to hit the eye from the bottom so that the guy on top just gives up and leaves.
> 
> *The instant assumption* is they don't teach the fundamental principles that make martial arts work.
> 
> A person who teaches distance control will use distance control regardless whether he specifically mentions it.




That's a baseless assumption.  For example, at my school we'd demonstrate the technique, and focus on distance control as you drill it.  You can't cover everything about a technique without going too long, and some stuff you assume as a prerequisite when you make a video.
What you assume as common sense or something you can "figure out on your own" isn't always the case.  Stuff that seems common knowledge to you often isn't.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> That's a baseless assumption.  For example, at my school we'd demonstrate the technique, and focus on distance control as you drill it.  You can't cover everything about a technique without going too long, and some stuff you assume as a prerequisite when you make a video.
> What you assume as common sense or something you can "figure out on your own" isn't always the case.  Stuff that seems common knowledge to you often isn't.



1. Ok. So what you are trying to argue here is that we need to take all the evidence that exists and compare it to all the evidence that doesn't exist. 

Given there is a finite amount of evidence that exists and an infinite amount that doesn't that basically means that impossible things are more likely to be correct than possible things. 

Which is insane. 

2. Stuff that should be common knowledge to the instructor doesn't not seem to be all that common to instructors. I mean let's be serious. Instructors don't spend an hour on eye gouges because their students are too dumb to grasp that a finger goes in an eye. 

I don't train with rocket scientists but I will give them more credit than that. 

It is because they have no other tools at hand to get them out of the situation they have put themselves in. 

And that is because they have only trained half of martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have spikes ring on, do you still need to train "mount escape"?
> 
> A $20 spikes ring can save all your BJJ class tuition.



Yes you do. That is precisely the point. Spiky ring is for assisting with your mount escape.

Not instead of it.

Imagine if that was a striking exchange. And you are like "Spiky ring save me" you may very well have an up hill battle without some sort of striking skills.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you swing your palm (face down) across your opponent's eyes, what other training do you need for that?
> 
> If your fist can punch on your opponent's face, your fingers can poke his eyes too.



If your fist can't punch your oponants face. Then good luck with that eye gouges.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> If your fist can't punch your oponants face. Then good luck with that eye gouges.


Now I understand what you are talking about, and I agree with you 100% there.

This is the problem for CMA. Many CMA teachers don't want to teach their students the foot work. The moment that a student has learned footwork, that student will have chance to give his teacher some trouble.

The moment that you have learned how to run your opponent down, the moment that your fight skill has moved into another level.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Now I understand what you are talking about, and I agree with you 100% there.
> 
> This is the problem for CMA. Many CMA teachers don't want to teach their students the foot work. The moment that a student has learned footwork, that student will have chance to give his teacher some trouble.
> 
> The moment that you have learned how to run your opponent down, the moment that your fight skill has moved into another level.



For some reason eye gouges never include good footwork. As if for some reason you can just throw away everything that is fighting just because your finger is straight.

The very first video I found.






And he at least did a change level entry but then completely forgot about where his head was as soon as he made his fingers go straight.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> 1. Ok. So what you are trying to argue here is that we need to take all the evidence that exists and compare it to all the evidence that doesn't exist.
> 
> Given there is a finite amount of evidence that exists and an infinite amount that doesn't that basically means that impossible things are more likely to be correct than possible things.
> 
> Which is insane.



And the stuff people do know is virtually endless in some cases.  I mention in the other thread, I know enough about roundhouse kicks I could probably do an entire week of classes on them (and nothing else) and _maybe_ cover what I know.  Should I have to write a dissertation on roundhouse kicks every time they're mentioned?  Even if 99.999% of it is off topic?  Just so that you wouldn't assume any holes in my knowledge of the kick?

*That* is insane.  And that's basically what you're asking for.  



> 2. Stuff that should be common knowledge to the instructor doesn't not seem to be all that common to instructors. I mean let's be serious. Instructors don't spend an hour on eye gouges because their students are too dumb to grasp that a finger goes in an eye.
> 
> I don't train with rocket scientists but I will give them more credit than that.
> 
> It is because they have no other tools at hand to get them out of the situation they have put themselves in.
> 
> And that is because they have only trained half of martial arts.



You're looking at very specific cases and applying a very broad brush.



drop bear said:


> If your fist can't punch your oponants face. Then good luck with that eye gouges.



Except a gouge doesn't need the acceleration of a punch to be effective.  There are a lot of situations that wrestlers or BJJ fighters get in, where you're perfectly safe when eye gouges aren't allowed, but in danger if someone decides to.  When you're defending a choke, what do you do?  Tuck your chin down.  Now your opponent can't sink the choke, but they can easily go for the eyes.  The biggest advantage the clinch gives you is that you can keep your opponent from generating power with their strikes.  But it doesn't take much power to scrape someone's eye with your fingernail.

The human eye is very fragile.  Things that just roll off your skin like dust and water are irritating and unpleasant for the eyes.  Sunlight takes hours to burn your skin, but just a few seconds to cause irreparable damage.  Minor bumps that you would barely notice anywhere else nearly incapacitate an eye for a short time.  It doesn't take much to gouge an eye.  People are a lot more protective of their eyes than the rest of their body, because bruises heal, but eye damage is permanent.

Going back to point #2 above:  I would have thought this was common sense.  I would have thought it common sense that there are more ways to attack the eye than just punching with an outstretched hand.  I would have thought it common sense how easy it is to damage the eye, based on living for decades with eyes and understanding how fragile they are.  I would have thought it common sense to know that any situation where your opponent has his hand near your head is an opportunity for an eye gouge.  I would have thought it common sense that because the technique is banned in MMA, that it's a dangerous technique.  I would have thought all of this common sense, and yet you don't know it.

You like to assume people don't know things based on what they don't say.  I'm looking at what you do say, and I'm not seeing much common sense as it pertains to eye gouges.  And I wouldn't point it out, except you like to hold everyone else to an impossible standard.



drop bear said:


> For some reason eye gouges never include good footwork. As if for some reason you can just throw away everything that is fighting just because your finger is straight.
> 
> The very first video I found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And he at least did a change level entry but then completely forgot about where his head was as soon as he made his fingers go straight.



And how is the opponent supposed to deliver a strike from his heels with his weight falling back?


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> And how is the opponent supposed to deliver a strike from his heels with his weight falling back?



You step backwards. Admittedly from that eyegouge hook would probably be better.






Now you notice he doesn't mention it but he finished off that 12 o'clock.

It may not be part of the demonstration but because he understands the subject he still did it.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> And the stuff people do know is virtually endless in some cases. I mention in the other thread, I know enough about roundhouse kicks I could probably do an entire week of classes on them (and nothing else) and _maybe_ cover what I know. Should I have to write a dissertation on roundhouse kicks every time they're mentioned? Even if 99.999% of it is off topic? Just so that you wouldn't assume any holes in my knowledge of the kick?
> 
> *That* is insane. And that's basically what you're asking for.



The information you do share should be correct to convince people you know about round house kicks. 

So if like the eye gouge video you do something silly like expose your head. This would convince me that you have only trained half a martial art.


----------



## Tez3

wab25 said:


> I have recently started studying Shotokan Karate. Yes, this is the one with all the fancy line dancing.



That would depend entirely on who you are training it with as with most styles. Shotokan produces some of the best full contact karate fighters. In most places it's a very hard hitting, robust style. I suspect that if they aren't members of the ISKF they aren't actually teaching proper Shotokan or at best a watered down version. 

In over 40 years of karate I've never been taught nor seen taught that a downward 'block' is for blocking a kick, anyone who tries will only do it the once. Rarely is a 'block' actually a block which most karateka actually do know. 

There is a lot of research being done in karate, Iain Abernethy of course, John Titchen and Noah Legel are equally good, they all teach that 'uke' doesn't mean blocking.


----------



## wab25

Tez3 said:


> That would depend entirely on who you are training it with as with most styles. Shotokan produces some of the best full contact karate fighters. In most places it's a very hard hitting, robust style. I suspect that if they aren't members of the ISKF they aren't actually teaching proper Shotokan or at best a watered down version.


Correct, it depends entirely on who you are training with. Over here in the US, its quite easy to find Karate schools, most of them will be Shotokan... most will teach the fancy line dancing and games of tag. You have to look long and hard to find the kind of Shotokan school you are talking about. I was lucky and found one.



Tez3 said:


> In over 40 years of karate I've never been taught nor seen taught that a downward 'block' is for blocking a kick, anyone who tries will only do it the once. Rarely is a 'block' actually a block which most karateka actually do know.


Really? That is surprising... in my experience, its quite a common thing that is taught.













I am surprised you missed it... maybe the Karate over there is much better than most of what is here.



Tez3 said:


> There is a lot of research being done in karate, Iain Abernethy of course, John Titchen and Noah Legel are equally good, they all teach that 'uke' doesn't mean blocking.



I like those guys and have used them as part of my study. Whats interesting is that Funakoshi was quite explicit about what uke meant. You are correct, it does not mean blocking. In Karate-Do Kyohan, Funakoshi talks about what the uke techniques are... he gives about 8 definitions. He starts out with concepts like blending, parrying, pulling, trapping, pushing... the very last definition he gives for these is that they can be strikes to vital points. He includes an anatomy chart showing where those points are. He then adds to that definition that alternately, you could use them to knock aside and incoming attack from a hand or foot. At least here in the states, we ignore all the definitions, except for the alternate definition to the very last one. 

Whats interesting is that if you actually continue to read the Kyohan, Funakoshi goes through the line dances explaining what you are doing. When he talks about those uke techniques, he explains them as grappling type moves and insists that they always be practiced as such. He even explains that there are many throws in the line dances, that should also be practiced. Most Karate folks here, just want to stick to the basics, and use uke to block things... because thats what their teacher told them. I don't think these guys are even up to studying half of the art yet... but at least they enjoy their line dancing.


----------



## Tez3

wab25 said:


> I am surprised you missed it... maybe the Karate over there is much better than most of what is here.



Karate and martial arts as a whole is smaller over here, we tend not to be 'trendy' so perhaps have kept to older ways. The first Shotokan was brought here by Japanese instructors who trained under Funikoshi, my style Wado Ryu was the same brought over by instructors who trained under the founder. less dilution perhaps because we are such a small place there's less opportunities for those who want to open schools to do so making styles less diluted. It could also mean styles get stifled but on the whole it doesn't seem to happen a lot. When ever I've visited a TKD class that it is quite robust compared to descriptions I've read of classes elsewhere, there's sparring ( kumite) with hand as well as foot strikes. I think the answer maybe that we are parochial here with little chance for a huge expansion of martial arts classes. MMA while popular is exactly the same with just three or four 'big' gyms across the UK, lots of smaller, amateur/semi pro ones but again spread out.


----------



## wab25

Tez3 said:


> The first Shotokan was brought here by Japanese instructors who trained under Funikoshi, my style Wado Ryu was the same brought over by instructors who trained under the founder. less dilution perhaps because we are such a small place there's less opportunities for those who want to open schools to do so making styles less diluted.


Do they understand and use the Shu Ha Ri method over there? Do they understand how kata is part of that system of transmission?


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> If absolutely nothing is mentioned about basically all of fighting during the discussion of an eye gouge then the discussion is worthless. In the context of paying someone for something I could have come up with on my own.
> 
> So as an example if someone is using an eye gouge for a mount escape and is not covering the basics of a mount escape. And in demonstration is not doing anything other than frantically trying to hit the eye from the bottom so that the guy on top just gives up and leaves.
> 
> The instant assumption is they don't teach the fundamental principles that make martial arts work.
> 
> A person who teaches distance control will use distance control regardless whether he specifically mentions it.



Agreed, you can demonstrate an isolated technique (round house kick) and talk about the mechanics and not cover all uses etc.  If you are showing an application of the round house kick, then that application should be covering the basics of its application, even if its not the point of the instruction.  Or, if the application is such that it doesn't make sense if practically applied, then it would be a good assumption that they don't know what they are talking about.

In the case of the eye gouge for a mount escape.  You HAVE to have a basic understanding of the mount position from both the top and the bottom.  I don't know how many "striking instructors" from various backgrounds teach the eye gouge as a counter to being mounted.  The problem is that EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of that shows the person extending their arm to try and gouge the eyes of the person on top.  If you have ANY understanding of the basic mount (top/bottom) you know that you have just given your arm to the guy on top to be broken by an arm bar.  That is the BASIC first learn way to arm bar from the mount (at least where I went).

More examples, if you are going to teach counters to other joint locks or chokes, you have to know how to apply that attack properly (rear naked choke defense especially).  I see lots of grappling counters that just wouldn't work if the person was applying it right.  Make the distinction between someone just grabbing you around the throat/neck from behind versus an actual rear naked choke, don't call them both a rear naked choke and show applications that won't work.  Same thing with "take down defenses" that I see.  If you preface your technique with this is to be used against a "bum rush" style tackle from an unskilled person it will work, but it isn't going to be something you try on a skilled wrestling take down.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> In the case of the eye gouge for a mount escape. You HAVE to have a basic understanding of the mount position from both the top and the bottom. I don't know how many "striking instructors" from various backgrounds teach the eye gouge as a counter to being mounted. The problem is that EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE of that shows the person extending their arm to try and gouge the eyes of the person on top. If you have ANY understanding of the basic mount (top/bottom) you know that you have just given your arm to the guy on top to be broken by an arm bar. That is the BASIC first learn way to arm bar from the mou



That is the issue I am explaining. If you don't understand the position the technique becomes less relevant.

The counter argument is that I am only judging by what I have seen. And should be taking in to account what I haven't.

There might have been mad skills on display when I had my back turned.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> More examples, if you are going to teach counters to other joint locks or chokes, you have to know how to apply that attack properly (rear naked choke defense especially). I see lots of grappling counters that just wouldn't work if the person was applying it right. Make the distinction between someone just grabbing you around the throat/neck from behind versus an actual rear naked choke, don't call them both a rear naked choke and show applications that won't work. Same thing with "take down defenses" that I see. If you preface your technique with this is to be used against a "bum rush" style tackle from an unskilled person it will work, but it isn't going to be something you try on a skilled wrestling take down.



Yeah I think that is a different issue in that these are dominant positions and so even if you do the technique you might not get the guy off. 

We drill live from rear naked and back takes to train the defence and it is just as likely that the attacker will win. 

And I think that concept messes with a lot of instructors heads who think the defence they teach should work. Whether it does or not.


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> with "take down defenses" that I see. If you preface your technique with this is to be used against a "bum rush" style tackle from an unskilled person it will work, but it isn't going to be something you try on a skilled



What you do is you introduce downward elbows.

And so then even if you can't defend the takedown you still technically did because downward elbows would have killed the guy. Which we know because they are illegal in UFC.

Which of course then you can't do hard So instead just flop to the ground or something mid take down. For realism.





The really sad part is he had a high level wrestler in the room and just didn't bother to ever find out what single leg defenses were.

He could have just added an eye gouge to that.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> The counter argument is that I am only judging by what I have seen. And should be taking in to account what I haven't.



I'm not saying you should make any assumptions, just that you could give people the benefit of the doubt.

If you're going to assume that people don't know everything they haven't said, you're going to assume everyone is a heck of a lot dumber than they actually are.  And you have a tendency to treat people who you think are dumb pretty poorly.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> What you do is you introduce downward elbows.
> 
> And so then even if you can't defend the takedown you still technically did because downward elbows would have killed the guy. Which we know because they are illegal in UFC.
> 
> Which of course then you can't do hard So instead just flop to the ground or something mid take down. For realism.



You picked a great video to make your point.  Because that guy gets a lot wrong.  The problem is you're assuming that because he gets a lot wrong, that means that everyone that teaches eye gouges also gets the same amount of stuff wrong.

His video also didn't appear to have a whole lot of thought put into it.  He kinda rambled on and it was hard to watch.

I agree that this guy in particular is an example of a bad coach.  However, if you look at anyone else who teaches eye gouges and say they're bad *because they teach eye gouges*, then you're drawing incorrect conclusions based on the available evidence.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> You picked a great video to make your point.  Because that guy gets a lot wrong.  The problem is you're assuming that because he gets a lot wrong, that means that everyone that teaches eye gouges also gets the same amount of stuff wrong.
> 
> His video also didn't appear to have a whole lot of thought put into it.  He kinda rambled on and it was hard to watch.
> 
> I agree that this guy in particular is an example of a bad coach.  However, if you look at anyone else who teaches eye gouges and say they're bad *because they teach eye gouges*, then you're drawing incorrect conclusions based on the available evidence.



No. 

Eye gouging is just a very good example of what an instructor will do when he has no real solutions. 

Then I make the case that spending time on that is wasting time. 

So if for example you went to that particular instructors class and trained that single leg defenses for 6 months.

You will be no better at defending single legs than when you started.

If you went to wrestling school and trained single leg defenses and were then told you can do eye gouges five minutes ago. You would be significantly better at eye gouges than that krav guy.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> I'm not saying you should make any assumptions, just that you could give people the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> If you're going to assume that people don't know everything they haven't said, you're going to assume everyone is a heck of a lot dumber than they actually are.  And you have a tendency to treat people who you think are dumb pretty poorly.



No you are giving people the benefit of bias.

So here is a guy who claims he became a bjj black belt in 4 years? Something quick. And is selling a system.

It is not about the system.

Read the comments and how hard it is for evidence to sway people with pre conceived ideas.

Lloyd Irvin Jr.

It is the best example of stories being equal to evidence I have found in a while.

Your whole argument method is story based.

Krav instructor guys teaching method is story based.

It affects your competency in training massively for the reasons I mentioned above.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

If your

- right hand can grab on your opponent's wrist,
- left hand can control his elbow,

your right hand can poke his eyes.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> The really sad part is he had a high level wrestler in the room and just didn't bother to ever find out what single leg defenses were.



I don't think your response takes into count the apparent _context _here. Disclaimer: I have no experience with Krav, but that guy's responses remind me of some of the defenses taught in the Wing Chun I studied. Having wrestled as a kid_ I get your objections,_ but the context here is that of a self-defense oriented _striking response. _

He is showing both 1. how to avoid having your kick grabbed, and 2. ideas on how to escape and recover to a striking range using strikes, gouges etc. In my WC experience, I encountered a lot of guys who had little-to-no interest or aptitude for grappling. I don't get it, but _that's how they were._ In fact that's pretty much how a lot of WC is ...or _was _(people , at least some people do adapt ...eventually).

Anyway, if that's the context, what do you do to prevent and/or recover from the _kick-grab_ situation being shown (_not _a single-leg where somebody shoots in tight)?

First, you teach prevention: avoid kick-grabs by kicking low: at the knees, and possibly the groin.

Second, don't leave the kick extended. _He_ taught retraction. In WC we favor his other solution, bending the knee so the shin points more downward and stomping the leg to the floor, freeing the leg by converting it into to step forward. The old saying is _"Every kick a step, every step a kick". _

Third, you strike as you close. Even if you can't free your leg by stomping, you can often use your trapped leg to pull into striking or clinching range and give a flurry of strikes to help you break away. If that fails, you drop to the ground and try to use kicks (as he also showed) to escape back to a stand-up game. Yeah, it's doubtful, but if you can't grapple, it may be your best shot.

Now my _personal_ responses were informed by having wrestled. But if somebody got my leg _at a distance _(like the Krav guy showed) I'd be more concerned that he'd torque my foot and knee rather than do a single leg. I've got seriously messed-up legs, so if somehow somebody grabbed my foot like that, I'd go straight to the ground and try to free my foot with a kick before he could wrench my foot around and cripple me. _Again._ Yes, I've been there before. No fun.

Now DB, I really did like your MMA single leg video. So, if you can find me a clip that better addresses self defense against that long range, kick grab, especially if the "grabber" is planning on torquing the hell out of your ankle and knee, I will study it, practice it, and learn it. After all, I'm old, but_ I can still learn new tricks! _


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Third, you strike as you close. Even if you can't free your leg by stomping, you can often use your trapped leg to pull into striking or clinching range and give a flurry of strikes to help you break away. If that fails, you drop to the ground and try to use kicks (as he also showed) to escape back to a stand-up game. Yeah, it's doubtful, but if you can't grapple, it may be your best shot.



I was working on he had no idea what he was doing.

Ok. Kicking low. A single leg is traditionally done from picking the leg up off the ground. You can't get lower than the ground.

You could kick low and bring your foot back. But he didn't.

Oh you are trying to catch the leg between your legs. Which he solved by doing a groin kick?

Anyway the striking option doesn't work the way you are suggesting. You don't not defend the takedown because you want to strike.

You defend the takedown therefore stay standing and then strike. And then hopefully you are still standing and can continue striking. The striking options is mostly the grappling option. (Unless you do some sort of jump guard to a submission thing. Which is different)

So this would be a grappling option.





But he still has to do those basic defenses.


----------



## drop bear

geezer said:


> Now DB, I really did like your MMA single leg video. So, if you can find me a clip that better addresses self defense against that long range, kick grab, especially if the "grabber" is planning on torquing the hell out of your ankle and knee, I will study it, practice it, and learn it. After all, I'm old, but_ I can still learn new tricks! _


----------



## drop bear

But yeah that knee twist is the escape. So he should technically be helping you.


----------



## geezer

DB, all your clips are based on a wrestler's single-leg takedown. Regardless of the poor choice terminology that krav guy used, the technique he and his son were demonstrating _wasn't _a single-leg takedown. There was no closing to proper distance, no set-up, no change in levels, no shoot, no follow through, etc.

What he was showing was something that frequently happens between two non-wrestlers, both engaging from an upright, striker's stance. One guy throws a crappy kick, and the other guy (standing upright and far away grabs it. Then in this example, the grabber suddenly morphs into an experienced wrestler. Kinda dumb really. 

I was just considering what a person who doesn't want to grapple can do if the first part happens. You know, somebody standing at kicking range manages to grab your leg or foot when you kick. The options given can work. Unless your opponent suddently becomes a wrestler. That's bad. It's even worse if he morphs into a car, truck or military tank. Man, I gotta get outta the house more.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> But yeah that knee twist is the escape. So he should technically be helping you.



Just saw this. Yeah --this addresses the situation better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> I'm not saying you should make any assumptions, just that you could give people the benefit of the doubt.


Or, at the very least, don't assume what you haven't seen doesn't exist and must be proved to exist or it doesn't (absence of proof isn't proof of absence, or we fall into the fallacy of argument from ignorance). If a claim made is not exceptional, don't treat it as if someone claimed they could do magic (exceptional claims are typically recognized as needing evidence, rather than benefit of the doubt).

So, yeah, give folks the benefit, as long as they aren't making outlandish claims. And we also have to acknowledge that there are probably things we each think to be true (especially as concerns what does and does not work in given situations and from various systems) where we are incorrect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> Eye gouging is just a very good example of what an instructor will do when he has no real solutions.
> 
> Then I make the case that spending time on that is wasting time.
> 
> So if for example you went to that particular instructors class and trained that single leg defenses for 6 months.
> 
> You will be no better at defending single legs than when you started.
> 
> If you went to wrestling school and trained single leg defenses and were then told you can do eye gouges five minutes ago. You would be significantly better at eye gouges than that krav guy.


It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.

If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> That is the issue I am explaining. If you don't understand the position the technique becomes less relevant.
> 
> The counter argument is that I am only judging by what I have seen. And should be taking in to account what I haven't.
> 
> There might have been mad skills on display when I had my back turned.


Either way there's an assumption being made. You're either assuming that they know what they're doing outside of it, or assuming that they don't. Either way you're making a judgment on their teaching/ability based on insufficient material. 

The better option, IMO, wouldn't be to judge the person teaching at all, and just the technique. So taje what they taught, whether that's eye gouging, elbows to the back, whatever, and see if you can make it work (or at least the positioning for it). If you can, add it to your toolset. If you can't look into it more. If you look into it more and still can't get it to work, don't worry about it.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Either way there's an assumption being made. You're either assuming that they know what they're doing outside of it, or assuming that they don't. Either way you're making a judgment on their teaching/ability based on insufficient material.
> 
> The better option, IMO, wouldn't be to judge the person teaching at all, and just the technique. So taje what they taught, whether that's eye gouging, elbows to the back, whatever, and see if you can make it work (or at least the positioning for it). If you can, add it to your toolset. If you can't look into it more. If you look into it more and still can't get it to work, don't worry about it.



Wouldn't taking techniques from guys who have a single clue what they are on about be more efficient?

At least I would know they work somewhere.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.
> 
> If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent.



Nope. If the defence isn't there and they have put an eye gouge in its place that is a pretty obvious sign they don't know the defence.

And it is common. You get guys who can't fight try and trick their way out.

Like that single leg defense.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, yeah, give folks the benefit, as long as they aren't making outlandish claims. And we also have to acknowledge that there are probably things we each think to be true (especially as concerns what does and does not work in given situations and from various systems) where we are incorrect.



Which we can test by either seeing it work. Seeing it not work or having the guy who claims it works start looking for ways never to show their method.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Wouldn't taking techniques from guys who have a single clue what they are on about be more efficient?
> 
> At least I would know they work somewhere.


So if you're in person, you can know if they have a clue of what they're on about. If it's online you don't know. So either way take the technique by itself and see if you can make it work. Ask your instuctor and/or training partners if they can make it work. If no one can, ignore that guy for the future.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Wouldn't taking techniques from guys who have a single clue what they are on about be more efficient?
> 
> At least I would know they work somewhere.


If A tells B that "a groin kick followed by a face punch work", if B can't make it work, that can be B's problem and not A's problem.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If A tells B that "a groin kick followed by a face punch work", if B can't make it work, that can be B's problem and not A's problem.



Yeah but A can't make it work. Nobody can make it work. That is the whole point. 

There are top level strikers, top level wrestlers, top level leg lock specialist, even top level fancy kick specialists. And so on for all sorts of martial skills we could conceivably want to learn.

Who are the top level eye gouges specialist?


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> So if you're in person, you can know if they have a clue of what they're on about. If it's online you don't know. So either way take the technique by itself and see if you can make it work. Ask your instuctor and/or training partners if they can make it work. If no one can, ignore that guy for the future.



Plenty of people have online evidence that their method works. 

What we are looking at is people who don't make it work. Teaching a method to people who don't make it work. 

They are not willing to put their methods to any sort of test. 

This is not the Danaher death squad validating their leg lock method by going out and beating the best in the world. And me going. Well I think leg locks are silly.

This is people saying a method works with absolutely no way to back their claim. 

Why would then I try to make that method work?

If people want to innovate they can't do that by hiding. They have to get pout there and challenge those ideas.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Plenty of people have online evidence that their method works.
> 
> What we are looking at is people who don't make it work. Teaching a method to people who don't make it work.
> 
> They are not willing to put their methods to any sort of test.
> 
> This is not the Danaher death squad validating their leg lock method by going out and beating the best in the world. And me going. Well I think leg locks are silly.
> 
> This is people saying a method works with absolutely no way to back their claim.
> 
> Why would then I try to make that method work?
> 
> If people want to innovate they can't do that by hiding. They have to get pout there and challenge those ideas.


So if someone doesn't want to prove it, to you, and others do, go with the people who have proven it how you want. The other people shouldn't matter to you. Those people do prove it to the people close to them, or they don't. It's up to those people whether it works. And up to their students to have proof of it. Not up to them to prove it to you, or up to you to verify it for their students.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> So if someone doesn't want to prove it, to you, and others do, go with the people who have proven it how you want. The other people shouldn't matter to you. Those people do prove it to the people close to them, or they don't. It's up to those people whether it works. And up to their students to have proof of it. Not up to them to prove it to you, or up to you to verify it for their students.



You seem to think that is is about my feelings or something. Rather than evidence being the basic identification process that determines what exists and what doesn't. 

If we want to treat martial arts as theological pursuit then yeah. But to use as a practical tool I don't see how your method works.

Which is probably why a martial art doesn't work.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> You seem to think that is is about my feelings or something. Rather than evidence being the basic identification process that determines what exists and what doesn't.
> 
> If we want to treat martial arts as theological pursuit then yeah. But to use as a practical tool I don't see how your method works.
> 
> Which is probably why a martial art doesn't work.


I just don't get why it effects you. Why individuals from across the globe need to prove their worth to someone across the globe. Especially if their goal isn't to teach across the globe.

If the goal is to teach far and wide then yeah, far and wide need to accept their abilities. But if their goal is to teach people in their area then only those people need to see proof. And there's no reason to put that proof on video since you can just show it to all of them face to face (this pandemic being the exception)

So I guess what I'm saying is, if they shownthe relevant people the evidence, that's all that matters. If you're not a peospective student, you're not relevant, so they've got nothing to gain from showing you the evidence.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I just don't get why it effects you. Why individuals from across the globe need to prove their worth to someone across the globe. Especially if their goal isn't to teach across the globe.
> 
> If the goal is to teach far and wide then yeah, far and wide need to accept their abilities. But if their goal is to teach people in their area then only those people need to see proof. And there's no reason to put that proof on video since you can just show it to all of them face to face (this pandemic being the exception)
> 
> So I guess what I'm saying is, if they shownthe relevant people the evidence, that's all that matters. If you're not a peospective student, you're not relevant, so they've got nothing to gain from showing you the evidence.



They have nothing to gain by showing anyone the evidence. 

 A results based martial arts is always going to be harder, develop more slowly and produce less effect than just lying to people. 

I just don't think that is ethical. 

So we ultimately have a moral impasse there.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> They have nothing to gain by showing anyone the evidence.
> 
> A results based martial arts is always going to be harder, develop more slowly and produce less effect than just lying to people.
> 
> I just don't think that is ethical.
> 
> So we ultimately have a moral impasse there.


They have nothing to gain by showing _you _the evidence. They have everything to gain by showing it to potential clients/customers. 

I don't think it's a moral impasse so much as a philosophical one. I think a business will be more successful by being upfront in what it offers. In this case martial ability, and how it is/isn't effective. You seem to think a business will be more successful by lying about what it offers. Again in this case martial ability, and how it is/isn't effective.

My issue with your thinking is that eventually any business that is lying about what it has to offer will get found out, and go under. A restaurant that isn't offering quality meals will see a decrease in people showing up. A tutoring service that isn't helping their students, even if they sign a contract, will stop gaining new students and go under. A hospital that doesn't treat people well will stop having people show up there. And a martial arts studio that doesn't teach people martial arts will eventually not get new students and go under. 

You seem to think that martial arts is this magic voodoo that goes against the free market, and I guess I just don't understand why.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> They have nothing to gain by showing _you _the evidence. They have everything to gain by showing it to potential clients/customers.



Why? we have this highly developed system designed specifically to avoid showing evidence. 

And if someone asks for evidence they are the bad guy. 

Provided the aim isn't to develop any sort of martial arts skill. It works fine.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> My issue with your thinking is that eventually any business that is lying about what it has to offer will get found out, and go under. A restaurant that isn't offering quality meals will see a decrease in people showing up. A tutoring service that isn't helping their students, even if they sign a contract, will stop gaining new students and go under. A hospital that doesn't treat people well will stop having people show up there. And a martial arts studio that doesn't teach people martial arts will eventually not get new students and go under.



How may weight loss supliments actually result in weight loss?

How many natural healing products do anything to create healing?

People still buy healing crystals and they don't do anything. But they are huge buisness.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Why? we have this highly developed system designed specifically to avoid showing evidence.
> 
> And if someone asks for evidence they are the bad guy.
> 
> Provided the aim isn't to develop any sort of martial arts skill. It works fine.


What system are you referring to?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> How may weight loss supliments actually result in weight loss?


Most of those don't require ongoing customer commitment. They focus on global access, getting as many people as possible to try/buy them. And within a couple months they're advocating/selling something new. No chance for the traditional response in a local market.

If a private training facility was found to offer classes promising weight loss, and they did not help at all, do you think that facility would last? I think that's a more apt comparison.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> What system are you referring to?



This one you are using. Where evidence isn't as important as feelings.

I mean it is pretty easy to convince a guy they can fight. Just so long as they never have to fight anyone. 

We don't have to work hard to get out of a grapple. Just eye gouge them and they roll off you.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Most of those don't require ongoing customer commitment. They focus on global access, getting as many people as possible to try/buy them. And within a couple months they're advocating/selling something new. No chance for the traditional response in a local market.
> 
> If a private training facility was found to offer classes promising weight loss, and they did not help at all, do you think that facility would last? I think that's a more apt comparison.



Absolutely if it was easier than actually loosing weight.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> This one you are using. Where evidence isn't as important as feelings.
> 
> I mean it is pretty easy to convince a guy they can fight. Just so long as they never have to fight anyone.
> 
> We don't have to work hard to get out of a grapple. Just eye gouge them and they roll off you.


I haven't mentioned feelings at all. I've mentioned evidence. Just that they don't have to provide evidence to someone halfway across the globe.

I think the difference is I'm assuming the basic person is capable of not falling for ********. You're assuming they'll believe any lie they're told.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Absolutely if it was easier than actually loosing weight.


That's not been my experience. From the facilities near me, if they don't offer results, people stop going. And they lose business. And within a year they close.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I haven't mentioned feelings at all. I've mentioned evidence. Just that they don't have to provide evidence to someone halfway across the globe.
> 
> I think the difference is I'm assuming the basic person is capable of not falling for ********. You're assuming they'll believe any lie they're told.



Yeah. If they don't have the tools to determine truth from fiction because we support the idea than nobody has to show evidence then people will be fooled.

I mean people are fooled by exactly this every day.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> That's not been my experience. From the facilities near me, if they don't offer results, people stop going. And they lose business. And within a year they close.



But of course you don't need to show me evidence.

Now here is the problem. It has been my experience that that they thrive and I don't need to show you evidence.

And then this conversation turns to a straight up mess where we try to make a case for ourselves using just a big sack of dumb probably.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> But of course you don't need to show me evidence.
> 
> Now here is the problem. It has been my experience that that they thrive and I don't need to show you evidence.
> 
> And then this conversation turns to a straight up mess where we try to make a case for ourselves using just a big sack of dumb probably.


Except you're the one requiring evidence. I am not. I'm accepting that people will do what they do, and the free market will work itself out. You're holding yourself as some sort of authority where people need to show evidence to prove they are real.

So I guess the issue is you don't trust in the average person, and I do.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Except you're the one requiring evidence. I am not. I'm accepting that people will do what they do, and the free market will work itself out. You're holding yourself as some sort of authority where people need to show evidence to prove they are real.
> 
> So I guess the issue is you don't trust in the average person, and I do.



No. I just have a fairly consistent method of determining truth.

And planet fitness has a whole buisness model based on not being results based.

And they are very successful.

And the free market is determined by feelings. That is precisely what marketing does.

This is your truth determined by free market.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> No. I just have a fairly consistent method of determining truth.
> 
> And planet fitness has a whole buisness model based on not being results based.
> 
> And they are very successful.
> 
> And the free market is determined by feelings. That is precisely what marketing does.


Planet fitness does not promise that they will help you lose weight.

Planet fitness promises they offer the materials to help you gain muscle/lose weight.

And against this is the difference. I believe people are smart enough that the free market is based on results. You disagree, and believe it is not. Yet you seem to also believe you are the exception/somehow above others, in that you require evidence. And no one from the places nearby said dojo's also require that evidence. So it's really your own arrogance that's the issue. Which causes your issue with the free market.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Planet fitness does not promise that they will help you lose weight.
> 
> Planet fitness promises they offer the materials to help you gain muscle/lose weight.
> 
> And against this is the difference. I believe people are smart enough that the free market is based on results. You disagree, and believe it is not. Yet you seem to also believe you are the exception/somehow above others, in that you require evidence. And no one from the places nearby said dojo's also require that evidence. So it's really your own arrogance that's the issue. Which causes your issue with the free market.



Well yeah. Because I am having this conversation with someone who doesn't feel they need evidence to make decisions and that the free market will determine value based on worth. Even though you are an example of what I am trying to point out.

So I am literally the exception in this case.

And another example Goju berries.





Obviously the free market will determine that are not what is claimed an will fail. 

Well someday it might happen.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Well yeah. Because I am having this conversation with someone who doesn't feel they need evidence to make decisions and that the free market will determine value based on worth. Even though you are an example of what I am trying to point out.
> 
> So I am literally the exception in this case.
> 
> And another example Goju berries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the free market will determine that are not what is claimed an will fail.
> 
> Well someday it might happen.


I do feel I need evidence to make decisions. In this instance, I require evidence to make decisions of where I will train. I have faith that others require the same. You requiring evidence to decide where I should train is where the arrogance comes in.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> I do feel I need evidence to make decisions. In this instance, I require evidence to make decisions of where I will train. I have faith that others require the same. You requiring evidence to decide where I should train is where the arrogance comes in.



If you make a claim you should be able to show evidence for it. Or i can reasonably say what you are claiming is false. 

This is a basic building block for having a rational conversation. 

This is not dependent on how far away you are or how upset you get.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> If you make a claim you should be able to show evidence for it. Or i can reasonably say what you are claiming is false.
> 
> This is a basic building block for having a rational conversation.
> 
> This is not dependent on how far away you are or how upset you get.


Again you mention being upset. I'm not upset by any of this. I don't think anyone would be. But you're just not in the demographic of people that most people here would need to show evidence for. 

I've mentioned before: I've learned from people who are professional and amateur kickboxers, and from people who have won bb naga tournaments. I have no need to prove that to you. And it's not my place to, if my instructors do not want me sharing their info online (which I haven't asked them about). You're the same. You've mentioned learning from UFC fighters I believe, but I don't recall you ever mentioning who.

If I make a claim and say you should listen to it purely based on my instructors/lineage that absolutely you can say it is false. But if I make a claim about a technique, and you really want to learn, you have the chance to test it out for yourself and see. And then we can have a rational conversation about it, regardless of my lineage, or my MMA/kickboxing score, or anything else unrelated to the technique. @skribs is a great example of this. You mentioned the inverted backfist recently; he didn't think it would be powerful. He tested it out and found out that it is. I expect he'll test it out more in the future. At this point it really doesn't matter if you are lying about your credentials or not, you gave him something new to think about. 

And at the same time, he has no need to prove to you that his style works, because you aren't going to be a student there. But if he mentions a strike you haven't heard of, just like you did to him, and you dismiss him based on him not providing that evidence to you, you're really only hurting yourself. 

So again if you worked on your own arrogance. And became openminded the way skribs did when you offered something new. You have the potential to gain, and no potential to lose (to take the skribs example again: If he did the experiment he stated in the other thread and found that the inverted backfist sucked, and didn't practice it any further as a result, he really wouldn't lose anything from that).


----------



## skribs

kempodisciple said:


> Either way there's an assumption being made. You're either assuming that they know what they're doing outside of it, or assuming that they don't. Either way you're making a judgment on their teaching/ability based on insufficient material.
> 
> The better option, IMO, wouldn't be to judge the person teaching at all, and just the technique. So taje what they taught, whether that's eye gouging, elbows to the back, whatever, and see if you can make it work (or at least the positioning for it). If you can, add it to your toolset. If you can't look into it more. If you look into it more and still can't get it to work, don't worry about it.



I'd say that giving someone the benefit of the doubt isn't exactly the same as assuming competence.

Without trying to get into a discussion on religion, it's kind of like the difference between atheism, agnosticism, and theism. 



kempodisciple said:


> @skribs is a great example of this. You mentioned the inverted backfist recently; he didn't think it would be powerful. He tested it out and found out that it is. I expect he'll test it out more in the future. At this point it really doesn't matter if you are lying about your credentials or not, you gave him something new to think about.



And had I not produced good results, I would have posted it with the caveat "I haven't been instructed in this technique, nor really trained it, so it's still possible it's a good technique in the hands of someone who has."

Instead of "my numbers were bad, therefore this technique is crap."


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.
> 
> If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent.



Or the assumption that "the entire fighting style is built around this technique."  I've seen him say "if your entire curriculum relies on eye gouges" for the same situation you describe.  The binary all-or-nothing approach.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I do agree training certain things without understanding basics of it is a silly way to train...but..

One could also add not understanding a specific styles training methodology and berating is irksome too

Just as a point, looking to understanding an art, there is a "strike" in JKD that many who never trained JKD look at as an eye gouge, and if they have never trained it, like JKD, they may even train it as an eye gouge....and of course...it is REAL hard to apply as an eye gouge so they say that this eye gouge does not work.....of course it doesn't, it is not an eye gouge, it is strike, done quickly to gain an advantage and basically make the other person blink. If you hit them in the eye, even better as a distraction, but it is not an eye gouge.

See the same thing with the application of split in taijiquan and a version of that in xingyiquan. of course it doesn't work, they are doing it wrong. Seen videos on "YouTube" showing me int does not work, and based on teh way they are applying it, there is no way it could work. They have no understanding of the application because they never trained it or were shown how it is supposed to work. Do it right, it works, but if all you see is the form, or if all you are shown is the form, and then try and make it work, chance are it will not and then those who try and fail go off touting how useless it is, and the way they did it, they are correct. But they did it wrong and do not have the basic understanding of the application and how if is supped to work.

I expect this from the majority of the Taijquan folks out there, because they are rarely taught how things are supposed to work in application these days. I suspect this form folks from other styles too, who know nothing about it. The only one I have seen to date, that surprised the heck out of me was a xingyiquan teacher from Great Britain, who was trained in China, showing the application of Hengquan, sayin it is useless.....and he was doing it very very wrong. 

OK, I'm done, not here to teach and not going to try to change folks minds, learned my lesson about that a long time ago

peace, stay healthy


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Yeah but A can't make it work. Nobody can make it work. That is the whole point.
> 
> There are top level strikers, top level wrestlers, top level leg lock specialist, even top level fancy kick specialists. And so on for all sorts of martial skills we could conceivably want to learn.
> 
> Who are the top level eye gouges specialist?


You have used hook punch to knock down many opponents. It makes sense to teach your hook punch to your students. If you have never used side kick to knock down anybody, will you teach your side kick to your students?

Sometime an instructor may only have 1 "door guarding" move. Does that instructor only teach that move to his students?


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> Who are the top level eye gouges specialist?



I'm going with Moe Howard.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Again you mention being upset. I'm not upset by any of this. I don't think anyone would be. But you're just not in the demographic of people that most people here would need to show evidence for.
> 
> I've mentioned before: I've learned from people who are professional and amateur kickboxers, and from people who have won bb naga tournaments. I have no need to prove that to you. And it's not my place to, if my instructors do not want me sharing their info online (which I haven't asked them about). You're the same. You've mentioned learning from UFC fighters I believe, but I don't recall you ever mentioning who.
> 
> If I make a claim and say you should listen to it purely based on my instructors/lineage that absolutely you can say it is false. But if I make a claim about a technique, and you really want to learn, you have the chance to test it out for yourself and see. And then we can have a rational conversation about it, regardless of my lineage, or my MMA/kickboxing score, or anything else unrelated to the technique. @skribs is a great example of this. You mentioned the inverted backfist recently; he didn't think it would be powerful. He tested it out and found out that it is. I expect he'll test it out more in the future. At this point it really doesn't matter if you are lying about your credentials or not, you gave him something new to think about.
> 
> And at the same time, he has no need to prove to you that his style works, because you aren't going to be a student there. But if he mentions a strike you haven't heard of, just like you did to him, and you dismiss him based on him not providing that evidence to you, you're really only hurting yourself.
> 
> So again if you worked on your own arrogance. And became openminded the way skribs did when you offered something new. You have the potential to gain, and no potential to lose (to take the skribs example again: If he did the experiment he stated in the other thread and found that the inverted backfist sucked, and didn't practice it any further as a result, he really wouldn't lose anything from that).



You are arguing for a system designed to avoid truth petty much. And martial arts thrives on this concept of avoiding any sort of exposure.

And it is argued on emotion. If I wasn't so arrogant is a good example.

And you are basically arguing martial arts as a theology. Rather than a science.

If he found the back fist sucked then I would have to go out and prove my argument works. Or he could say my back fist argument is false.

I have mentioned and shown the guys I have learned from multiple times plus the name of my gym plus showing videos of my gym or myself and I do this because evidence is important to rational conversation. Because that is how we determine truth from fiction.

You are trying to set up an emotional argument to defend not equipping people with the tools to separate truth from fiction and these are the tools that allow dishonest martial arts schools to thrive in a free market.

If people were rational consumers wealth would be based on worth. But we all are not, I am not, and so we go back to these tools to try and separate our emotional responses to our logical ones so we can discussions that don't hit these theological brick walls.

Because at some point normal rational people still went out and payed good money to do this.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I'm going with Moe Howard.
> 
> View attachment 22772


----------



## Buka

kempodisciple said:


> They have nothing to gain by showing _you _the evidence. They have everything to gain by showing it to potential clients/customers.
> 
> I don't think it's a moral impasse so much as a philosophical one. I think a business will be more successful by being upfront in what it offers. In this case martial ability, and how it is/isn't effective. You seem to think a business will be more successful by lying about what it offers. Again in this case martial ability, and how it is/isn't effective.
> 
> My issue with your thinking is that eventually any business that is lying about what it has to offer will get found out, and go under. A restaurant that isn't offering quality meals will see a decrease in people showing up. A tutoring service that isn't helping their students, even if they sign a contract, will stop gaining new students and go under. A hospital that doesn't treat people well will stop having people show up there. And a martial arts studio that doesn't teach people martial arts will eventually not get new students and go under.
> 
> You seem to think that martial arts is this magic voodoo that goes against the free market, and I guess I just don't understand why.



I disagree with the statement about a martial arts studio. With a restaurant you're getting immediate feedback, with a Martial Arts school that is not always the case.

I don't visit new dojos any more, but I sure did visit a lot of them back in the day. I have known some that were so deplorably bad it boggles the mind. Yet they existed, thrived, and made sheet loads on money while teaching crap designed to make students think they were pretty awesome. And they lasted for decades. Decades.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Buka said:


> I disagree with the statement about a martial arts studio. With a restaurant you're getting immediate feedback, with a Martial Arts school that is not always the case.
> 
> I don't visit new dojos any more, but I sure did visit a lot of them back in the day. I have known some that were so deplorably bad it boggles the mind. Yet they existed, thrived, and made sheet loads on money while teaching crap designed to make students think they were pretty awesome. And they lasted for decades. Decades.



I'm currently thinking of one on route 20 near Worcester Mass


----------



## Buka

Xue Sheng said:


> I'm currently thinking of one on route 20 near Worcester Mass



I haven't been out that way in a long time. But I have a guess. And...yeah.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Nope. If the defence isn't there and they have put an eye gouge in its place that is a pretty obvious sign they don't know the defence.
> 
> And it is common. You get guys who can't fight try and trick their way out.
> 
> Like that single leg defense.


Yeah, there's that generalization again. See, I gave you a specific example of eye gouges being taught NOT as a gap-filler, but as "you could also do this here". But you believe what you believe, and that's how it's gonna stay.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which we can test by either seeing it work. Seeing it not work or having the guy who claims it works start looking for ways never to show their method.


Or, for the sake of discussions, we can just listen a bit and see if there's something useful to discuss.

You seem to think we all owe you some proof. Nobody does, except maybe the folks who train you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you make a claim you should be able to show evidence for it. Or i can reasonably say what you are claiming is false.


This is the logical fallacy you keep falling into. This is essentially argument from ignorance. It would be different if you said you choose not to believe what is said without evidence, but your stance here (and just as explicitly in other threads) is that if the evidence isn't provided (in the way you demand it), then the claim is false. "False" is not the same as "unproved".

Then you just turn loose your bias to do the rest.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is the logical fallacy you keep falling into. This is essentially argument from ignorance. It would be different if you said you choose not to believe what is said without evidence, but your stance here (and just as explicitly in other threads) is that if the evidence isn't provided (in the way you demand it), then the claim is false. "False" is not the same as "unproved".
> 
> Then you just turn loose your bias to do the rest.



Yeah but you then treat unproven as probably correct but you can't be bothered proving it rather than a load of unfounded BS. 

No evidence to support basically means it doesn't exist.

This is where we should sit when we look at your multiple unfounded allegations. And I ask you to prove it and you say it is too hard but you still walk away thinking you haven't done the wrong thing by throwing false accusations at people.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, there's that generalization again. See, I gave you a specific example of eye gouges being taught NOT as a gap-filler, but as "you could also do this here". But you believe what you believe, and that's how it's gonna stay.



This is what you said 

"It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.

If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent."

Now you can tell if someone is doing eye gouges rather than the defence because they won't do the defence. 

I just went through pages explaining this. 

So instead of doing anything at all that stops a single leg they just jam a finger in an eye and job done. 

This was the specific example I was discussing. 

I explained that eye gouges are not in themselves worthless but are a good example of the sort of half martial arts training that bugs me. 

So what point are you trying to make that in any way then relates to this discussion?

That some people don't spend lots of time training eye gouges?

Ok. Nice bit of information there.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

drop bear said:


> But mentioning the fence made me think of this. Doing a fence but not understanding distancing or angles does not work very well.



I lovely know that one.  Its instictive to put your hands out to stop somone from getting in and some of the instinctive barriers if not properly utilizied are quite shoddy.  Even more so if you dont realise you are meant to KO the person if they test the barrier.          Which would be the  half training you described, you forget you need at least the mindset to put somones head into concrete if it warrants it. (among other things, but the mindset and ability to actually follow through seems the most important)

I also dont like the usage of "train" in refrence to skills you are born with the knowledge to do.  Like you dont "train" walking.   You learn how to do it through repeated attempts once your muslces are strong enough.    You learn how to use said muslces and to maintain balance to walk.   Same with most of your instricts, you learn (or should learn) how to use them.    Probbly not the thread for it, but it sort of links into the fence as being a so-so instictive device.   Most people probably dont have to use it therefor they forget it/dont know how to utilize it to its full potetional.     Plus its my generic ramblings on specfic word usage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah but you then treat unproven as probably correct but you can't be bothered proving it rather than a load of unfounded BS.
> 
> No evidence to support basically means it doesn't exist.
> 
> This is where we should sit when we look at your multiple unfounded allegations. And I ask you to prove it and you say it is too hard but you still walk away thinking you haven't done the wrong thing by throwing false accusations at people.


And what allegations are those you are referring to?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> This is what you said
> 
> "It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.
> 
> If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent."
> 
> Now you can tell if someone is doing eye gouges rather than the defence because they won't do the defence.
> 
> I just went through pages explaining this.
> 
> So instead of doing anything at all that stops a single leg they just jam a finger in an eye and job done.
> 
> This was the specific example I was discussing.
> 
> I explained that eye gouges are not in themselves worthless but are a good example of the sort of half martial arts training that bugs me.
> 
> So what point are you trying to make that in any way then relates to this discussion?
> 
> That some people don't spend lots of time training eye gouges?
> 
> Ok. Nice bit of information there.


So, your reply to me wasn’t a reply to my comment? Got it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And what allegations are those you are referring to?



I don't have to do your homework for you.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, your reply to me wasn’t a reply to my comment? Got it.



Your comment was close enough to the topic to make me think you were contributing but vague enough to move the goal posts any time you wanted.

So I thought you were making a real point and I  addressed that rather than the weasel comments you actually made.

I mean you could show me an example of how these eye gouges are not gap fillers. But you won't of course because you train faith based. And dont feel anyone needs to be shown evidence of anything. 

And it makes it easier to just say you are the real deal when all those other guys are getting it wrong.


----------



## drop bear

An hour long video of Rokus and roy dean discussing how half a martial art basically doesn't work.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, your reply to me wasn’t a reply to my comment? Got it.



And the thing is your response isn't that uncommon. Quite often when you see martial art dominated by whatever. The first response from that art is he doesn't know the real secrets of. or. Is not training the true version.

And of course is then unwilling to ever show that true version. 

Because faith based martial arts is never obligated to validate a claim.

Which of course leaves those areas of martial arts open to charlatans. And why they get so much criticism.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't have to do your homework for you.


So, you can’t even come up with the allegations. As I expected. 

This is a weak attempt, even for you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Your comment was close enough to the topic to make me think you were contributing but vague enough to move the goal posts any time you wanted.
> 
> So I thought you were making a real point and I  addressed that rather than the weasel comments you actually made.
> 
> I mean you could show me an example of how these eye gouges are not gap fillers. But you won't of course because you train faith based. And dont feel anyone needs to be shown evidence of anything.
> 
> And it makes it easier to just say you are the real deal when all those other guys are getting it wrong.


As usual, you accuse me of moving goalposts, even as you do so, yourself. You made a specific claim, which I countered with my own experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And the thing is your response isn't that uncommon. Quite often when you see martial art dominated by whatever. The first response from that art is he doesn't know the real secrets of. or. Is not training the true version.
> 
> And of course is then unwilling to ever show that true version.
> 
> Because faith based martial arts is never obligated to validate a claim.
> 
> Which of course leaves those areas of martial arts open to charlatans. And why they get so much criticism.


Except nothing I said was at all along the lines of someone not knowing the secrets. Quite the opposite, actually. But you read it as you wanted it to read. Now, rather than doing what you think you are doing (trying to educate and correct logic, which I actually appreciate when you manage to actually approach it), your bias has you spending your energy correcting things I haven’t even said. 

A waste of effort you fall into rather a lot with me these days.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Except nothing I said was at all along the lines of someone not knowing the secrets. Quite the opposite, actually. But you read it as you wanted it to read. Now, rather than doing what you think you are doing (trying to educate and correct logic, which I actually appreciate when you manage to actually approach it), your bias has you spending your energy correcting things I haven’t even said.
> 
> A waste of effort you fall into rather a lot with me these days.



You did. You said you train the real eyegouge when everyone else's trains the unrealistic. 

It is a very common easy excuse to throw  out there with faith based systems s there is no way to know one way or another why you do.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> As usual, you accuse me of moving goalposts, even as you do so, yourself. You made a specific claim, which I countered with my own experience.



A claim you just denied.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, you can’t even come up with the allegations. As I expected.
> 
> This is a weak attempt, even for you.



You believe what you want regardless of the facts.

You are not my student it is not my duty to show evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You did. You said you train the real eyegouge when everyone else's trains the unrealistic.
> 
> It is a very common easy excuse to throw  out there with faith based systems s there is no way to know one way or another why you do.


Actually, what I said was that we don't train it much, and I don't see the value in spending more time on it. (Which, by the way, would make ME the one not knowing the "secrets", which is entirely opposite your prior assertion.) Oddly, you're arguing with me as I agreed with you that training the eye gouge as a separate thing doesn't seem to have much value.

All that is beside the point though, because I was responding to your assertion that eye gouges are taught as a diversion when someone doesn't know a defense. I was simply showing you an example of eye gouges being taught in addition to another defense. But you missed that entirely (as well as my agreement with you), because you can't even read my words anymore with assigning them a meaning not within the words.

Now, thinking about it, I can see where me saying there's not much sense training beyond "here's where you could also apply an eye gouge" is saying others aren't training the real thing. But then, how is it in any way different from your frequent assertions that people are training stuff that doesn't work?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You believe what you want regardless of the facts.
> 
> You are not my student it is not my duty to show evidence.


Interestingly, you seem to think when I make a claim (even a casual one), I should show proof. And when you make a claim about me, you also think it's my duty to disprove that.

You need never show proof. I always must. Interesting approach. Yet you claim no bias?

As for what I believe, you've yet to make a statement in the last few months that accurately reflected my beliefs. You *think* I believe things regardless of the facts, because you assume you know what I believe, regardless of my statements. You do the same thing with claims about my trainnig (even going so far as to claim I've said things you can't even hint at).

You've entirely lost your ability to spar in debates. I never really cared for you doing that, anyway, because you were more concerned with winning a point than with contributing or learning, but at least you were debating with some logic then.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Reading through these, I really think all of us training together for a month would change how we approach each other, and the debates themselves. I know that's entirely unrealistic, but it would help so much.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Interestingly, you seem to think when I make a claim (even a casual one), I should show proof. And when you make a claim about me, you also think it's my duty to disprove that.
> 
> You need never show proof. I always must. Interesting approach. Yet you claim no bias?



I honestly can't think of a single time you showed proof of anything though. So I don't think it is something you can suddenly start complaining about me not having to do it. 

I am operating to your standard. 

And surprisingly your standard suddenly becomes not good enough. 

In other words your logic is so flawed even you don't accept it.


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Reading through these, I really think all of us training together for a month would change how we approach each other, and the debates themselves. I know that's entirely unrealistic, but it would help so much.



I think there would be too much ego for that to happen. 

I mean we can't even see  a video of people's training for fear of something or other. 

But if anyone wants to we hold an open mat precisely for that reason so feel free to drop in. (Obviously after the coronavirus thing)

But yeah. I don't care about looking stupid or getting handled by people. It is part of the development.


----------



## drop bear

Anyway back on topic.

And just to show that a demo can also include the details that make a technique work. 






Someone mentioned it somewhere that they couldn't.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> I think there would be too much ego for that to happen.
> 
> I mean we can't even see  a video of people's training for fear of something or other.
> 
> But if anyone wants to we hold an open mat precisely for that reason so feel free to drop in. (Obviously after the coronavirus thing)
> 
> But yeah. I don't care about looking stupid or getting handled by people. It is part of the development.


Not sure if this is directed at me or not...but I've no issue sharing my training. I've done so via private message when people have asked for clarification in the past. I've no issue posting it on here, there just hasn't been a need (and at the moment I can't, unless you want me to show you with my sub-5ft fiancee which I'm pretty sure would prove nothing). 

But as I said, a month, or even a week, of just us training together and more importantly sparring together would do wonders. It would set the wheat from the chaff, and possibly let those who think they know what they're doing reevaluate that. And for those of us who doubt them and assume they run a mcdojo/fail to teach SD, they'd have the chance to show their techs work in person, and we'd have the chance to deny it if it sucks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I honestly can't think of a single time you showed proof of anything though. So I don't think it is something you can suddenly start complaining about me not having to do it.
> 
> I am operating to your standard.
> 
> And surprisingly your standard suddenly becomes not good enough.
> 
> In other words your logic is so flawed even you don't accept it.


I'm not saying you should provide proof. I'm saying you have a very odd notion of how proof works: I should defend my claims and disprove yours, but you needn't defend yours. Because you're convinced you're right (though you've admitted you assume lack of proof is proof of lack).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think there would be too much ego for that to happen.
> 
> I mean we can't even see  a video of people's training for fear of something or other.
> 
> But if anyone wants to we hold an open mat precisely for that reason so feel free to drop in. (Obviously after the coronavirus thing)
> 
> But yeah. I don't care about looking stupid or getting handled by people. It is part of the development.


I think there's less ego on others' parts than you imagine. I also think you and I would get along a lot better if we could get on the mats and train. As I've said before, I'd be unsurprised if you handed me my *** on the mats, as I suspect you train harder than I have in the last 15 years.

Heck, one of the most fun things to me is to find someone who can destroy me in an area where I have gotten comfortable (because I'm better than the folks around me in that area. I missed a chance to experience that with Tony when I visited him (we never actually rolled - I was too busy picking his brain on some technical bits). I suspect you're better at stand-up sparring than me, and it'd be fun to find out how much better.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Anyway back on topic.
> 
> And just to show that a demo can also include the details that make a technique work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone mentioned it somewhere that they couldn't.


What part of the world are you in Bear?


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> Not sure if this is directed at me or not...but I've no issue sharing my training. I've done so via private message when people have asked for clarification in the past. I've no issue posting it on here, there just hasn't been a need (and at the moment I can't, unless you want me to show you with my sub-5ft fiancee which I'm pretty sure would prove nothing).
> 
> But as I said, a month, or even a week, of just us training together and more importantly sparring together would do wonders. It would set the wheat from the chaff, and possibly let those who think they know what they're doing reevaluate that. And for those of us who doubt them and assume they run a mcdojo/fail to teach SD, they'd have the chance to show their techs work in person, and we'd have the chance to deny it if it sucks.


Just directed generally and I agree with you. 

It will just never happen.

People  would have to face loss or hardship. And this whole argument that has evolved is about never having to do that.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> What part of the world are you in Bear?



Australia.........


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think there's less ego on others' parts than you imagine. I also think you and I would get along a lot better if we could get on the mats and train. As I've said before, I'd be unsurprised if you handed me my *** on the mats, as I suspect you train harder than I have in the last 15 years.
> 
> Heck, one of the most fun things to me is to find someone who can destroy me in an area where I have gotten comfortable (because I'm better than the folks around me in that area. I missed a chance to experience that with Tony when I visited him (we never actually rolled - I was too busy picking his brain on some technical bits). I suspect you're better at stand-up sparring than me, and it'd be fun to find out how much better.



Too busy to roll.

Then I guess we will never know.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not saying you should provide proof. I'm saying you have a very odd notion of how proof works: I should defend my claims and disprove yours, but you needn't defend yours. Because you're convinced you're right (though you've admitted you assume lack of proof is proof of lack).



Bollocks.

I used your arguments for about 4 posts and you lost your damn mind over it.

Lack of proof is proof of lack.

"So, you can’t even come up with the allegations. As I expected. 

This is a weak attempt, even for you."


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Australia.........


That would be a bit of a drive for me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Lack of proof is proof of lack.


What kind of proof are you looking for?

Should people put up their personal clip to prove what they can do?

A: How many people have you killed?
B: I have killed many.
A: Show me the bodies.
B: ...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Too busy to roll.
> 
> Then I guess we will never know.


Yeah, I told Tony afterward that was a mistake on my part. I got too busy learning new stuff, and missed a great chance to find where he'd chew up my ground game. Too busy learning to get to the real learning. There'll be a next time, hopefully.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Lack of proof is proof of lack.


Absolute logical fallacy.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Anyway back on topic.
> 
> And just to show that a demo can also include the details that make a technique work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone mentioned it somewhere that they couldn't.



That's a 2 hour, 22 minute video.  Of course they can include all of the details.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> Absolute logical fallacy.



Compeltely off topic, but the thing i love about logical fallicies is there is a fallacy about something being a fallacy.     I am not touching this with a pole, but i thought i should mention that.      Nor am i implying anything here was or wasnt a fallacy, just relaying a amusing one, which i think people forget.   (seen too amny arguments devolve into arguing about fallacies rather than the substance. despite it being irrelivent and not for a partisan to determine most of the time)


Can somone TL;DR me the argument in question here also?   I will have a scrummage but i dont know what this most recent argument stems off from. (plus recapping at least the high notes might aid the argument)

Edit: Also for that traveling to australia comment, am i the only one who thought of the jack sparrow meme?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> Compeltely off topic, but the thing i love about logical fallicies is there is a fallacy about something being a fallacy.     I am not touching this with a pole, but i thought i should mention that.      Nor am i implying anything here was or wasnt a fallacy, just relaying a amusing one, which i think people forget.   (seen too amny arguments devolve into arguing about fallacies rather than the substance. despite it being irrelivent and not for a partisan to determine most of the time)
> 
> 
> Can somone TL;DR me the argument in question here also?   I will have a scrummage but i dont know what this most recent argument stems off from. (plus recapping at least the high notes might aid the argument)
> 
> Edit: Also for that traveling to australia comment, am i the only one who thought of the jack sparrow meme?


There’s really not a valid TL;DR version. It’s a conflict over about 4 years.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Lack of proof is proof of lack.


Sometime common sense doesn't require proof. If "groin kick, face punch" doesn't work for you, it will be your problem and not the "technique problem". You don't need any video to prove that will work.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Absolute logical fallacy.



Except when you do it. Like when I quoted you doing it and then ignored your own quote.

To then make a point unrelated to the conversation. But deceptively looks like it is related. 

You pick and choose these logical process to make the fantastical real. Which then justifies your methods. Which is fine but that doesn't make stuff work.

Stuff working makes stuff work. 

Evidence is showing stuff working. 

Then you don't need to spend more time on all this mental gymnastics than you do effectively training something that is solid.

Yeah but how am I the judge of something solid? I don't hear you ask.

It is solid because it works. And I know it works because there will be evidence of that.

It will work predictably, consistently and in a way that I can make a reasonable judgement that the whole thing isn't made up. Which I will call accountably. 

Without that method martial arts has been shown not to work. 

When we see a self defense demo that looks ridiculous and everyone tries it and it fails and the only people who say it works are people who will never show it works.

It doesn't work. 

And they are full of crap.

This is not an accusation.This is a basic method from sorting out a reputable martial artist from a fake. 

Or a false accusation from a real one.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime common sense doesn't require proof. If "groin kick, face punch" doesn't work for you, it will be your problem and not the "technique problem". You don't need any video to prove that will work.



No. 

I could potentially bash the crap out of a guy who attempt groin kick face punch because the way they have trained it has been super dumb.

They may have only trained half the martial art. (Which bugs me)

So I need a video to see if they are doing something fundamentally wrong but are successful because their training environment is a den of lies.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> That's a 2 hour, 22 minute video.  Of course they can include all of the details.



Ok. What would be the point of only including half the details and then going out there and drilling it wrong?

What, then 6 months down the track say "By the way guys all that time an effort and you still suck is because this"

Those details are why people should train with someone who has a clue what he is on about.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What kind of proof are you looking for?
> 
> Should people put up their personal clip to prove what they can do?
> 
> A: How many people have you killed?
> B: I have killed many.
> A: Show me the bodies.
> B: ...



Everyone is a beast until it is time to do what beasts do. 

So yeah. If you are some sort of killer. I want to see the bodies.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Absolute logical fallacy.



Oh. And not the way you think it is.

http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> I could potentially bash the crap out of a guy who attempt groin kick face punch because the way they have trained it has been super dumb.
> 
> They may have only trained half the martial art. (Which bugs me)
> 
> So I need a video to see if they are doing something fundamentally wrong but are successful because their training environment is a den of lies.


Sometimes you are a classic case of 'paralysis by analysis'.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Except when you do it. Like when I quoted you doing it and then ignored your own quote.
> 
> To then make a point unrelated to the conversation. But deceptively looks like it is related.
> 
> You pick and choose these logical process to make the fantastical real. Which then justifies your methods. Which is fine but that doesn't make stuff work.
> 
> Stuff working makes stuff work.
> 
> Evidence is showing stuff working.
> 
> Then you don't need to spend more time on all this mental gymnastics than you do effectively training something that is solid.
> 
> Yeah but how am I the judge of something solid? I don't hear you ask.
> 
> It is solid because it works. And I know it works because there will be evidence of that.
> 
> It will work predictably, consistently and in a way that I can make a reasonable judgement that the whole thing isn't made up. Which I will call accountably.
> 
> Without that method martial arts has been shown not to work.
> 
> When we see a self defense demo that looks ridiculous and everyone tries it and it fails and the only people who say it works are people who will never show it works.
> 
> It doesn't work.
> 
> And they are full of crap.
> 
> This is not an accusation.This is a basic method from sorting out a reputable martial artist from a fake.
> 
> Or a false accusation from a real one.


Yeah, that's a lot of words, most of them about "self defense" people, which is a dramatic over-generalization...one you apply a lot, apparently lumping me in that group (which is a valid group name for me) to show I believe things that I've never stated.

As for the rest, you've misunderstood so many of my posts - or simply ignored the intent in them and picked the meaning you wish - that your other claims here simply attack stances I don't actually hold. Then there's your misunderstanding of what logical fallacies are, and when someone is simply pointing out to you an argument you think you've made but actually haven't. ::Whoosh::

I really like you. I love what you're trying to do. I just wish you'd try to do it in areas where you're addressing actual beliefs and practices of mine. That might be helpful to me. This? This is just an amusment to watch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. What would be the point of only including half the details and then going out there and drilling it wrong?
> 
> What, then 6 months down the track say "By the way guys all that time an effort and you still suck is because this"
> 
> Those details are why people should train with someone who has a clue what he is on about.


I think his point was that you can't spend 2 1/2 hours explaining all those details in every demo that's done. If the demo is an intro to a topic, folks aren't in a position yet to digest all of that (like if you were showing me how to do a triangle choke, for instance). And in a comprehensive curriculum, that information (if it's included) usually isn't presented all in one spot, but is distribtued through the curriculum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Everyone is a beast until it is time to do what beasts do.
> 
> So yeah. If you are some sort of killer. I want to see the bodies.


I haven't seen claims of that sort of thing around here in a long time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Oh. And not the way you think it is.
> 
> http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence


You seem to again have made an assumption about my thoughts, because nothing I saw in a quick perusal of that link was surprising to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> Sometimes you are a classic case of 'paralysis by analysis'.


I don't think he is. Heck, I'd be more likely to fall into that trap, because I love digging around in stuff to see what the bits and minutae are. I think DB is more direct than that in his training.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, that's a lot of words, most of them about "self defense" people, which is a dramatic over-generalization...one you apply a lot, apparently lumping me in that group (which is a valid group name for me) to show I believe things that I've never stated.
> 
> As for the rest, you've misunderstood so many of my posts - or simply ignored the intent in them and picked the meaning you wish - that your other claims here simply attack stances I don't actually hold. Then there's your misunderstanding of what logical fallacies are, and when someone is simply pointing out to you an argument you think you've made but actually haven't. ::Whoosh::
> 
> I really like you. I love what you're trying to do. I just wish you'd try to do it in areas where you're addressing actual beliefs and practices of mine. That might be helpful to me. This? This is just an amusment to watch.



You are a specific example of that group. You teach self defense but do not have reasonable first hand experience.

You do not really understand the subject.

But you take second  information and anecdotes, use them to hypothesize a conclusion with incredibly flawed logic and then re brand that as expert knowledge.

And more importantly you are not alone in that so the anecdotes you receive are quite often the results of that process as well. Skewing your whole system in to basically a series of urban myths.


And what you wind up with is street punch. A concept that is ludicrous but you defend to the death.

Where you take a punch you haven't used, so therefore don't know how to apply that is a pretty sub standard strike anyway.

Then create a specific defense for that strike.

Then change your students striking habits from something that defeats that defense to something that won't.

Now then I can pretty much guarantee you don't put on a set of 16's and say to you students "come at me"

You slow the punch down. Make the punch predictable and about as emasculated as a technique can get and train the defence for that.

And then use that success as proof of claim. With Mabye that one time that one guy didn't die in a street fight.


And it is not good enough. It is not developing a self defense skill.

And you train in a subject set of martial arts (self defense) that has such a high proportion of out right garbage and yet refuse to lift yourself above that and cry mock indignation when people who understand the subject look suspiciously at it.

Everyone is upset when I say MMA all the time. But it is easy to find good MMA. It is easy to find ethical MMA. You can tell through evidence if MMA is bad. 

The amount of straight up garbage I have to wade through of incompetents and charlatans I would have to wade though to find good self defense is astronomical. 

And that is for someone who has fought people on the street for over a decade. I can it imagine how a novice manages.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't think he is. Heck, I'd be more likely to fall into that trap, because I love digging around in stuff to see what the bits and minutae are. I think DB is more direct than that in his training.



I think fighting is many layered. So really good fighters have this immense depth which makes their stuff work when my stuff doesn't. 

Which is again the title.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You seem to again have made an assumption about my thoughts, because nothing I saw in a quick perusal of that link was surprising to me.



If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? *No.*



But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

So say when I look for good aikido and only find bad aikido. I can have confidence that there is bad aikido unless shown otherwise.

Not this weird idea of looking at all the evidence that isn't there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I haven't seen claims of that sort of thing around here in a long time.



He asked the question.


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> I think his point was that you can't spend 2 1/2 hours explaining all those details in every demo that's done. If the demo is an intro to a topic, folks aren't in a position yet to digest all of that (like if you were showing me how to do a triangle choke, for instance). And in a comprehensive curriculum, that information (if it's included) usually isn't presented all in one spot, but is distribtued through the curriculum.



Exactly.  It becomes a burden to produce.  The longer a video is, it's going to take exponentially longer to produce it.  Longer to write everything that goes into it to make sure it's all presented in a cohesive order, longer to cut and edit the video for final production.  Unless you just do one long seminar, which would also require a lot of preparation time (and most of those tend to ramble on and get into rabbit trails).  That extra time will have diminishing returns on the effectiveness of the demonstration.

I'm kind of curious to do an experiment.  Post videos of MMA guys or combat sport guys (i.e. boxing, BJJ, Judo, wrestling), but edit the title of the video and cut out any mention of what their experience is.  Replace the title with something like "traditional karate self defense".  And then watch as these gung-ho MMA jocks rip it apart because of everything they don't put into the video.  Because something I've noticed is that every criticism I see of a TMA video, I also see the same things happening in MMA videos.  (Compliant training partners, techniques done at half speed, etc.).


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> Exactly.  It becomes a burden to produce.  The longer a video is, it's going to take exponentially longer to produce it.  Longer to write everything that goes into it to make sure it's all presented in a cohesive order, longer to cut and edit the video for final production.  Unless you just do one long seminar, which would also require a lot of preparation time (and most of those tend to ramble on and get into rabbit trails).  That extra time will have diminishing returns on the effectiveness of the demonstration.
> 
> I'm kind of curious to do an experiment.  Post videos of MMA guys or combat sport guys (i.e. boxing, BJJ, Judo, wrestling), but edit the title of the video and cut out any mention of what their experience is.  Replace the title with something like "traditional karate self defense".  And then watch as these gung-ho MMA jocks rip it apart because of everything they don't put into the video.  Because something I've noticed is that every criticism I see of a TMA video, I also see the same things happening in MMA videos.  (Compliant training partners, techniques done at half speed, etc.).



Then do it and prove your point. Don't just invent a story about it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are a specific example of that group. You teach self defense but do not have reasonable first hand experience.
> 
> You do not really understand the subject.
> 
> But you take second  information and anecdotes, use them to hypothesize a conclusion with incredibly flawed logic and then re brand that as expert knowledge.
> 
> And more importantly you are not alone in that so the anecdotes you receive are quite often the results of that process as well. Skewing your whole system in to basically a series of urban myths.
> 
> 
> And what you wind up with is street punch. A concept that is ludicrous but you defend to the death.
> 
> Where you take a punch you haven't used, so therefore don't know how to apply that is a pretty sub standard strike anyway.
> 
> Then create a specific defense for that strike.
> 
> Then change your students striking habits from something that defeats that defense to something that won't.
> 
> Now then I can pretty much guarantee you don't put on a set of 16's and say to you students "come at me"
> 
> You slow the punch down. Make the punch predictable and about as emasculated as a technique can get and train the defence for that.
> 
> And then use that success as proof of claim. With Mabye that one time that one guy didn't die in a street fight.
> 
> 
> And it is not good enough. It is not developing a self defense skill.
> 
> And you train in a subject set of martial arts (self defense) that has such a high proportion of out right garbage and yet refuse to lift yourself above that and cry mock indignation when people who understand the subject look suspiciously at it.
> 
> Everyone is upset when I say MMA all the time. But it is easy to find good MMA. It is easy to find ethical MMA. You can tell through evidence if MMA is bad.
> 
> The amount of straight up garbage I have to wade through of incompetents and charlatans I would have to wade though to find good self defense is astronomical.
> 
> And that is for someone who has fought people on the street for over a decade. I can it imagine how a novice manages.


Yeah, there are more misunderstandings and assumptions (some.of which you should know better than, since we have discussed them).

Self defense is the purpose, not the skill. You start from a view that doesn't recognize that, and this skews all of your arguments flowing from that base supposition. 

Several other points in there are just you taking a piece of training and treating it like the whole. Which I've mentioned more than once to you recently. You're stuck, and I don't know how to help.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? *No.*
> 
> 
> 
> But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".
> 
> So say when I look for good aikido and only find bad aikido. I can have confidence that there is bad aikido unless shown otherwise.
> 
> Not this weird idea of looking at all the evidence that isn't there.


You are correct that you can assume there is bad Aikido, based on that. You might even be excused for assuming there is ONLY bad Aikido, though that would not be solid logic (I'm the formal sense)...but it's not a major flaw for a working assumption. 

I was specifically referring to your relatively recent statements to the effect that if I don't show you evidence of specific things in my training, you can assume those things aren't in there. That's flawed in major ways, since you've seen exactly zero of my training so far as I know, so certainly haven't enough evidence upon which to base even a working assumption of that nature. 

Yet you do, and proudly so. 

And, on top of that, you continue to talk about what I do as being quite similar to the Aikido you've seen. Which it quite likely isn't.  But don't worry about that. You're biased by the word "Aikido", and it blinds you. I'm used to it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> He asked the question.


Yes. But your response seems to address a claim.not in evidence.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Then do it and prove your point. Don't just invent a story about it.



I presented a hypothesis.  You seem so hell-bent on everyone proving everything, you should probably know the basic scientific model.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> bad Aikido,...


- Aikido is bad because the wrist control give your opponent too much freedom.
- Bagua system is bad because you cross your legs during circle walking.
- long fist system is bad because most of the movement is too big to be practical.
- SC system is bad because it doesn't have ground game.
- boxing is bad because a boxer doesn't know how to kick.
- ...

There is nothing wrong to say a MA system is bad as long as you can give a good reason for it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, there are more misunderstandings and assumptions (some.of which you should know better than, since we have discussed them).
> 
> Self defense is the purpose, not the skill. You start from a view that doesn't recognize that, and this skews all of your arguments flowing from that base supposition.
> 
> Several other points in there are just you taking a piece of training and treating it like the whole. Which I've mentioned more than once to you recently. You're stuck, and I don't know how to help.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And, on top of that, you continue to talk about what I do as being quite similar to the Aikido you've seen. Which it quite likely isn't. But don't worry about that. You're biased by the word "Aikido", and it blinds you. I'm used to it.



Oh. The real aikido. Not that stuff that doesn't work on you tube.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Aikido is bad because the wrist control give your opponent too much freedom.
> - Bagua system is bad because you cross your legs during circle walking.
> - long fist system is bad because most of the movement is too big to be practical.
> - SC system is bad because it doesn't have ground game.
> - boxing is bad because a boxer doesn't know how to kick.
> - ...
> 
> There is nothing wrong to say a MA system is bad as long as you can give a good reason for it.


And are talking about the right system. Which he actually isn't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


>


Not really sure what Krav Maga has to do with me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Oh. The real aikido. Not that stuff that doesn't work on you tube.


Well, for starters, try the actual name of the base art I teach (Nihon Goshin Aikido, which isn't the same system). And then try discussing my actual curriculum, which is actually less aiki than any I'm aware of. So, no, not "the real Aikido". My Aikido. Not at all the same thing. What amuses me is I've actually told you this before, as well as what some of the differences are. This amuses me, because most of those differences are because I agree with your assessment of most of the Aikido I've seen. So I do things differently. 

What you're doing would be like someone ragging on MMA because boxing doesn't teach kick defenses.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Then do it and prove your point. Don't just invent a story about it.


You are tiring bear.
What is it that you think is so special and mystic in MMA that 'works' that is not in many, many other MA's? You obsession with video borders on illogical. We all know there is video proof of good AND bad in ALL styles if a person wants to spend that much looking for it. Because MMA is much more overt and newer there is much more content which, of course, skews using video for Proof of data. Come on man, you have proven this logic over and over in your ranting. 
You love your style. We all get it and that is a Good thing. It gives you no right or reason to run down every rabbit hole of everyone's else's style. What is your point? It has been totally lost on me. 
That said, if you (or anyone) see a new person on the forum or in person who is going down the wrong road, by all means do your best to steer them in the right direction. 

I do not know if you know this analogy but you have been 'beating a dead horse' for way too long.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

To be fair, i think the point of contention for aikido (and for tai chi and things like those two)  is, they dont really focus on actually fighting someone.     Yet there is a bloc of people (more so in some than others) which thinks it does heavily focus on that.    That just seems like they are lying to themselves or missed the point of the style or what it has evolved into.   Many things arent the same as they were say 50 years ago, or even 10 or 5.

If i get the ideology right for aikido, isnt the point meant to be not to hurt the person you are fighting?    That just seems like loonacy in my eyes, and a secondary expressed purpose seems to be largely for spirtual devolopment using martial arts.   Again presuming said info is right.   So that means it shouldnt be on the first to do list for anyone after something for fighting. (which no one disputes, kind of like saying to do boxing when somone wants to throw people and joint lock them)

Then we get into how you name what ever system you do, the name you give something is quite important and what words you use.   If you use aikido for example, it will be viewed as at least similar to Aikido aikido.   Likewise if i stated i taught boxing, that would be associated with the sport of boxing, so people who wanted puglism wouldnt come to me, and people who wanted boxing would find out its not boxing. 


Not entirely sure of the relivence though, that just seems to be the big point of contetion with it, and thats people are trying to say its something its not and get it to work for something it wasnt meant to work for.  Which lets be fair, there is a lot of proof by now, by itself aikido now days doesnt really work for fighting.     Im not even going to get into how you can ID a joint lock common in several systems as belonging soley to one though. 


Note:   I did a TL;DR again, plus i wanted some clarfication on the underlying ideology/principle/goal of Aikdio.    Also seems like a fair assessment, along with MMA like Sports in general being a competition to see who is better in a fairly sterile enviorment on that day than the competitors in the action(s) at hand.


----------



## skribs

Rat said:


> To be fair, i think the point of contention for aikido (and for tai chi and things like those two)  is, they dont really focus on actually fighting someone.     Yet there is a bloc of people (more so in some than others) which thinks it does heavily focus on that.    That just seems like they are lying to themselves or missed the point of the style or what it has evolved into.   Many things arent the same as they were say 50 years ago, or even 10 or 5.
> 
> If i get the ideology right for aikido, isnt the point meant to be not to hurt the person you are fighting?    That just seems like loonacy in my eyes, and a secondary expressed purpose seems to be largely for spirtual devolopment using martial arts.   Again presuming said info is right.   So that means it shouldnt be on the first to do list for anyone after something for fighting. (which no one disputes, kind of like saying to do boxing when somone wants to throw people and joint lock them)
> 
> Then we get into how you name what ever system you do, the name you give something is quite important and what words you use.   If you use aikido for example, it will be viewed as at least similar to Aikido aikido.   Likewise if i stated i taught boxing, that would be associated with the sport of boxing, so people who wanted puglism wouldnt come to me, and people who wanted boxing would find out its not boxing.
> 
> 
> Not entirely sure of the relivence though, that just seems to be the big point of contetion with it, and thats people are trying to say its something its not and get it to work for something it wasnt meant to work for.  Which lets be fair, there is a lot of proof by now, by itself aikido now days doesnt really work for fighting.     Im not even going to get into how you can ID a joint lock common in several systems as belonging soley to one though.
> 
> 
> Note:   I did a TL;DR again, plus i wanted some clarfication on the underlying ideology/principle/goal of Aikdio.    Also seems like a fair assessment, along with MMA like Sports in general being a competition to see who is better in a fairly sterile enviorment on that day than the competitors in the action(s) at hand.



The problem is you're making generalizations and applying it to every school that does Aikido.  There are some schools and lineages (of which I believe Gerry's is one) that seek to put the fighting back in Aikido, and actually train against an opponent.

To say "you train aikido, so you don't actually fight," without knowing anything about the way the individual or their school trains, is to make an inference.  It's an assumption about what you don't know, based on related facts you do know.  Those assumptions are usually safe to make, as long as you recognize them for what they are - assumptions.  It's safe to assume that an aikido school doesn't spar.  If an aikido practitioner says they do spar at their school, it's now a safe assumption to assume that they do.  You can discuss with them how live the sparring is (they may think they're sparring because they have a partner), but you now have new information to base your opinion on their school.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

skribs said:


> There are some schools and lineages (of which I believe Gerry's is one) that seek to put the fighting back in Aikido, and actually train against an opponent


Actually Gerry's art isn't a lineage of what most people call Aikido (Morohei Ueshiba's art). It just happens to share part of the same name. It's a cousin, in that it's partially derived from Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, but it's also partially derived from Judo, so you could say it's a cousin of BJJ in the same way.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tony Dismukes said:


> Actually Gerry's art isn't a lineage of what most people call Aikido (Morohei Ueshiba's art). It just happens to share part of the same name. It's a cousin, in that it's partially derived from Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, but it's also partially derived from Judo, so you could say it's a cousin of BJJ in the same way.



Sounds kind of incestuous...


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not really sure what Krav Maga has to do with me.



It is a generic issue with self defense instruction.

You of course train the real deal so won't have those issues.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> You are tiring bear.
> What is it that you think is so special and mystic in MMA that 'works' that is not in many, many other MA's? You obsession with video borders on illogical. We all know there is video proof of good AND bad in ALL styles if a person wants to spend that much looking for it. Because MMA is much more overt and newer there is much more content which, of course, skews using video for Proof of data. Come on man, you have proven this logic over and over in your ranting.
> You love your style. We all get it and that is a Good thing. It gives you no right or reason to run down every rabbit hole of everyone's else's style. What is your point? It has been totally lost on me.
> That said, if you (or anyone) see a new person on the forum or in person who is going down the wrong road, by all means do your best to steer them in the right direction.
> 
> I do not know if you know this analogy but you have been 'beating a dead horse' for way too long.



Mma works because it is trained with more integrity and accountability. That is pretty much the secret sauce there. And when you see other arts start to train in that manner they get better.

That Geoff Thornton video touches on that. As soon as those Krav guys started training with integrity they got better dramatically. 

If we were to compare this good and bad video proof theory you have it just doesn't work. There is consistently good video proof from reputable instructors in evidence based styles. 

There is consistently bad video proof in faith based styles like self defense. And that bad video is supported with bad anecdotal and bad hypothesis. 

I see no reason to have to delicately tip toe around the inflated egos of people just because their training is geared towards that. 

I see no reason to support systems that are designed to hide truth from fiction. 

I don't love my style. Integrity and accountability just achieves better results.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Well, for starters, try the actual name of the base art I teach (Nihon Goshin Aikido, which isn't the same system). And then try discussing my actual curriculum, which is actually less aiki than any I'm aware of. So, no, not "the real Aikido". My Aikido. Not at all the same thing. What amuses me is I've actually told you this before, as well as what some of the differences are. This amuses me, because most of those differences are because I agree with your assessment of most of the Aikido I've seen. So I do things differently.
> 
> What you're doing would be like someone ragging on MMA because boxing doesn't teach kick defenses.



My assessment on aikido is not based on a stylistic brand issue. They either train alive with integrity and accountability against quality guys or they don't.

It is a very basic concept that underlies martial arts that work.

There is no evidence you train in that manner.

Arts that don't train with integrity will still tell you that they are the different breed of hard fighting super competent whatever. Which is an easy claim to make because we will never see evidence either way.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> I see no reason to have to delicately tip toe around the inflated egos of people



Considering you have the second-highest inflated ego of anyone else on this forum, I find this statement incredibly ironic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> What you're doing would be like someone ragging on MMA because boxing doesn't teach kick defenses.


It's amazing that nobody wants to talk about when a boxer throws a cross, his whole upper body is open for a front kick. The boxing guard just doesn't cover his body at all.

Does boxers know how to deal with low roundhouse kick, foot sweep, or knee stomp? I don't think so.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> There is no evidence you train in that manner.



I have no evidence that you train in that manner.  Therefore, you don't train in that manner.  Therefore, you are a hypocrite.


----------



## skribs

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's amazing that nobody wants to talk about when a boxer throws a cross, his whole upper body is open for a front kick. The boxing guard just doesn't cover his body at all.


This is the kind of thing I was talking about (I don't remember if it was this thread or another).  MMA and other combat sport guys are so quick to point out every opening in an instruction-speed video, and yet the sport arts have the same "problems".


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> Considering you have the second-highest inflated ego of anyone else on this forum, I find this statement incredibly ironic.



Not at all. I may appear that way because I am arguing real things are real and made up things are made up.

And if you are in to Crystal healing and I crush all your dreams by explaining that there is no science to it and choose almost anything else as a more viable alternative. You will assume it is arrogant because it will seem we are not arguing on equal footing. 

I mean how can I just say there is no evidence it works. When you have just spent all this time explaining your expertise on chakras or something. It is incredibly arrogant.

Exept when we are separating fact from fiction. In which case unfortunately fact always has the upper hand.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's amazing that nobody wants to talk about when a boxer throws a cross, his whole upper body is open for a front kick. The boxing guard just doesn't cover his body at all.
> 
> Does boxers know how to deal with low roundhouse kick (or foot sweep)? I don't think so.



Because it was another GPseymor straight up off topic straw man?


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> I have no evidence that you train in that manner.  Therefore, you don't train in that manner.  Therefore, you are a hypocrite.



So on one hand we have a poster that says I put up too many videos and one that says I don't show evidence.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Because it was another GPseymor straight up off topic straw man?


I have broken a boxer's ribs and dropped him in front of me. I have also used "knee stomp" on a boxer and make him dance. A boxer (not a MMA guy) doesn't train those kicking defense and they have no idea how to deal with it.

Boxers don't know how to deal with kick, sweep, knee stomp is just like a non-BJJ guy doesn't know ground game. There is no difference there.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have broken a boxer's ribs and dropped him in front of me. I have also used "knee stomp" on a boxer and make him dance. A boxer (not a MMA guy) doesn't train those kicking defense and they have no idea how to deal with it.
> 
> Boxers don't know how to deal with kick, sweep, knee stomp is just like a non-BJJ guy doesn't know ground game. There is no difference there.



Nice to know. Not sure what that has to do with training with authenticity.

Or training all of a martial art.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Not sure what that has to do with training with authenticity.
> 
> Or training all of a martial art.


You have to develop your skill step by step before you can integrate it. MMA is the final integrated stage. Not all MA system has reached to that level of integration yet.

Even the Combat SC has integrated kick, punch, lock, and throw. The ground game still has not been fully integrated yet.

"Training 1/2 of MA" is only the intermediate step (such as a boxer does know kick). It should not be the final step.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Does average boxers know how to deal with this? 

Dirty? Dishonest? We are talking about fighting here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> To be fair, i think the point of contention for aikido (and for tai chi and things like those two)  is, they dont really focus on actually fighting someone.     Yet there is a bloc of people (more so in some than others) which thinks it does heavily focus on that.    That just seems like they are lying to themselves or missed the point of the style or what it has evolved into.   Many things arent the same as they were say 50 years ago, or even 10 or 5.
> 
> If i get the ideology right for aikido, isnt the point meant to be not to hurt the person you are fighting?    That just seems like loonacy in my eyes, and a secondary expressed purpose seems to be largely for spirtual devolopment using martial arts.   Again presuming said info is right.   So that means it shouldnt be on the first to do list for anyone after something for fighting. (which no one disputes, kind of like saying to do boxing when somone wants to throw people and joint lock them)
> 
> Then we get into how you name what ever system you do, the name you give something is quite important and what words you use.   If you use aikido for example, it will be viewed as at least similar to Aikido aikido.   Likewise if i stated i taught boxing, that would be associated with the sport of boxing, so people who wanted puglism wouldnt come to me, and people who wanted boxing would find out its not boxing.
> 
> 
> Not entirely sure of the relivence though, that just seems to be the big point of contetion with it, and thats people are trying to say its something its not and get it to work for something it wasnt meant to work for.  Which lets be fair, there is a lot of proof by now, by itself aikido now days doesnt really work for fighting.     Im not even going to get into how you can ID a joint lock common in several systems as belonging soley to one though.
> 
> 
> Note:   I did a TL;DR again, plus i wanted some clarfication on the underlying ideology/principle/goal of Aikdio.    Also seems like a fair assessment, along with MMA like Sports in general being a competition to see who is better in a fairly sterile enviorment on that day than the competitors in the action(s) at hand.


I may have missed a point in that post,so if I leave something out, let me know. 

First, we need disambiguation. The most common usage of "Aikido" refers to Ueshiba's art.  However, it is also a recognized family of arts as designated by the Dai Niippon Buttoku-kai. In fact, Aikido Korindo is the name of the art led by the person in charge of that section of the DNBK at the time. 

Now, to your thoughts. Later in his career, Ueshiba did teach that his art was about peace and not harming. That was apparently not a philosophy found in his early teaching, and his classes had a reputation for being a bit rough. 

Some in other parts of the aikido world (including some in Nihon Goshin Aikido) have picked up that philosophy, but so far as I can tell it was not part of NGA originally. It certainly isn't part of my teachings.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> The problem is you're making generalizations and applying it to every school that does Aikido.  There are some schools and lineages (of which I believe Gerry's is one) that seek to put the fighting back in Aikido, and actually train against an opponent.
> 
> To say "you train aikido, so you don't actually fight," without knowing anything about the way the individual or their school trains, is to make an inference.  It's an assumption about what you don't know, based on related facts you do know.  Those assumptions are usually safe to make, as long as you recognize them for what they are - assumptions.  It's safe to assume that an aikido school doesn't spar.  If an aikido practitioner says they do spar at their school, it's now a safe assumption to assume that they do.  You can discuss with them how live the sparring is (they may think they're sparring because they have a partner), but you now have new information to base your opinion on their school.


I think you said something I was trying to get at earlier. When I go to an Aikido school, my working assumption going in is that they train passively in the classical style (I have a hedged version of that same assumption when visiting an NGA dojo). It's a reasonable assumption until I receive better information, and it usually serves me well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Sounds kind of incestuous...


You've no idea.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is a generic issue with self defense instruction.
> 
> You of course train the real deal so won't have those issues.


You are the one who goes for the "real deal" claims. I just tell you how I teach. There are plenty who would argue what I teach isn't really Aikido. 

What you're doing is like saying MMA is claiming to be "the real boxing".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because it was another GPseymor straight up off topic straw man?


You've absolutely no idea what a straw man is in logical argument, do you?


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Mma works because it is trained with more integrity and accountability. That is pretty much the secret sauce there. And when you see other arts start to train in that manner they get better.
> 
> That Geoff Thornton video touches on that. As soon as those Krav guys started training with integrity they got better dramatically.
> 
> If we were to compare this good and bad video proof theory you have it just doesn't work. There is consistently good video proof from reputable instructors in evidence based styles.
> 
> There is consistently bad video proof in faith based styles like self defense. And that bad video is supported with bad anecdotal and bad hypothesis.
> 
> I see no reason to have to delicately tip toe around the inflated egos of people just because their training is geared towards that.
> 
> I see no reason to support systems that are designed to hide truth from fiction.
> 
> I don't love my style. Integrity and accountability just achieves better results.


But you do see that is the rub don't you? MMA is not the Only thing that works.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Not at all. I may appear that way because I am arguing real things are real and made up things are made up.



No, you appear that way because you take the role of arbiter of all martial arts.

And because your logic is about as sound as a feather hitting a pillow in a vacuum.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> No, you appear that way because you take the role of arbiter of all martial arts.
> 
> And because your logic is about as sound as a feather hitting a pillow in a vacuum.



A because in a vacuum a feather falls as fast as a bowling ball so hits harder?


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> But you do see that is the rub don't you? MMA is not the Only thing that works.



Correct TMA works. I have said this a few times. But you can't generalize TMA and then take credit for its success if you are using a completely different method. 

If machida uses karate that doesn't make all karate good. You still have to train it ethically. 

I mean for example bjj is taking great strides in self defense especially now with police. But that doesn't mean all self defense works.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You've absolutely no idea what a straw man is in logical argument, do you?



Where you take a point I didn't make and argue against that rather than argue my actual point. 

So say if I suggested that a style that really only includes half the details to make a technique work bugs me. You say boxing some how has no way of protecting the body when they punch so I am wrong. 

Because there are not body shots in boxing or something. 

But that would be a straw man.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You are the one who goes for the "real deal" claims. I just tell you how I teach. There are plenty who would argue what I teach isn't really Aikido.
> 
> What you're doing is like saying MMA is claiming to be "the real boxing".



No I am not claiming that. You are making up straw man arguments to suit yourself. (See explanation above of what a straw man is)

Nobody knows what you teach. You have been very careful about concealing that. And so you can make any claim you want. But that is all it is a claim. It is essentially worthless without something to support it.

Now you give that claim worth because it benefits you. If people have faith then you get support. So faith is the ultimate driver in your logic.

I work on evidence so faith based claims have a lot less worth.

Richard Dawkins defined both methods where he was asked if science and faith are opposing beliefs why is a bias towards science acceptable?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does average boxers know how to deal with this?
> 
> Dirty? Dishonest? We are talking about fighting here.



The problem with hypothetical fights in the street is they are hypothetical. A boxer runs him over in a car. Because we are talking about fighting here.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have to develop your skill step by step before you can integrate it. MMA is the final integrated stage. Not all MA system has reached to that level of integration yet.
> 
> Even the Combat SC has integrated kick, punch, lock, and throw. The ground game still has not been fully integrated yet.
> 
> "Training 1/2 of MA" is only the intermediate step (such as a boxer does know kick). It should not be the final step.



No it is much more accurately described like a boxer not knowing how to punch.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You've absolutely no idea what a straw man is in logical argument, do you?



So for example I have heard this theory from Aikido guys somewhere. That whatever throw doesn't work. He just doesn't give the energy or sort of clams up if say you are angling to grab a wrist or something. 

And the solution becomes something like yeah but we have striking to compensate for that situation. 

So then I ask so you are competent at striking say at Mabye a first or second fight ammy boxer competent?

And this is where things fall apart. 

Instead of being the sort of aikido guy that I have found videos of actually being able to make things work. They are the sort of aikido guy who makes excuses and creates hypothetical situations. 

That would be an example of faith based vs evidence based.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> No it is much more accurately described like a boxer not knowing how to punch.


You have confused me.

Do we agree that

- boxer knows how to punch.
- TKD guy knows how to kick.
- wrestler knows how to take down.
- BJJ guy knows ground game?

Where is our disagreement here?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> That would be an example of faith based vs evidence based.


If you can move back faster than I can move forward, there is no way that any of my MA technique can work on you. Does that mean my MA training is worthless? Can I prove my MA work when that happen? I can't. Will I lose faith in my MA training? I won't.

Faith base - if my opponent attacks me, I'll have chance to apply my MA skill.
Evidence base - if my opponent runs away from me, my MA skill won't work.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You have confused me.
> 
> Do we agree that
> 
> - boxer knows how to punch.
> - TKD guy knows how to kick.
> - wrestler knows how to take down.
> - BJJ guy knows ground game?
> 
> Where is our disagreement here?



These people know how to do their individual disciplines because they have a depth of knowledge in applying them.

Boxers don't just know how to punch.

Boxers know how to manage distance, and move, how to bait people, how to move their heads and so on. 

And because they know that they punch more effectively than someone who knows how to punch.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> These people know how to do their individual disciplines because they have a depth of knowledge in applying them.
> 
> Boxers don't just know how to punch.
> 
> Boxers know how to manage distance, and move, how to bait people, how to move their heads and so on.
> 
> And because they know that they punch more effectively than someone who knows how to punch.


Agree with you everything that you have said here.

What's your definition of "1/2 MA"?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can move back faster than I can move forward, there is no way that any of my MA technique can work on you. Does that mean my MA training is worthless? Can I prove my MA work when that happen? I can't. Will I lose faith in my MA training? I won't.
> 
> Faith base - if my opponent attacks me, I'll have chance to apply my MA skill.
> Evidence base - if my opponent runs away from me, my MA skill won't work.



There are very few people who can beat me in a running race if they are running backwards and I am running forwards.

Faith based are these things like being told it only takes 30lbs of pressure to break a knee. And then the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone is when they are trying to kill you.


----------



## JP3

Not to get involved in the fun & games you guys are having, but I wanted to toss an anecdote in...

   I tried, a couple of times, to inject sparring, in a real sense, into my aikido school/curriculum.  My student's didn't care for it.  I mean, I'd been at the TKD school recently enough and had some kid ask if I wanted to spar, and I asked him if he only wanted to TKD spar since my own game was rusty with disuse, but I could "do other stuff" if he was cool with it.  He was, just asking me to "not break anything," to which I said, "It's much more likely just to be frustrating to one of us and that person will probably fall down more than be bruised."

So, we did. Kid was pretty good, strong,  quick and explosive kicks, agile in that way I vaguely remember being, myself. LOL!  I did prove something to myself again, that the mind keeps track of things even when the body is going in the ditch, fitness-speaking.  It was fun.  He went head-hunting, which I gently disabused him was going to be easy with a couple simple rising deflections, taking his balance off of the support leg in a manner totally illegal to my experience in typical TKD sparring... unless I've missed a rules change recently.  As he'd be correccting his balance, I'd have done something like an arm drag, or circle step while linked to him to get to his back.... a few times until he caught the timing of it I had him in standing hadakajime (rear naked).  He got that part figured out, so I change it up on him again.  He was touch-tapping me some... but I was staying a bit farther away from him than he was used to, until he'd overextend and I could close. Sometimes to judo distance. I loaded him on a couple things but didn't throw.  It was a good time.  Was he going 100%, of course not. Was I, again... of course not.  Did I learn much... well, not really, as I'd learned most of what I'd used back in my own TKD days and was just applying that knowledge differently. But... did he? Of course.  At least, I think he did. Maybe he just put me down as "a cheater" and went about his day.

But, I never did get my own aikido class folks to buy intot he idea.  I think it's actually "because" of the name, aikido. Preconceptions are used to decide "what  we want to do" as much as "what we are doing."  I finally gave it up.

Though, I'd still mess around with other school's guys if asked at their places.  If it wasn't a Rambo gym where'd I'd get on the mat to learn and share and someone would try to pull my arms off or very seriously try to poke me in the eye.  I've only got the one working eye, so my built-in redundancy went away.

All right, go back to the efficacy discussion...


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you everything that you have said here.
> 
> What's your definition of "1/2 MA"?



Ok. Here is a video of aikido striking. And the striking looks ok.






But they are standing in the wrong place to receive strikes. (At the 12 o'clock and directly in arms reach.) 

 So when a strike comes at them fast they have a greatly reduced chance of making anything work regardless how perfect their striking is. 

These little details is why you see a martial artist who has trained for years get eaten alive by a fighter who has trained for six months.  

And it bugs me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> And then the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone is when they are trying to kill you..


You can also say that "the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone, you break that guy's knee."

I don't like the attitude that the world is so dangerous that everybody all try to beat me up.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Ok. Here is a video of aikido striking. And the striking looks ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they are standing in the wrong place to receive strikes. (At the 12 o'clock and directly in arms reach.)
> 
> So when a strike comes at them fast they have a greatly reduced chance of making anything work regardless how perfect their striking is.
> 
> These little details is why you see a martial artist who has trained for years get eaten alive by a fighter who has trained for six months.
> 
> We have seen what happens when people go live at like 20%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it bugs me.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can also say that "the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone, you break that guy's knee."
> 
> I don't like the attitude that the world is so dangerous that everybody all try to beat me up.



Yeah. I managed to mostly not cripple guys I fought.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> when they are trying to kill you.


Again, I try not to live in a scary world that everybody all try to kill me. The day when I found out that I could scare others, I don't get scare that easy any more. If you pull out a .38, I'll pull out a .44 magnum.

One time I got someone in a head lock in the street in Hawaii, the guy screamed, "Please, Please don't kill me."

One night I (A long hair China man with leather jacket and blue jean) stood in a dark street alley of Rio de Janeiro, Everybody walked on the other side of the street and tried to keep distance away from me.

One time I was in a taxi from Taipei airport. The taxi driver asked me (a long hair China man) what I was doing in Taiwan. I joked about and said, "I come to help my friend to take care some personal business". Just about 3 days ago, the head of the 4 seas Chinese gang leader was killed by an assassin hired from outside Taiwan. The Taxi driver thought I was that assassin. When I paid him my taxi fare, he didn't take my money, and left quickly.

Sometime I don't know who is more scary, a long hair China man,







or a bold head white guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But you can't generalize TMA and then take credit for its success


But you can generalize whatever you like, apparently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Where you take a point I didn't make and argue against that rather than argue my actual point.
> 
> So say if I suggested that a style that really only includes half the details to make a technique work bugs me. You say boxing some how has no way of protecting the body when they punch so I am wrong.
> 
> Because there are not body shots in boxing or something.
> 
> But that would be a straw man.


Yeah, that's not a strawman. It's an analogy. Entirely different things.

So, yeah, you don't really know what a strawman is. You gave a reasonable definition, but then an example that's entirely not that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No I am not claiming that. You are making up straw man arguments to suit yourself. (See explanation above of what a straw man is)
> 
> Nobody knows what you teach. You have been very careful about concealing that. And so you can make any claim you want. But that is all it is a claim. It is essentially worthless without something to support it.
> 
> Now you give that claim worth because it benefits you. If people have faith then you get support. So faith is the ultimate driver in your logic.
> 
> I work on evidence so faith based claims have a lot less worth.
> 
> Richard Dawkins defined both methods where he was asked if science and faith are opposing beliefs why is a bias towards science acceptable?


Again, using the word "like" indicates (in the English language, all variants and dialects I'm aware of) the presence of a simile, which is a specific kind of metaphor. Metaphors can be poor metaphors, but they are not strawman arguments.

As for the rest, I've discussed on several occasions some of my training and teaching techniques. I'm not sure how you get me not filming something as "hiding". If I had video pertinent to discussions, I'd share it. But I don't. I've never bothered to film more than small bits of training, and none of those ended up showing anything much useful, so I haven't kept them.

You think you work on evidence. What you work on is deep confirmation bias. You accept the evidence you like (both positive and negative), and tend to discard or distort the evidence that doesn't fit you bias.

You have a great message about changes that could be made to some training practices. Unfortunately, your delivery completely buries the message for most folks. And you've gotten worse. 4 years ago, you made more cogent arguments and presented things in a way that was somewhat more objective (unless the word Aikido came up, then your bias entirely took over, but at least it was confined to that).

As for whether people suppor me or not, why would I care? I teach a very few students at a time. So long as they are progressing in the ways they wish, I'm happy. If they aren't, then I help them look for someplace that serves their needs better. You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of personal passion about what I do............without really bothering to know what I do. Odd, that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So for example I have heard this theory from Aikido guys somewhere. That whatever throw doesn't work. He just doesn't give the energy or sort of clams up if say you are angling to grab a wrist or something.
> 
> And the solution becomes something like yeah but we have striking to compensate for that situation.
> 
> So then I ask so you are competent at striking say at Mabye a first or second fight ammy boxer competent?
> 
> And this is where things fall apart.
> 
> Instead of being the sort of aikido guy that I have found videos of actually being able to make things work. They are the sort of aikido guy who makes excuses and creates hypothetical situations.
> 
> That would be an example of faith based vs evidence based.


I recall you saying not too long ago that training with resistance was the important thing. That competition was best, but resistance in the school is part of the way there.

Now you're saying that to be judged competent at striking, someone has to be at a specific level in boxing (or, I presume, some other official competition). I think we've had this ridiculous argument before. 

As for the rest, at the time we were actually talking about something you and I agree on, though your bias makes you unable to recognize it. I don't think most of the techniques in Aikido are well suited to fighting situations. In my opinion, they are for training movement and control principles that work best when backed by solid basics.

So, yes, the right input is needed (that's not unique to the aiki arts - can't single-leg in a situation where a single-leg isn't a good fit, either). And, yes, striking is one of the other answers (so is Judo-style grappling, among other things). It's not so much about compensation, as a set of tools. The aiki areas are training other ways to put the basic tools to work.

But, yeah, go ahead and reword my statements to make them say what you want. It's easier for you than challenging your own bias by actually reading for understanding. You disappoint.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> A because in a vacuum a feather falls as fast as a bowling ball so hits harder?



Sound.  The sound it makes.  You can't make sound inside a vacuum.  Since the metaphor was too much for you, let me put it this way: your logic is not sound.  It's not as poetic, but it's hopefully said in such a way that even you can understand it.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> These people know how to do their individual disciplines because they have a depth of knowledge in applying them.
> 
> Boxers don't just know how to punch.
> 
> Boxers know how to manage distance, and move, how to bait people, how to move their heads and so on.
> 
> And because they know that they punch more effectively than someone who knows how to punch.



By your logic, you should appreciate a lot more of the arts than you do.  Because I've never taken a boxing lesson in my life, and I know all of these "extra" things you think is somehow unique to boxing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> how to move their heads ...


When your opponent punches at you, you can:

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (your opponent can punch you again).
2. Block, wrap, and ...  (your opponent cannot punch you again).

IMO, 1 < 2.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> These little details is why you see a martial artist who has trained for years get eaten alive by a fighter who has trained for six months.
> 
> And it bugs me.


If nobody trains how to fight, and you are the only person who trains how to fight, you should have easy time to deal with those "1/2 MA" guys. 

If I have riffle and my opponent only have knife, I won't tell my opponent that my hot weapon is more power than his cold weapon.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If nobody trains how to fight, and you are the only person who trains how to fight, you should have easy time to deal with those "1/2 MA" guys.
> 
> If I have riffle and my opponent only have knife, I won't tell my opponent that my hot weapon is more power than his cold weapon.



Iron sharpens iron. The better you are the better I am.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I recall you saying not too long ago that training with resistance was the important thing. That competition was best, but resistance in the school is part of the way there.
> 
> Now you're saying that to be judged competent at striking, someone has to be at a specific level in boxing (or, I presume, some other official competition). I think we've had this ridiculous argument before.



No we have had this argument before. You can do some pretty terrible resisted training from within your own school if you are not open to outside influence.

So you could be sneaky and say you do resisted training or even sparring or even mma. But if we don't have a level to compare it to. Then it is a claim that could mean anything.

So if someone makes that claim I would ask for further information. 

There is sparring and there is sparring. 

And it's level of competency greatly effects the feedback. 

You can't jump on the mat and kramer a bunch of guys and be able to make a truthful climate of competency.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, yes, the right input is needed (that's not unique to the aiki arts - can't single-leg in a situation where a single-leg isn't a good fit, either). And, yes, striking is one of the other answers (so is Judo-style grappling, among other things). It's not so much about compensation, as a set of tools. The aiki areas are training other ways to put the basic tools to work.
> 
> But, yeah, go ahead and reword my statements to make them say what you want. It's easier for you than challenging your own bias by actually reading for understanding. You disappoint.



No I am saying this is a culture issue. So for whatever reason you can't do the technique. And instead of fixing the technique so you can or changing the technique so it works. Someone will invent a clever logical story about how it would work if only whatever.

It is of course dishonest. 

Then we can claim a technique works without ever having to show evidence. 

So basically if they are striking and you are striking and you use shots to set up a throw. That is a claim you can make that striking is this viable thing. 

But if they are not striking and you suddenly bend the rules and add striking it is a cheap ego stroking way of winning without ever having to develop yourself to where you learn the technique. 

It is a very common argument that is almost always used as a fallacy.

It is how martial artists create an environment that produces deceptive results.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> By your logic, you should appreciate a lot more of the arts than you do.  Because I've never taken a boxing lesson in my life, and I know all of these "extra" things you think is somehow unique to boxing.



I wouldn't know. I have never seen you box. So you could be good. You could be terrible.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> Sound.  The sound it makes.  You can't make sound inside a vacuum.  Since the metaphor was too much for you, let me put it this way: your logic is not sound.  It's not as poetic, but it's hopefully said in such a way that even you can understand it.



It was a bad metaphor. Just let it go.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent punches at you, you can:
> 
> 1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (your opponent can punch you again).
> 2. Block, wrap, and ...  (your opponent cannot punch you again).
> 
> IMO, 1 < 2.


IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No we have had this argument before. You can do some pretty terrible resisted training from within your own school if you are not open to outside influence.
> 
> So you could be sneaky and say you do resisted training or even sparring or even mma. But if we don't have a level to compare it to. Then it is a claim that could mean anything.
> 
> So if someone makes that claim I would ask for further information.
> 
> There is sparring and there is sparring.
> 
> And it's level of competency greatly effects the feedback.
> 
> You can't jump on the mat and kramer a bunch of guys and be able to make a truthful climate of competency.


And we've talked about the contiuum of outside influence available, too. You seem to be once again in binary mode, where "best" and "worst" are all that exist. I actually agree that live contests and actual fights (including self-defense) are the best for verifying skill. They are also among the most dangerous. Everything is compromises, mate. There is no single "best" in this.

We've discussed some of who I've trained with in the past, but you're blind to the advantages of being in the room with them, though you talk a fair amount about the value of having some of those folks in the room. It makes you tough to talk to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No I am saying this is a culture issue. So for whatever reason you can't do the technique. And instead of fixing the technique so you can or changing the technique so it works. Someone will invent a clever logical story about how it would work if only whatever.


In some cases, they may actually be right. There are techinques that are complete crap until you actually do them right and in a situation where they make sense. Pretty much all techniques, really. But sometimes folks are making apologies for something when it'd be better to just admit it's a fun technique that has limited application.



> It is of course dishonest.


Only if they know it to be untrue. There's a difference between being wrong and being dishonest.



> So basically if they are striking and you are striking and you use shots to set up a throw. That is a claim you can make that striking is this viable thing.
> 
> But if they are not striking and you suddenly bend the rules and add striking it is a cheap ego stroking way of winning without ever having to develop yourself to where you learn the technique.
> 
> It is a very common argument that is almost always used as a fallacy.
> 
> It is how martial artists create an environment that produces deceptive results.


Yeah, that would be a misleading chain. Are you implying that's what I do - use striking when they aren't, to get results that are unrealistic? If so, you've pretty much misunderstood everything I've said about the importance of strikes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It was a bad metaphor. Just let it go.


Ah, you do know what a metaphor is.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.


I like #1 best. Rule #1 should be 'don't get hit'. I know that is not always practical but it is best case scenario.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.


It's a simple "mind set". When your opponent punches at you, do you think about

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (temporary solution)? or
2. Block, wrap, and ... (long term solution)

The issue is if you don't try hard to achieve 2, you will never reach it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's a simple "mind set". When your opponent punches at you, do you think about
> 
> 1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (temporary solution)? or
> 2. Block, wrap, and ... (long term solution)
> 
> The issue is if you don't try hard to achieve 2, you will never reach it.


I think this more depends on if you're mainly a grappler or a striker. If I block, wrap, etc. then I'm now entangled with the person, which works if we're around the same grappling ability or I'm better. If they're better, I screwed myself. If I dodge by moving my head, nothing is preventing me from throwing out a strike at the exact same time.


----------



## isshinryuronin

gpseymour said:


> IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> When your opponent punches at you, you can:
> 
> 1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (your opponent can punch you again).
> 2. Block, wrap, and ...  (your opponent cannot punch you again).
> 
> IMO, 1 < 2.


Perhaps I'm missing something, but why not do both?  Can't you slip/slide-step off-line from the attack, AND at the same time block & grab/trap/wrap or otherwise Immobilize?  You are then in the best position to control and counter.  Seems like the thing to do.  No need to choose between evasion and engagement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

isshinryuronin said:


> Perhaps I'm missing something, but why not do both?  Can't you slip/slide-step off-line from the attack, AND at the same time block & grab/trap/wrap or otherwise Immobilize?  You are then in the best position to control and counter.  Seems like the thing to do.  No need to choose between evasion and engagement.


When your opponent attacks you, at that moment, you can either

- reduce the distance by moving in, or
- increase the distance by moving away.

I believe it's a binary choice there.

You don't want to repeat the following pattern and waste time and energy:

- Your opponent moves in, you move back.
- You move in, your opponent moves back.

You want to create a head on collision. Your opponent moves in, you move in at the same time. This way, you only have to move in 1/2 way. Your opponent will move in the other 1/2 way for you.

Your opponent attacks you, you attack him at the same time. Either you win, or you lose. It's just as simple as that.

In the following clip, you can see that the moment that your opponent starts to dodge and move around, the fight can take a long time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> But you can generalize whatever you like, apparently.



Show me where I have generalized?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And we've talked about the contiuum of outside influence available, too. You seem to be once again in binary mode, where "best" and "worst" are all that exist. I actually agree that live contests and actual fights (including self-defense) are the best for verifying skill. They are also among the most dangerous. Everything is compromises, mate. There is no single "best" in this.
> 
> We've discussed some of who I've trained with in the past, but you're blind to the advantages of being in the room with them, though you talk a fair amount about the value of having some of those folks in the room. It makes you tough to talk to.



No. It is completely unknown when you say sparring or resisted training what you mean. 

And you do that on purpose.

You have created another weasel word. 

There is a single best here. And that is evidence of what level you spar at. That is better than no evidence. Better than weasel words. Better than hypotheticals, stories and rationalisations.

This is binary. 

Something is better than nothing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, that would be a misleading chain. Are you implying that's what I do - use striking when they aren't, to get results that are unrealistic? If so, you've pretty much misunderstood everything I've said about the importance of strikes.



To use striking in the manner suggested you have to win the striking exchange. Not just dab at the concept. Which basically means you have to box at some point with guys who have half an idea on how to fight. 

Is that something you do,


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And we've talked about the contiuum of outside influence available, too. You seem to be once again in binary mode, where "best" and "worst" are all that exist. I actually agree that live contests and actual fights (including self-defense) are the best for verifying skill.



Ok. So when we look at videos of mat Thornton, rokus and my own experience. You will see this consistent idea that an average blue belt generally handles everyone who walks in the door regardless as to their previous experience. 

The Mat Thornton one is quite specific and it shows high level krav maga guys being schooled in basically krav maga. By people with about a year of training. 


What this is designed to point out is If I am a high level krav guy. And my method works because sparring or resisted training. I may be getting a false result as the collective standard really isn't there. 

I have a lot more success with techniques when I spar people who can't fight. I do not use those sparring sessions to justify consistency of success.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Again, I try not to live in a scary world that everybody all try to kill me. The day when I found out that I could scare others, I don't get scare that easy any more. If you pull out a .38, I'll pull out a .44 magnum.
> 
> One time I got someone in a head lock in the street in Hawaii, the guy screamed, "Please, Please don't kill me."
> 
> One night I (A long hair China man with leather jacket and blue jean) stood in a dark street alley of Rio de Janeiro, Everybody walked on the other side of the street and tried to keep distance away from me.
> 
> One time I was in a taxi from Taipei airport. The taxi driver asked me (a long hair China man) what I was doing in Taiwan. I joked about and said, "I come to help my friend to take care some personal business". Just about 3 days ago, the head of the 4 seas Chinese gang leader was killed by an assassin hired from outside Taiwan. The Taxi driver thought I was that assassin. When I paid him my taxi fare, he didn't take my money, and left quickly.
> 
> Sometime I don't know who is more scary, a long hair China man,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or a bold head white guy.



Bald headed white guy obviously.

They are sexier as well.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Actually Gerry's art isn't a lineage of what most people call Aikido (Morohei Ueshiba's art). It just happens to share part of the same name. It's a cousin, in that it's partially derived from Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, but it's also partially derived from Judo, so you could say it's a cousin of BJJ in the same way.



Yeah. But that would be like saying traditional jujitsu is like judo. 

Just with more Kata and no emphasis on live training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's a simple "mind set". When your opponent punches at you, do you think about
> 
> 1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (temporary solution)? or
> 2. Block, wrap, and ... (long term solution)
> 
> The issue is if you don't try hard to achieve 2, you will never reach it.


I don't think it's an "or" situation. Which I'm looking for depends on the situation. If they're coming with competent movement and good power, I'm not going to wade in for an arm wrap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I think this more depends on if you're mainly a grappler or a striker. If I block, wrap, etc. then I'm now entangled with the person, which works if we're around the same grappling ability or I'm better. If they're better, I screwed myself. If I dodge by moving my head, nothing is preventing me from throwing out a strike at the exact same time.


My first NGA instructor's main tenet was, "If they want to box, I'll grapple. If they want to grapple, I'll box." It's essentially the same thing your'e saying here: don't play to their strengths if you're not stronger there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

isshinryuronin said:


> Perhaps I'm missing something, but why not do both?  Can't you slip/slide-step off-line from the attack, AND at the same time block & grab/trap/wrap or otherwise Immobilize?  You are then in the best position to control and counter.  Seems like the thing to do.  No need to choose between evasion and engagement.


Yes. He presented it as a choice, so I went with his set-up. But you're right. If I slip in off-line, I'm probably trying to get in for some tight grappling, and wrapping an arm is one way to transition into it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Show me where I have generalized?


Maybe all those places in this thread where you talk about problems with self-defense schools. Or those places where you've talked about problems with Aikido, even generalizing it to the whole branch of arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. It is completely unknown when you say sparring or resisted training what you mean.
> 
> And you do that on purpose.
> 
> You have created another weasel word.
> 
> There is a single best here. And that is evidence of what level you spar at. That is better than no evidence. Better than weasel words. Better than hypotheticals, stories and rationalisations.
> 
> This is binary.
> 
> Something is better than nothing.


You're hilarious. Now "sparring" is a weasel word??? Next you'll be saying "fight" is a weasel word, because people mean different things by it. Dude, you're being obnoxious in your attempt to make me wrong. You REALLY REALLY have a bug up your butt about my training. I don't know what's so personal about it to you, but it's hilarious.

Yeah, there's a continuum. If you want to know what I mean by it, you're always free to ask.

And no, it's not binary. There is no single best.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> To use striking in the manner suggested you have to win the striking exchange. Not just dab at the concept. Which basically means you have to box at some point with guys who have half an idea on how to fight.
> 
> Is that something you do,


My first NGA instructor was a former Golden Gloves boxer. My second and third instructors were both trained by him. I've had training partners who were experienced competitors in other combat sports. I've taken the time to spar with a few folks who were also experienced in combat sports. This is all stuff you should already know, since I've told it to you before. 

I never bothered to compete, because it never interested me. I wish I had, looking back, because I'd have profited by the experience. But I'm not an inept striker, as you seem to have assumed (based on whatever you've imagined).

But because I teach with a self-defense orientation, using a base art that has the word Aikido in it, you assume I'm something without evidence. Because bias.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. So when we look at videos of mat Thornton, rokus and my own experience. You will see this consistent idea that an average blue belt generally handles everyone who walks in the door regardless as to their previous experience.
> 
> The Mat Thornton one is quite specific and it shows high level krav maga guys being schooled in basically krav maga. By people with about a year of training.
> 
> 
> What this is designed to point out is If I am a high level krav guy. And my method works because sparring or resisted training. I may be getting a false result as the collective standard really isn't there.
> 
> I have a lot more success with techniques when I spar people who can't fight. I do not use those sparring sessions to justify consistency of success.


OK


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> My first NGA instructor's main tenet was, "If they want to box, I'll grapple. If they want to grapple, I'll box." It's essentially the same thing your'e saying here: don't play to their strengths if you're not stronger there.


I'd agree with that, but only if you're good at both.

I'm not a good grappler, so my solution is to make them want to grapple, while I strike, and avoid the grappling attempts. Learned that from a judo/sambo school that did 1 hour sparring a night rather than, y'know, just learning the art like a good little boy should.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I'd agree with that, but only if you're good at both.
> 
> I'm not a good grappler, so my solution is to make them want to grapple, while I strike, and avoid the grappling attempts. Learned that from a judo/sambo school that did 1 hour sparring a night rather than, y'know, just learning the art like a good little boy should.


He was a former Golden Gloves boxer, and most of his training after college was in grappling, so he was really comfortable on both sides. I'm more of a grappler at heart, but have worked enough on my striking to be comfortable crossing to that side against a grappler, if only to help create openings or control space until I enter.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> He was a former Golden Gloves boxer, and most of his training after college was in grappling, so he was really comfortable on both sides. I'm more of a grappler at heart, but have worked enough on my striking to be comfortable crossing to that side against a grappler, if only to help create openings or control space until I enter.


That makes sense. If you're good at both that's the idea. But if you do have a specialty, finding a way to make use of it is often smarter than trying to change your style based on the opponents.


----------



## isshinryuronin

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But that would be like saying traditional jujitsu is like judo.
> Just with more Kata and no emphasis on live training.



While Daito Ryu has a fairly recent history, its hybrid components stretch back a few hundred years, encompassing the warring Samurai years, if my limited knowledge of this art is correct.  This was a time of military martial arts when the combatants wore armor, rendering striking less effective.  So, hand to hand combat entailed more ju-jutsu/aikido-like techniques utilizing locks, throws and breaks.  (Admittedly, modern aikido and judo are watered down.)  Being military in nature, and not just civil combat, death or maiming was the desired result.  Just something to think about when discussing the roots of certain arts.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> What this is designed to point out is If I am a high level krav guy. And my method works because sparring or resisted training. I may be getting a false result as the collective standard really isn't there.
> 
> I have a lot more success with techniques when I spar people who can't fight. I do not use those sparring sessions to justify consistency of success.



This is logical thinking and part of where your bias comes from I think. Even within your own training/sparring you omit the bad sessions. 
You have to admit there is bad MMA out there. Simply, some people can and some people cannot perform well no matter what the format. But you never include this in the averages when you do your samplings/analytics. It is apparent that your data is Always only from the good/great MMA and from the bad TMA. How is this accurate?

I am a long time TKD guy with a great track record in competition. Never once did I think our sparring rules/format were the 'end all' best for all situations. No such thing exist. The same can be said of boxing or wrestling (generalists) down to your specifics of choice. Just like in your style there are rules you have to abide by. 
Your style is an evolution and amalgamation of all it's precedent's. A good thing. Bashing where your style evolved from is counterproductive and down right illogical. Everything done in MMA originated from somewhere else. This is undisputed.

I find it curious that I Only hear such rhetoric from MMA guys for the most part. Of course if I go to Sherdog or some other MMA forum that is about all you hear. I do not know where the 'us against the rest of the MA world' thinking got started but it is an engrained, fundamental part of your style that is a useless component. A lot of time wasted there.  

Believe me, I understand the 'getting up' for a match mentality. Training your energy and aggression into an ally and usable tool was a long process for me because I had a Lot of anger and aggression. Why does MMA make this so overt? I certainly remember the times before a match when I thought I was going to pop and had to reel things back to stay within the ruleset. I get it. 
Possibly you have not been on both the winning side And losing side of competition/training to understand both have there place and value.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're hilarious. Now "sparring" is a weasel word??? Next you'll be saying "fight" is a weasel word, because people mean different things by it. Dude, you're being obnoxious in your attempt to make me wrong. You REALLY REALLY have a bug up your butt about my training. I don't know what's so personal about it to you, but it's hilarious.
> 
> Yeah, there's a continuum. If you want to know what I mean by it, you're always free to ask.
> 
> And no, it's not binary. There is no single best.



It is awkward for me these days to understand faith based training and the mental gymnastics that go in to justifying it. 

It would be the same if you were advocating healing crystals with no evidence.

I honestly just don't understand how you develop without a method of discerning truth from fiction.

And outrage isn't a counter argument. It is unfortunate that you are upset but that does not make me wrong. 

"Yeah, there's a continuum. If you want to know what I mean by it, you're always free to ask."

Ok. At what level do you spar?

Do you have a video?


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> This is logical thinking and part of where your bias comes from I think. Even within your own training/sparring you omit the bad sessions.
> You have to admit there is bad MMA out there. Simply, some people can and some people cannot perform well no matter what the format. But you never include this in the averages when you do your samplings/analytics. It is apparent that your data is Always only from the good/great MMA and from the bad TMA. How is this accurate?



The top mma guys don't do bad MMA though because it is self regulating. Who are the top five self defense guys? Who have they fought?

And no I separate good evidence based training from bad faith based training. That is why the TMA always looks bad. There is good TMA. But they will generally train evidence based. 

Now it is just easier to find faith based training in TMA and self defense than a sports combat system. This is because of your denial to adopt a process that separates fact from fiction.

There is bad MMA but it is easy to tell bad MMA without having to jump through all these apparent hoops that people have created to disguise bad faith based martial arts.


----------



## drop bear

isshinryuronin said:


> While Daito Ryu has a fairly recent history, its hybrid components stretch back a few hundred years, encompassing the warring Samurai years, if my limited knowledge of this art is correct.  This was a time of military martial arts when the combatants wore armor, rendering striking less effective.  So, hand to hand combat entailed more ju-jutsu/aikido-like techniques utilizing locks, throws and breaks.  (Admittedly, modern aikido and judo are watered down.)  Being military in nature, and not just civil combat, death or maiming was the desired result.  Just something to think about when discussing the roots of certain arts.



For the purpose of this discussion I just want to see it work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> For the purpose of this discussion I just want to see it work.


Agree with you 100% there. Spar or wrestle 15 rounds and record the result is always a good evidence based.

Testing, testing, and more testing. Is that what we have heard on TV everyday?

Besides general testing, the special testing is also important. In the following clip. the testing rule is:

- If A can punch on B's head, A wins that round.
- If B can obtain a head lock on A before A's punch can land on B's head, B wins that rounds.

In this test, the result is 3-0 and B wins.







I have always believed that you may repeat partner drill 10,000 times, but without testing, that technique is still not yours.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> I find it curious that I Only hear such rhetoric from MMA guys for the most part. Of course if I go to Sherdog or some other MMA forum that is about all you hear. I do not know where the 'us against the rest of the MA world' thinking got started but it is an engrained, fundamental part of your style that is a useless component. A lot of time wasted there.



A lot of time being ripped off and lied to by con artists in an environment that positively supports that process by refusing to hold themselves accountable. 

Look up the aikido vs mma video and follow that process. Many of us go from martial arts that promise everything and deliver nothing.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Spare or wrestle for 15 rounds and record the result is always a good evidence based.
> 
> Testing, testing, and more testing. Is that what we can hear on TV everyday?



Yeah. That works.

As I said I can link you to a karate school that trains honestly. That is what Facebook is for.

Fitzroy Martial Arts

Does karate work?
Yes.

Look at the videos. See evidence. And the question is answered in one post.

That would be an example of an ethical school.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> The top mma guys don't do bad MMA though because it is self regulating. Who are the top five self defense guys? Who have they fought?
> 
> And no I separate good evidence based training from bad faith based training. That is why the TMA always looks bad. There is good TMA. But they will generally train evidence based.
> 
> Now it is just easier to find faith based training in TMA and self defense than a sports combat system. This is because of your denial to adopt a process that separates fact from fiction.
> 
> There is bad MMA but it is easy to tell bad MMA without having to jump through all these apparent hoops that people have created to disguise bad faith based martial arts.



There is a huge difference between lack of knowledge and 'faith based'. I have never heard that term in regards to MA's from anyone or anywhere else. Something it appears you use to support your argument. If there was consistent validity it may hold water. The hard fact is Everything you hang your hat on originated from TMA or a derivative. Yes, there is crap in all styles/systems, including MMA but there is no escaping this fact. So condemning that which creates you is beyond ludicrous. That you only involve the 'evidence' you choose to use supports the fact that your argument does not hold water much of the time. Some of the time? Yes. All of the time? A foolish assertion and assumption that you have wholly bought into, I assume you are heavily influenced by your piers and environment. Not uncommon but still wrong.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dvcochran said:


> 'faith based'. I have never heard that term in regards to MA's from anyone or anywhere else.


When I was 11, my brother in law taught me to dig a small hole. I stood inside the hole and tried to jump up. The hole was so small that I could only bend my knee 1/2 way. My brother in law told me that if I could jump out of that hole when the depth was about my chest height, I should have no problem to jump on top of the roof. He also told me that his father could do it. Also one of his brothers could do it too. Since he could not do it (to prove in front of my eyes), I lose faith in that training method.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> There is a huge difference between lack of knowledge and 'faith based'. I have never heard that term in regards to MA's from anyone or anywhere else. Something it appears you use to support your argument. If there was consistent validity it may hold water. The hard fact is Everything you hang your hat on originated from TMA or a derivative. Yes, there is crap in all styles/systems, including MMA but there is no escaping this fact. So condemning that which creates you is beyond ludicrous. That you only involve the 'evidence' you choose to use supports the fact that your argument does not hold water much of the time. Some of the time? Yes. All of the time? A foolish assertion and assumption that you have wholly bought into, I assume you are heavily influenced by your piers and environment. Not uncommon but still wrong.



So if the term faith based was a more popular term you would accept it?

Because of faith?

And nobody else produces evidence. You argued against having to produce any at all. Instead hoping that the free market. (Popular opinion) would support valid claims over invalid ones. A hope that is based again on faith.

I am having conversation with people who refuse to think rationally about this subject.

Maybe you are more familiar with the term bullcrap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is awkward for me these days to understand faith based training and the mental gymnastics that go in to justifying it.
> 
> It would be the same if you were advocating healing crystals with no evidence.
> 
> I honestly just don't understand how you develop without a method of discerning truth from fiction.
> 
> And outrage isn't a counter argument. It is unfortunate that you are upset but that does not make me wrong.
> 
> "Yeah, there's a continuum. If you want to know what I mean by it, you're always free to ask."
> 
> Ok. At what level do you spar?
> 
> Do you have a video?


Firstly, I’m wondering where you get “I’m upset” from “hilarious”. Or are you just assigning me the emotion you want me to have, just as you’ve been assigning me the training you want me to have?

To the rest...nope, no video. It has never seemed important to me to have any. I’ve certainly missed some opportunities to analyze. 

But I’ve sparred. Mostly light, mostly technical. Occasionally at moderate intensity or higher. Rarely at full contact levels. Probably about the same levels most common everywhere else. Mostly for a chance to see what works and where I’m vulnerable. And more striking than grappling. When it’s grappling, more groundwork than standing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> For the purpose of this discussion I just want to see it work.


Why?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A lot of time being ripped off and lied to by con artists in an environment that positively supports that process by refusing to hold themselves accountable.
> 
> Look up the aikido vs mma video and follow that process. Many of us go from martial arts that promise everything and deliver nothing.


So you assume others do that, too?


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Sometime I don't know who is more scary, a long hair China man,
> 
> 
> or a bold head white guy.


Vin Diesel is white?????


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> My first NGA instructor's main tenet was, "If they want to box, I'll grapple. If they want to grapple, I'll box." It's essentially the same thing your'e saying here: don't play to their strengths if you're not stronger there.


This presumes that you are competent to control the situation.  This post seems to illustrate the crux of the discussion perfectly.  I may desire to control the spacing and the distancing.  Whether I am competent to do that will depend on how I train.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> There is a huge difference between lack of knowledge and 'faith based'. I have never heard that term in regards to MA's from anyone or anywhere else. Something it appears you use to support your argument. If there was consistent validity it may hold water. The hard fact is Everything you hang your hat on originated from TMA or a derivative. Yes, there is crap in all styles/systems, including MMA but there is no escaping this fact. So condemning that which creates you is beyond ludicrous. That you only involve the 'evidence' you choose to use supports the fact that your argument does not hold water much of the time. Some of the time? Yes. All of the time? A foolish assertion and assumption that you have wholly bought into, I assume you are heavily influenced by your piers and environment. Not uncommon but still wrong.


So, by your logic, all martial arts training is good?  Come on, man. 

The difference between lack of knowledge and faith based has two components.  You are one and the person from whom you're learning is the other.  The expiration date for expertise in a practical skill is just one or two short generations.  This may sound repetitive to some here, but this applies to literally any practical skill.  If you are learning from someone who does something... a plumber, a carpenter, a boxer, a pilot, a surgeon, and then you do that thing, you will eventually become competent, and may even become an expert.  In martial arts, when someone says they learned something from someone who was special forces, a cop, a golden gloves boxer, or fought in the kumite, that's a red flag for me if that person is not also special forces, a cop, a boxer, etc. where they will also apply those skills in context.  

When someone says they learned from someone who learned from someone who was special forces, etc, that is a HUGE red flag.  That's like learning to fly a plane from someone who's never actually flown a plane.  Or learning surgery from someone who's never performed a surgery.  Or learning to plumb a house from someone who's never actually plumbed a house.  Can we all agree that most planes can fly?  Can we agree that there are people who can competently fly planes?  That's analogous to saying that TMAs are the root of MMA.  It's a red herring.

So, when you talk about origins, I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique.  Just like it's irrelevant to talk about whether a toilet can be installed correctly vs whether YOU can install a toilet correctly.  And the more complex the tasks, the higher the cost of failure, and the more urgent the tasks are, the more critical this becomes.  Replacing a toilet is relatively easy.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> My first NGA instructor was a former Golden Gloves boxer. My second and third instructors were both trained by him. I've had training partners who were experienced competitors in other combat sports. I've taken the time to spar with a few folks who were also experienced in combat sports. This is all stuff you should already know, since I've told it to you before.
> 
> I never bothered to compete, because it never interested me. I wish I had, looking back, because I'd have profited by the experience. But I'm not an inept striker, as you seem to have assumed (based on whatever you've imagined).
> 
> But because I teach with a self-defense orientation, using a base art that has the word Aikido in it, you assume I'm something without evidence. Because bias.



So you were trained by a guy who was trained by a guy who won? A golden gloves? Just competed in a golden gloves?

And you "sparred"  a guy who was "experienced" in "combat sports"?

And this is some sort of definitive answer.?

And this golden gloves?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Firstly, I’m wondering where you get “I’m upset” from “hilarious”. Or are you just assigning me the emotion you want me to have, just as you’ve been assigning me the training you want me to have?
> 
> To the rest...nope, no video. It has never seemed important to me to have any. I’ve certainly missed some opportunities to analyze.
> 
> But I’ve sparred. Mostly light, mostly technical. Occasionally at moderate intensity or higher. Rarely at full contact levels. Probably about the same levels most common everywhere else. Mostly for a chance to see what works and where I’m vulnerable. And more striking than grappling. When it’s grappling, more groundwork than standing.



"You're hilarious. Now "sparring" is a weasel word??? Next you'll be saying "fight" is a weasel word, because people mean different things by it. Dude, you're being obnoxious in your attempt to make me wrong. You REALLY REALLY have a bug up your butt about my training. I don't know what's so personal about it to you, but it's hilarious."

That reads like you are upset. With all the personal attacks and lack of an actual point about your use of weasel words. 

When you combine "hilarious"  with "you are being obnoxious" it looks like you are trying to distract my point rather than counter my point. 

So I may be hilarious and even obnoxious but according to you that does not make me wrong.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Why?



Because the OP,s topic is based on functionality. So the wide and varied history of an art is irrelevant.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So you assume others do that, too?



There are red flags. Weasel words, refusal to show evidence, operating on hypotheticals rather than first hand knowledge and creating these pseudo logical nightmares to justify a position. 

There is a good video somewhere this kung fu guy came up with this whole thing where MMA was biased towards kung fu because t huge floor was too soft or something. (I will see if I can find it)

 That sort of thing. 

Otherwise we the red flag guides are pretty accurate and can be applied over the internet.


----------



## dvcochran

dvcochran said:


> Yes, there is crap in all styles/systems, including MMA but there is no escaping this fact.


The above statement makes me wonder if you read my post at all. Not much wiggle room in this comment.



Steve said:


> If you are learning from someone who does something... a plumber, a carpenter, a boxer, a pilot, a surgeon, and then you do that thing, you will eventually become competent, and may even become an expert.


I cannot count the degreed engineers I have worked with that were borderline/fully incompetent. There are countless examples of people in all trades/positions who have had excellent teacher/trainers who just could not do a specific job well if at all. 
The trainer is maybe 1/2 of this equation.



Steve said:


> When someone says they learned from someone who learned from someone who was special forces, etc, that is a HUGE red flag. That's like learning to fly a plane from someone who's never actually flown a plane. Or learning surgery from someone who's never performed a surgery. Or learning to plumb a house from someone who's never actually plumbed a house.


This paragraph straight up contradicts your above comments. EVERYONE has learned from someone who has learned from someone else, be it academic or hands on. It is just the way it works. No red flags there. We are not always the First person to do something. That is a silly assertion.



Steve said:


> Can we all agree that most planes can fly?


No, very, very few planes can fly all by themselves. It is a mutual relationship between the plane and the pilot(s). 
I specifically said the root techniques/skills of MMA originated from TMA or a derivative like wrestling or boxing. Do not muddy the water by identifying TMA as a specific tool/skill. It in and of itself never has been. There is nothing wildly new in MMA. 



Steve said:


> So, when you talk about origins, I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique. Just like it's irrelevant to talk about whether a toilet can be installed correctly vs whether YOU can install a toilet correctly. And the more complex the tasks, the higher the cost of failure, and the more urgent the tasks are, the more critical this becomes. Replacing a toilet is relatively easy.


I feel the first sentence is the root of why most of us train in the first place; so that we CAN use a technique/skill. 
Talking about how to install a toilet is the basis of how many people learn how to install a toilet correctly. There are far fewer people who can just decide to install a toilet. Fewer still who are naturally competent at a MA. 
Naturally the more complex anything is the greater likelihood of failure. Applied skill through academic learning and hands on learning are paramount for mission critical tasks. Again, very few people just 'know' how to do this stuff. 
I have no clue what you mean about the ease of replacing a toilet in context. Are they easy? Under normal conditions, sure. If the toilet has been leaking for a long time and the floor is rotted out, not so much.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> So if the term faith based was a more popular term you would accept it?
> 
> Because of faith?
> 
> And nobody else produces evidence. You argued against having to produce any at all. Instead hoping that the free market. (Popular opinion) would support valid claims over invalid ones. A hope that is based again on faith.
> 
> I am having conversation with people who refuse to think rationally about this subject.
> 
> Maybe you are more familiar with the term bullcrap.


I don't follow at all. Are you familiar with blitz campaigning in advertising? This is what MMA does. They overload every conduit with their material to the point that it completely unbalances the equation. No matter what is seen/heard in regards to MMA it is good. No matter what is seen/heard about TMA it is bad. 
Faith has zero to do with any of it. I get your 'not seen or heard' assertion but it is just a load of bull crap to use your wording.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I cannot count the degreed engineers I have worked with that were borderline/fully incompetent. There are countless examples of people in all trades/positions who have had excellent teacher/trainers who just could not do a specific job well if at all.
> The trainer is maybe 1/2 of this equation.
> 
> This paragraph straight up contradicts your above comments. EVERYONE has learned from someone who has learned from someone else, be it academic or hands on. It is just the way it works. No red flags there. We are not always the First person to do something. That is a silly assertion.
> 
> 
> No, very, very few planes can fly all by themselves. It is a mutual relationship between the plane and the pilot(s).
> I specifically said the root techniques/skills of MMA originated from TMA or a derivative like wrestling or boxing. Do not muddy the water by identifying TMA as a specific tool/skill. It in and of itself never has been. There is nothing wildly new in MMA.
> 
> 
> I feel the first sentence is the root of why most of us train in the first place; so that we CAN use a technique/skill.
> Talking about how to install a toilet is the basis of how many people learn how to install a toilet correctly. There are far fewer people who can just decide to install a toilet. Fewer still who are naturally competent at a MA.
> Naturally the more complex anything is the greater likelihood of failure. Applied skill through academic learning and hands on learning are paramount for mission critical tasks. Again, very few people just 'know' how to do this stuff.
> I have no clue what you mean about the ease of replacing a toilet in context. Are they easy? Under normal conditions, sure. If the toilet has been leaking for a long time and the floor is rotted out, not so much.


i started to reply, but I really don’t think it’s worth my time.  I invite you to read my post for comprehension and then respond again if you like, because you entirely missed the point.  I mean, completely.   If you were close, I’d take a run at responding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So you were trained by a guy who was trained by a guy who won? A golden gloves? Just competed in a golden gloves?
> 
> And you "sparred"  a guy who was "experienced" in "combat sports"?
> 
> And this is some sort of definitive answer.?
> 
> And this golden gloves?
> 
> View attachment 22807


You asked. I answered. Yeah, I’ve “sparred” (common term you seem to think is used to hide something) folks who competed. Not “a guy”, but a few. Off the top of my head, this would include folks who competed in TKD (both major rule sets, I think, but not sure), boxing, wrestling, Judo, and BJJ...though as I think that last one was an MMA guy, but we were just doing ground stuff at the time, and I’m pretty sure his base was BJJ. There are probably others I’m forgetting (both styles and people). I’ve also had some fun workouts with a prison guard. 

You did overlook that the boxer was also my first instructor (his senior students respectively took over the school after he moved). It’s not an important point, but you seem to be purposefully omitting it, so it seemed worth pointing out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There are red flags. Weasel words, refusal to show evidence, operating on hypotheticals rather than first hand knowledge and creating these pseudo logical nightmares to justify a position.
> 
> There is a good video somewhere this kung fu guy came up with this whole thing where MMA was biased towards kung fu because t huge floor was too soft or something. (I will see if I can find it)
> 
> That sort of thing.
> 
> Otherwise we the red flag guides are pretty accurate and can be applied over the internet.


The place where your argument falls flat is the use of the word “refusal”, where you clearly paint it as a purposeful attempt to hide information. Until your bias leads to that, you make a reasonable argument about the utility of using competition to validate and sharpen a system. If you could stay on message, you’d make more impact.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> i started to reply, but I really don’t think it’s worth my time.  I invite you to read my post for comprehension and then respond again if you like, because you entirely missed the point.  I mean, completely.   If you were close, I’d take a run at responding.


Had it made any sense I may have gotten it. You were all over the place.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Had it made any sense I may have gotten it. You were all over the place.


i don’t know, man.  I mean, sure, I didn’t write a novel or run it by my editor.  But  you got everything wrong.  If I have some time with a keyboard tomorrow. I might take another run at it for you.   

I have noticed, however, that when you miss the point, it’s always the other guy.  I’m noticing a pattern.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> i don’t know, man.  I mean, sure, I didn’t write a novel or run it by my editor.  But  you got everything wrong.  If I have some time with a keyboard tomorrow. I might take another run at it for you.
> 
> I have noticed, however, that when you miss the point, it’s always the other guy.  I’m noticing a pattern.


I look forward to it. 
You are correct that I vehemently defend my position most of the time. I do not hide this at all. Again, no pattern to find since it was never hidden.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I look forward to it.
> You are correct that I vehemently defend my position most of the time. I do not hide this at all. Again, no pattern to find since it was never hidden.


Vehemently defending a position is all fine and good, if you're taking the time to understand folks.  Even here, you didn't get it, or maybe didn't want to get what I was saying.  The pattern isn't your defense of your opinions.  It's that you never seem to accept any accountability when you fail to understand something.  The other person just didn't say it right, every time. 

I'll take another stab at this in a different way.  I hope it works better for you. 

1:  The difference between lack of knowledge and faith based has two components. The first component is you: how you train and how you apply the training. The second component is the person from whom you are learning.  This person needs to have bona fide expertise.  If you don't have both components, you're in a faith based situation.  

2a:  Skill is developed by learning and then doing.  Conversely, what you do is what you're developing.  So, if you're not fighting, you aren't learning to fight.  You're learning something.  Just not how to fight.  Experience in one context determines how successful you can be transferring those skills to another context.  The more experience and the more similar the context, the more likely you are to be successful. 

Let's say you have two people.  One person watches cooking shows every day, and is a real foodie, but has never actually cooked anything more complex than toast and eggs.  The other has never watched cooking shows, but grew up cooking cooking meals every day.  If you gave each of them a recipe for Beef Wellington, who do you think is more likely to succeed?  My money is on the person with experience actually cooking.  The more similar the experience, the easier it will be to transfer the skills.​
2b:  Expertise in a practical skill set is compromised in one generation without application.  This means that learning a skill set or trade from an experienced person is great, as long as you then apply those skills.  This is the difference between theory and practice.  Bridging this gap is done all the time, but it can only be done with experience. 

So, person one has expertise... just not cooking expertise. This person has a lot of experience mindfully eating food and learning about how it should look and taste, and as a result has a very educated palate.  Maybe they'd make a great food blogger.  But unless they actually step into a kitchen and start cooking, they will never become a competent cook.​
3:  This applies to martial arts and fighting skills, just as it applies to every other skill set.  So, when you talk about MMA being derivative, given that skills can be compromised in just a single generation, I think that's a pointless red herring.  It only really matters to folks who are clinging to lineage for validation.  I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique.


----------



## drop bear

So just a thing that popped up on my feed. This is a highly ranked bjj black belt doing blindfold drills.






This is why I really like to see the video when people make claims.

He does "spar" by the way


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> I don't follow at all. Are you familiar with blitz campaigning in advertising? This is what MMA does. They overload every conduit with their material to the point that it completely unbalances the equation. No matter what is seen/heard in regards to MMA it is good. No matter what is seen/heard about TMA it is bad.
> Faith has zero to do with any of it. I get your 'not seen or heard' assertion but it is just a load of bull crap to use your wording.



That might be the reason that say kudo or Pancrase or Sanda may live under some sort of unfair shadow.

But when nothing is provided you cant blame another style for producing its own evidence.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The place where your argument falls flat is the use of the word “refusal”, where Until your bias leads to that, you make a reasonable argument about the utility of using competition to validate and sharpen a system. If you could stay on message, you’d make more impact.



"Or, for the sake of discussions, we can just listen a bit and see if there's something useful to discuss.

You seem to think we all owe you some proof. Nobody does, except maybe the folks who train you."

That is a refusal. Which is clearly a purposeful attempt to hide information. 

You have to understand that my bias is generated by your dishonesty. I see these sorts of. I never said that, I never meant that, you didn't understand my intentional vague posts, I don't have to show evidence, I don't have to support separating truth from fiction. 

And that adds up to a bias. 

Without evidence to the contrary it is a very reasonable bias. 

It allowes you to work off hypotheticals and anecdotes and this faith based discussion. 

I should be having this problem discussing a religion. Not martial arts. Which is a practical mesuable activity.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> So just a thing that popped up on my feed. This is a highly ranked bjj black belt doing blindfold drills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I really like to see the video when people make claims.
> 
> He does "spar" by the way


I think you mean "highly ranked" "bjj black belt".

Mr. Rao claims to be a BJJ black belt, He also claims to be a JKD master instructor, a medical doctor, holder of multiple doctorates, a trainer of military commandos, a 9th degree black belt in "unarmed combat", and a bunch of other things. Maybe some portion of those claims have some truth to them. I can pretty much guarantee his claim of BJJ black belt rank is a lie.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think you mean "highly ranked" "bjj black belt".
> 
> Mr. Rao claims to be a BJJ black belt, He also claims to be a JKD master instructor, a medical doctor, holder of multiple doctorates, a trainer of military commandos, a 9th degree black belt in "unarmed combat", and a bunch of other things. Maybe some portion of those claims have some truth to them. I can pretty much guarantee his claim of BJJ black belt rank is a lie.



Yeah. I am not trying to fraud bust so much as show that we really do need a method to determine truth from fiction.

I mean let's suggest by some miracle he really is a legit bjj black belt. (Hey ashton kutcher is a brown belt) We still need to challenge for ourselves his veracity.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> we really do need a method to determine truth from fiction.


I still remember that Li Ming-Sin from Taiwan (1976?) who claimed he cold throw 5 punches within 1 second. He got knocked down by a tiger claw guy in NY within 8 seconds.

1/2 century ago, when you said that you were good. People would say, "Try me and show how good you are." It just seems to me that this kind of attitude no longer exist in today's environment.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I still remember that Li Ming-Sin from Taiwan (1976?) who claimed he cold throw 5 punches within 1 second. He got knocked down by a tiger claw guy in NY within 8 seconds.
> 
> 1/2 century ago, when you said that you were good. People would say, "Try me and show how good you are." It just seems to me that this kind of attitude no longer exist in today's environment.



I think it was over cooked as an idea in that they were these prideful death matches. Which made everyone want to avoid them.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Vehemently defending a position is all fine and good, if you're taking the time to understand folks.  Even here, you didn't get it, or maybe didn't want to get what I was saying.  The pattern isn't your defense of your opinions.  It's that you never seem to accept any accountability when you fail to understand something.  The other person just didn't say it right, every time.
> 
> I'll take another stab at this in a different way.  I hope it works better for you.
> 
> 1:  The difference between lack of knowledge and faith based has two components. The first component is you: how you train and how you apply the training. The second component is the person from whom you are learning.  This person needs to have bona fide expertise.  If you don't have both components, you're in a faith based situation.
> 
> 2a:  Skill is developed by learning and then doing.  Conversely, what you do is what you're developing.  So, if you're not fighting, you aren't learning to fight.  You're learning something.  Just not how to fight.  Experience in one context determines how successful you can be transferring those skills to another context.  The more experience and the more similar the context, the more likely you are to be successful.
> 
> Let's say you have two people.  One person watches cooking shows every day, and is a real foodie, but has never actually cooked anything more complex than toast and eggs.  The other has never watched cooking shows, but grew up cooking cooking meals every day.  If you gave each of them a recipe for Beef Wellington, who do you think is more likely to succeed?  My money is on the person with experience actually cooking.  The more similar the experience, the easier it will be to transfer the skills.​
> 2b:  Expertise in a practical skill set is compromised in one generation without application.  This means that learning a skill set or trade from an experienced person is great, as long as you then apply those skills.  This is the difference between theory and practice.  Bridging this gap is done all the time, but it can only be done with experience.
> 
> So, person one has expertise... just not cooking expertise. This person has a lot of experience mindfully eating food and learning about how it should look and taste, and as a result has a very educated palate.  Maybe they'd make a great food blogger.  But unless they actually step into a kitchen and start cooking, they will never become a competent cook.​
> 3:  This applies to martial arts and fighting skills, just as it applies to every other skill set.  So, when you talk about MMA being derivative, given that skills can be compromised in just a single generation, I think that's a pointless red herring.  It only really matters to folks who are clinging to lineage for validation.  I personally think the question of whether a technique CAN work is far less important than whether I (or YOU) can use that technique.



I get what you are saying, everybody does. It is a rehash of common knowledge.

Ahh, MMA skills being a derivative, now I get your rub.  
I have never seen or read someone who tries to put words (your words) in someone else's mouth so much. I Never said anything about skills being compromised in a single generation. You came up with that one on your own. I would agree that is a pointless red herring that was never said, by me anyway. It seems clear who is clinging here.
Obviously, the question is whether a technique can work for the individual. Your 'theory vs. application' in a nutshell. 
Still, there are a great many who have all the information, all the knowledge and still cannot apply it. It has zero to do with faith based nor a lack of knowledge. That is just reality. Inherited traits and common sense seem to be lost on you.
Are you a college professor by chance? You seem to be having a hard time with this real world thing.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I get what you are saying, everybody does. It is a rehash of common knowledge.
> 
> Ahh, MMA skills being a derivative, now I get your rub.
> I have never seen or read someone who tries to put words (your words) in someone else's mouth so much. I Never said anything about skills being compromised in a single generation. You came up with that one on your own. I would agree that is a pointless red herring that was never said, by me anyway. It seems clear who is clinging here.
> Obviously, the question is whether a technique can work for the individual. Your 'theory vs. application' in a nutshell.
> Still, there are a great many who have all the information, all the knowledge and still cannot apply it. It has zero to do with faith based nor a lack of knowledge. That is just reality. Inherited traits and common sense seem to be lost on you.
> Are you a college professor by chance? You seem to be having a hard time with this real world thing.


You're still missing the point.  I mean, completely. But I guess when ad hominem is the best you have, it's pointless to continue.  Maybe at some point you'll reread the posts and we can have a reasonable discussion.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

dvcochran said:


> I Never said anything about skills being compromised in a single generation. You came up with that one on your own.


Yes, that's exactly what Steve was saying. He wasn't trying to attribute the idea to you. It's pretty much the foundation of everything he's been saying in this thread.

Personally I think there's a fair amount of truth in it.

Suppose A is an experienced master in some field - unarmed fighting, cooking, police work, fixing cars, whatever. Assuming they also have a talent for teaching, then they should be hopefully able to pass on their knowledge in a useful way.

Now suppose B learns from A, studies all the material, passes all the tests, but never actually gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever.  They may have the potential to do well in the field, but they haven't really tested their ability or discovered the limitations of what they've learned.

Now suppose C learns from B. B may do their best to pass on the curriculum they learned from A, but they don't know what they don't know. Details, context, limitations of techniques and understanding, can all be lost in translation. When C asks a question, B can either repeat what they were told by A or else come up with an answer based on theory rather than experience.

Now suppose C also never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever. D learns from C. How much confidence do you have that D will be well prepared to succeed in the field. How about if D never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever, but goes on to teach E. How prepared will E be?

That's the situation a large percentage of martial arts schools are in. It's not that they don't necessarily have anything of value in the curriculum. It's that students are learning techniques from teachers who have never used them in a fight and who learned them from other teachers who never used them in a fight and those teachers in turn learned from other teachers who had never used them in a fight and so on.  This can easily result, as Steve points out, in skills and knowledge being compromised.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> I think it was over cooked as an idea in that they were these prideful death matches. Which made everyone want to avoid them.


Many challenge fights are very simple.

A guy challenged preying mantis master Brendan Lai. Brendan said, "I'll just throw one punch at you. If you can block it, you win, otherwise, you lose."

A guy challenged a Chinese wrestling master David C. K. Lin. David said, "I'll attack you 3 times, if in any one of my attacks, you can stand on your feet for more than 3 seconds, you win, otherwise, you lose."

In both challenges, Brendan leaded to his strong point - fast punch. David leaded to his strong point - take down skill.


----------



## dvcochran

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yes, that's exactly what Steve was saying. He wasn't trying to attribute the idea to you. It's pretty much the foundation of everything he's been saying in this thread.
> 
> Personally I think there's a fair amount of truth in it.
> 
> Suppose A is an experienced master in some field - unarmed fighting, cooking, police work, fixing cars, whatever. Assuming they also have a talent for teaching, then they should be hopefully able to pass on their knowledge in a useful way.
> 
> Now suppose B learns from A, studies all the material, passes all the tests, but never actually gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever.  They may have the potential to do well in the field, but they haven't really tested their ability or discovered the limitations of what they've learned.
> 
> Now suppose C learns from B. B may do their best to pass on the curriculum they learned from A, but they don't know what they don't know. Details, context, limitations of techniques and understanding, can all be lost in translation. When C asks a question, B can either repeat what they were told by A or else come up with an answer based on theory rather than experience.
> 
> Now suppose C also never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever. D learns from C. How much confidence do you have that D will be well prepared to succeed in the field. How about if D never gets into a fight/cooks a meal/works in law enforcement/fixes a car/whatever, but goes on to teach E. How prepared will E be?
> 
> That's the situation a large percentage of martial arts schools are in. It's not that they don't necessarily have anything of value in the curriculum. It's that students are learning techniques from teachers who have never used them in a fight and who learned them from other teachers who never used them in a fight and those teachers in turn learned from other teachers who had never used them in a fight and so on.  This can easily result, as Steve points out, in skills and knowledge being compromised.



I agree, but it still precludes the groups/individuals (letter?) that is never going to find competency no matter what precedents they have. Whether it is the originator who had a really great idea but never brought if fully to fruition or the 2nd, 3rd, 6th generation who have just been 'passing it on', there are variables in there that are never going to be competent. Because of the open format nature of practicing MA they will never be factored out.

I believe there are little to no styles/systems/schools that are pure to all original teachings. There has just been way too much new information integrated and refinement along the way. They have been made better. 
I cannot think of any one thing that this has not happened to. Take the laptop I am writing this on for example. 

I have gotten the idea of saturation, loss of quality over time through the entire thread. But is this not 'old thinking' in today's instant information availability? And is this not essentially what MMA touts; that they have refined everything 'back to' or to a level of near perfection?  As much as I dislike the overtness sometimes, this is not a bad thing.

And it is the American way is it not? To take a thing or group of things and parse out the best parts to create a 'better' unit. Again, not a bad thing but goes against the traditional grain for some folks. And to be fair, MMA is a product, not so much a system. One hell of a marketing tool. 
A lot of folks on the forum were not around to ride the wave of popularity martials arts had in the late 60's through the 80's. I would say it was just as overt and marketed as MMA is doing today. Good times.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> You're still missing the point.  I mean, completely. But I guess when ad hominem is the best you have, it's pointless to continue.  Maybe at some point you'll reread the posts and we can have a reasonable discussion.


Like I said, I have gotten it from the beginning. Again, you are making the narrative (that I do not understand) what You want it to be. Read my response to Tony's post. 
I can debate with you all day long. You do not grow up in my family without being able to stand your ground. I did not make it personal, you did. I simply countered. You want to debate, let's debate. You want to attack, let's attack.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

dvcochran said:


> I believe there are little to no styles/systems/schools that are pure to all original teachings. There has just been way too much new information integrated and refinement along the way. They have been made better.
> I cannot think of any one thing that this has not happened to. Take the laptop I am writing this on for example.
> 
> I have gotten the idea of saturation, loss of quality over time through the entire thread. But is this not 'old thinking' in today's instant information availability? And is this not essentially what MMA touts; that they have refined everything 'back to' or to a level of near perfection? As much as I dislike the overtness sometimes, this is not a bad thing.


You're missing part of the point. 

I agree that martial arts can (and should) improve over time rather than deteriorate. I think Steve does as well. The point is that for that to happen there has to be actual application experience by teachers and practitioners at each point along the way. If A has application experience and then teaches B, who has their own application experience and who then teaches C, who has more application experience, and so on, then the art will probably end up improved and refined over the years, just as you say. The problem comes when you have instructors teaching techniques they've never used in a fight which they learned from instructors who never used them in a fight who in turn learned from previous instructors who never used them in a fight. That's where things get lost.


----------



## dvcochran

Tony Dismukes said:


> You're missing part of the point.
> 
> I agree that martial arts can (and should) improve over time rather than deteriorate. I think Steve does as well. The point is that for that to happen there has to be actual application experience by teachers and practitioners at each point along the way. If A has application experience and then teaches B, who has their own application experience and who then teaches C, who has more application experience, and so on, then the art will probably end up improved and refined over the years, just as you say. The problem comes when you have instructors teaching techniques they've never used in a fight which they learned from instructors who never used them in a fight who in turn learned from previous instructors who never used them in a fight. That's where things get lost.


Agree. I still do not see what part of the point you feel I am missing.

Do I think this is a real occurrence? Yes, in MA and many other things. I said in one of my earlier posts that at least 50% of the learning equation is on the person learning. Some, not all can take 'flawed' information like you describe and process it into creditable, quality, applicable material. It certainly is not the best case scenario but it does happen. Naturally, this is not the preferred teaching lineage but how does the layperson even know they are in this scenario? I suppose this would be the 'ignorance is bliss' scenario. 
You and Steve are speaking from a position of experience that understands this anomaly. I think the bulk of practitioners do not know and many do not care. These fall into the casual martial artist, doing it more for exercise and social interaction than anything else.
It would be a hard thing to chart but it would be interesting to breakdown the people practicing for purely fighting purposes, self defense, competition, and casual/exercise.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I agree, but it still precludes the groups/individuals (letter?) that is never going to find competency no matter what precedents they have. Whether it is the originator who had a really great idea but never brought if fully to fruition or the 2nd, 3rd, 6th generation who have just been 'passing it on', there are variables in there that are never going to be competent. Because of the open format nature of practicing MA they will never be factored out.


This is completely irrelevant.  Some folks will never be a surgeon.  They lack some essential element, whether it's native intelligence, aptitude, desire, self-discipline, organizational skills, stamina, or maybe they aren't attractive enough to work in Seattle Grace Hospital.  Who knows?  But that's a red herring, completely beside the point.





> I believe there are little to no styles/systems/schools that are pure to all original teachings. There has just been way too much new information integrated and refinement along the way.  They have been made better.


Undoubtedly changed.  Better though?  Well, that depends entirely on what you mean by that.  More practical? More effective?  More artistic?  Different isn't always better. 

Another possibility is that, in our more civilized world, the opportunity to apply technique is largely lost for most people.  So arts that would otherwise have died out can perpetuate because they have a lot of fancy, pseudo-scientific rationale that sounds really, really cool. And because there is no application (and in fact,, the lack of application is part of the pseudo-scientific rationale), these styles thrive while effective fighting styles fade significantly or die out because often what works isn't as sexy as something that is engineered to look cool.



> I cannot think of any one thing that this has not happened to. Take the laptop I am writing this on for example.


Many things are better.  Many things are not better.  I think it's a little misleading to compare a skill set to a product.  That said, improvements to products can lead to atrophy of skills.  For example, cars have come a long way over the last 30 years.  But as a result, cars are so complex that very few people work on their own cars anymore.  I've never been a gear head, but it was considered essential for me to know how to change my oil, do a brake job and a basic tune up, or change a tire.  Nowadays, I don't think these skills are common outside of a small group of enthusiasts.





> I have gotten the idea of saturation, loss of quality over time through the entire thread. But is this not 'old thinking' in today's instant information availability? And is this not essentially what MMA touts; that they have refined everything 'back to' or to a level of near perfection?  As much as I dislike the overtness sometimes, this is not a bad thing.


I don't understand this point.  I've never heard MMA described as near perfection.  





> And it is the American way is it not? To take a thing or group of things and parse out the best parts to create a 'better' unit. Again, not a bad thing but goes against the traditional grain for some folks. And to be fair, MMA is a product, not so much a system. One hell of a marketing tool.
> A lot of folks on the forum were not around to ride the wave of popularity martials arts had in the late 60's through the 80's. I would say it was just as overt and marketed as MMA is doing today. Good times.


Your a romantic.  I would never have guessed.

"MMA" is a combat sport with, currently, the most expansive ruleset around, that allow for grappling, striking, clinching.  It is a style that developed to support a specific application.  That application has evolved over time, but remains intrinsic to the style.  And so, we have seen the skills involved refined toward that application.  Like all combat sports, this leads to specialization, but it also leads to a high level of performance and expertise.  A high degree of skill, reliable expertise within the context of application, but the downside can be specialization which needs to be considered when transferring the skills to a different context. 

The marketing of the sport is interesting, but not relevant to this discussion.  People who train and compete in MMA are learning and applying skills in that context.  A grappler, like a wrestler or a Judoka, who train and compete, are learning and applying skills in that context.  In fact, to circle this back to the first point I made above, in a time when regular folks (e.g., teachers, office workers, computer programmers) don't routinely find themselves fighting other people, there is a huge opportunity for marketing to convince them that they are learning things that they aren't actually learning.  This is why we have folks who fall for the sales pitch from ninja schools and such, where the training is "too deadly" for sport.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

dvcochran said:


> Agree. I still do not see what part of the point you feel I am missing.


Well, since you agree with my post and I was making the same point that Steve was making in the posts you were berating him for, then I guess you missed the point that you actually agree with Steve,



dvcochran said:


> I said in one of my earlier posts that at least 50% of the learning equation is on the person learning. Some, not all can take 'flawed' information like you describe and process it into creditable, quality, applicable material. It certainly is not the best case scenario but it does happen.


Yeah, some people can start out with bad instruction and through practical experience learn to find the gems hidden in the dross. (Heck, some people can start out with _no_ instruction and through practical experience develop a solid system.) However it's not exactly fair to the student to expect them to have to do that. Especially since, as you note, they very likely wouldn't even know that the instruction they're getting is compromised,



dvcochran said:


> I think the bulk of practitioners do not know and many do not care. These fall into the casual martial artist, doing it more for exercise and social interaction than anything else.


I agree that the majority of practitioners receiving flawed instruction don't know that it's flawed. I'm not so sure about not caring. A solid majority of instructors I've met over the years have touted self-defense/fighting ability as a benefit of what they teach and a solid majority of students I've met seem to regard that as an important aspect of their training as well.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Like I said, I have gotten it from the beginning. Again, you are making the narrative (that I do not understand) what You want it to be. Read my response to Tony's post.
> I can debate with you all day long. You do not grow up in my family without being able to stand your ground. I did not make it personal, you did. I simply countered. You want to debate, let's debate. You want to attack, let's attack.


Yeah.  Okay.  Until you accept that you don't get it, you won't get it.  I don't think you're a very good listener.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

@dvcochran and @Steve have you guys figured out yet that you're arguing two entirely different points, that aren't necessarily exclusive?


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @dvcochran and @Steve have you guys figured out yet that you're arguing two entirely different points, that aren't necessarily exclusive?


that's what I've been saying.    He doesn't believe me when I tell him, though.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Tony Dismukes said:


> You're missing part of the point.
> 
> I agree that martial arts can (and should) improve over time rather than deteriorate. I think Steve does as well. The point is that for that to happen there has to be actual application experience by teachers and practitioners at each point along the way. If A has application experience and then teaches B, who has their own application experience and who then teaches C, who has more application experience, and so on, then the art will probably end up improved and refined over the years, just as you say. The problem comes when you have instructors teaching techniques they've never used in a fight which they learned from instructors who never used them in a fight who in learned from previous instructors who never used them in a fight. That's where things get lost.



This is a complex issue involving the gradual deterioration of application thru generations of "combat virgin" instructors as well as the value of TMA in general.  To begin with the latter, the values of TMA (mentally, spiritually and physically) are many and exist independently of pure fighting ability.  I hope we can all agree with that.

While it is true that over the years/generations of A>B>C teachers with no real application experience, some techniques have lost their effectiveness or even meaning, this does not mean the technique itself is useless.  At one time, having most likely been used and incorporated into the system by real fighters in the past, they were effective battlefield or self-defense techniques.  So, where did things go wrong with application?

I see two factors leading to the gradual loss of technique effectiveness.  First is that the fighting styles of the general public have changed over the decades/centuries.  They have gotten more sophisticated with more people having some sense of MA technique.  In the past, few of the general public had any concept of fighting.  Non-military TMA was developed and used for self defense against common bullies, bandits, or other unsophisticated attackers.  Nowadays, there is a good chance an opponent has had some type of training.  So many of those original techniques may not be as effective today.

The second factor is that over time the fine points and nuances of the original technique get lost during the transmission by teachers A>B>C.  Without actual fighting application, the practitioner is unaware of this loss - The twist of the wrist to make the grab/lock more effective, the rotation of the hip or proper placement of the leg, for example.  Shortcuts invariably creep in that degrade effectiveness.  The technique may still be valid, but the execution has degraded.  This is especially true the more complex the technique once was. 

Being aware of these two main factors, we can take them into account and make adjustments to keep MA effective.  Personally, I think this can be done while still keeping the "traditional" aspects of TMA, since its value goes beyond simple combat.


----------



## Steve

isshinryuronin said:


> This is a complex issue involving the gradual deterioration of application thru generations of "combat virgin" instructors as well as the value of TMA in general.  To begin with the latter, the values of TMA (mentally, spiritually and physically) are many and exist independently of pure fighting ability.  I hope we can all agree with that.
> 
> While it is true that over the years/generations of A>B>C teachers with no real application experience, some techniques have lost their effectiveness or even meaning, this does not mean the technique itself is useless.  At one time, having most likely been used and incorporated into the system by real fighters in the past, they were effective battlefield or self-defense techniques.  So, where did things go wrong with application?
> 
> I see two factors leading to the gradual loss of technique effectiveness.  First is that the fighting styles of the general public have changed over the decades/centuries.  They have gotten more sophisticated with more people having some sense of MA technique.  In the past, few of the general public had any concept of fighting.  Non-military TMA was developed and used for self defense against common bullies, bandits, or other unsophisticated attackers.  Nowadays, there is a good chance an opponent has had some type of training.  So many of those original techniques may not be as effective today.


While I generally agree with your points, you keep using the term "gradual."  I would put a finer point on that.  It's not gradual.  There is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else.  However, I would agree that, while not gradual, it is progressive in that every generation the information is transmitted, it will further from the practical source.





> The second factor is that over time the fine points and nuances of the original technique get lost during the transmission by teachers A>B>C*.  Without actual fighting application, the practitioner is unaware of this loss *- The twist of the wrist to make the grab/lock more effective, the rotation of the hip or proper placement of the leg, for example.  Shortcuts invariably creep in that degrade effectiveness.  The technique may still be valid, but the execution has degraded.  This is especially true the more complex the technique once was.


I agree with this completely.  I bolded the part that I believe makes your conclusion below very questionable:





> Being aware of these two main factors, we can take them into account and make adjustments to keep MA effective.  Personally, I think this can be done while still keeping the "traditional" aspects of TMA, since its value goes beyond simple combat.


You can't take into account what you aren't aware of.  That's the problem.  

Regarding the values inherent to, and the value of, training in a TMA beyond simple combat, couldn't agree more.  There is value in doing things that keep you fit mentally and physically, that engage you, and that make you happy.  There need be no practical output from these activities. People knit, garden, play musical instruments, sports, make booze... whatever hobbies you want, there is value, even if you're terrible at them.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> While I generally agree with your points, you keep using the term "gradual."  I would put a finer point on that.  It's not gradual.  There is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else.  However, I would agree that, while not gradual, it is progressive in that every generation the information is transmitted, it will further from the practical source.I agree with this completely.  I bolded the part that I believe makes your conclusion below very questionable:You can't take into account what you aren't aware of.  That's the problem.
> 
> Regarding the values inherent to, and the value of, training in a TMA beyond simple combat, couldn't agree more.  There is value in doing things that keep you fit mentally and physically, that engage you, and that make you happy.  There need be no practical output from these activities. People knit, garden, play musical instruments, sports, make booze... whatever hobbies you want, there is value, even if you're terrible at them.


I agree with this completely, with one caveat. I'd agree there is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else. However, I'd state that that first generation teacher, the deterioration isn't nearly as much as later generations. 

I've got two reasons for this. 
1: Most of the time, that guys teacher is still alive. So if A has experience and taught B, who without additional experience is teaching C. If C has a question that B is unsure of, he can go back and ask A. So the actual information isn't being loss. This assumes both that A is still around, and B is willing to ask him what he doesn't know, which isn't a guarantee, but that's a different issue than the deterioration being discussed. 
2: All of what B learned is stuff that can be applied. So C is still learning all the actual techniques/knowledge without much loss, just without the practical application. So if C wanted to make it practical, already having the knowledge, it would not take much to turn that into actual practical ability. Which would also be true of B when he was a student of A-even though A had that experience. A could help that transition more than B, but certain things (stamina, how to handle adrenaline, dealing with pain) is stuff that can't be taught, so that transition experience wouldn't be that much different.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I agree with this completely, with one caveat. I'd agree there is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else. However, I'd state that that first generation teacher, the deterioration isn't nearly as much as later generations.
> 
> I've got two reasons for this.
> 1: Most of the time, that guys teacher is still alive. So if A has experience and taught B, who without additional experience is teaching C. If C has a question that B is unsure of, he can go back and ask A. So the actual information isn't being loss. This assumes both that A is still around, and B is willing to ask him what he doesn't know, which isn't a guarantee, but that's a different issue than the deterioration being discussed.
> 2: All of what B learned is stuff that can be applied. So C is still learning all the actual techniques/knowledge without much loss, just without the practical application. So if C wanted to make it practical, already having the knowledge, it would not take much to turn that into actual practical ability. Which would also be true of B when he was a student of A-even though A had that experience. A could help that transition more than B, but certain things (stamina, how to handle adrenaline, dealing with pain) is stuff that can't be taught, so that transition experience wouldn't be that much different.


I see your point.  It's a bit of semantics, really, "gradual" vs "progressive." 

So, let's apply your model here to something outside of martial arts.  I mentioned cooking before, so let's stick with that. 

Person A is a James Beard award winning, Michelin star rated, classically trained chef.  Let's call her Chef Jane.  Chef Jane owns two successful restaurants and has worked in the field for over 30 years.  She is a bona fide expert in the field, respected even among other successful chefs.  She opens a school to teach people to cook, using a system she creates that she has called "Jane-cook-do."  She rents a warehouse and sets it up with everything one might need to cook minus the food. She has ovens, bowls, mixers, plates, you name it.  No food, though.

She gets a group of people who enroll in her school, and they meet three times per week for about 1 hour, maybe 2.  They work through a very thoughtfully crafted curriculum that starts with easy recipes and then works up to progressively more complex recipes.  Students are required to practice all of the techniques, from knife skills, to building up their baking muscles by stirring cement, to any other kind of simulation you can think of.  Over time, these students gain ranks, until after a period of time (let's say ten years) they attain the rank of "chef."    Most students drop out, but Person B, let's call this person Frank, is serious about this.  Being a chef is his life's dream.  After 10 years, Frank has never touched any food, but he has practiced every technique, and has memorized hundreds of recipes. 

I'm trying to go out of my way to say that Chef Jane tried to think of everything.  Absent food, she has really tried to deliver a thoughtful, comprehensive culinary education to her students... just without access to any food.  Everything else has been taken into consideration. 

Two questions:
1:  Can Frank cook? 

2:  Is Frank competent to teach someone else to cook?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I see your point.  It's a bit of semantics, really, "gradual" vs "progressive."
> 
> So, let's apply your model here to something outside of martial arts.  I mentioned cooking before, so let's stick with that.
> 
> Person A is a James Beard award winning, Michelin star rated, classically trained chef.  Let's call her Chef Jane.  Chef Jane owns two successful restaurants and has worked in the field for over 30 years.  She is a bona fide expert in the field, respected even among other successful chefs.  She opens a school to teach people to cook, using a system she creates that she has called "Jane-cook-do."  She rents a warehouse and sets it up with everything one might need to cook minus the food. She has ovens, bowls, mixers, plates, you name it.  No food, though.
> 
> She gets a group of people who enroll in her school, and they meet three times per week for about 1 hour, maybe 2.  They work through a very thoughtfully crafted curriculum that starts with easy recipes and then works up to progressively more complex recipes.  Students are required to practice all of the techniques, from knife skills, to building up their baking muscles by stirring cement, to any other kind of simulation you can think of.  Over time, these students gain ranks, until after a period of time (let's say ten years) they attain the rank of "chef."    Most students drop out, but Person B, let's call this person Frank, is serious about this.  Being a chef is his life's dream.  After 10 years, Frank has never touched any food, but he has practiced every technique, and has memorized hundreds of recipes.
> 
> I'm trying to go out of my way to say that Chef Jane tried to think of everything.  Absent food, she has really tried to deliver a thoughtful, comprehensive culinary education to her students... just without access to any food.  Everything else has been taken into consideration.
> 
> Two questions:
> 1:  Can Frank cook?
> 
> 2:  Is Frank competent to teach someone else to cook?


So first I'll answer your questions. 1: Can Frank cook? Assuming he somehow managed to learn everything without the food in hand, then probably. His first few attempts will probably suck, but then once he gets used to holding food, barring any lack of talent, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to cook, improvise his menu/recipes, all that jazz. 2: I honestly don't know. My guess would be not entirely. He could probably help someone learn the basic stuff, but then would obviously need someone else to help if they chose to apply it and were having difficulties. 

Now to address your overall point. What your talking about would be if, imagining Jane/Frank were martial artists, that she not only does not have her students compete, and/or bodyguard and/or fight, but also does not teach them how to spar. Which from your past posts isn't what I think you're getting at here.

I think a better comparison would be if Frank wants to be a chef, and Jane teaches him all the stuff, along with actually using food, but then never has him/he never works in an actual kitchen for a restaurant before 'graduating'. So he doesn't experience the high pressure environment, and there are no stakes to the food he makes in her kitchen (beyond whatever food he has to cook in front of Chef Jane for rank testing).


----------



## Buka

Living in a later time zone than most of you, over coffee every morning I go to the internet places I frequent and read about what's transpired in the rest of the world whilst moi was getting some much needed beauty sleep.

A lot of times, like today, I had to go back several pages on the forum to see what the hell everybody was arguing about.

Still drowsy, the coffee yet to kick in, I saw a lot of "so if A taught B, and then B goes on to teach C, who can't cook worth a squat, but he teaches D, whose mother was a hampster..."

Then I finally got it.






I'm all caught up. Carry on. You bunch of pussies.

Whoa! Them's fighting words! Let's have an online, quarantined, virtual free for all! 

I'll be B. And I'll even cook.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Steve said:


> While I generally agree with your points, you keep using the term "gradual."  I would put a finer point on that.  It's not gradual.  There is deterioration the first time someone without real application experience tries to teach someone else.  However, I would agree that, while not gradual, it is progressive in that every generation the information is transmitted, it will further from the practical source.I agree with this completely.  I bolded the part that I believe makes your conclusion below very questionable:*You can't take into account what you aren't aware of.  That's the problem.*
> 
> Regarding the values inherent to, and the value of, training in a TMA beyond simple combat, couldn't agree more.  There is value in doing things that keep you fit mentally and physically, that engage you, and that make you happy.  There need be no practical output from these activities. People knit, garden, play musical instruments, sports, make booze... whatever hobbies you want, there is value, even if you're terrible at them.



Your observations are valid.  The source of the confusion with me using the term "gradual" results from the fact that I was trying to cover two time frames simultaneously:  historical (centuries) and recent (years, covering one teacher to the next.)   This was meant to cover gradual change in the style as a whole, as well as "progressive" change in individual instruction from one teacher to the next.  I thought about explaining this in more detail in the post, but figured that would make it too long.

I bolded the part of your response re: my "questionable" conclusion.  You're right - not knowing the problem *is* the problem.  That's why all should be encouraged to read these posts.    I guess the suggestion is that good instructors should be proactive enough to learn more about their art and become aware of possible lapses in their teaching.  I think there is a growing awareness of this in recent years so knowledge will spread over  time.   For those too close minded or uncaring, there is little to do to help. 

As far as actual real combat is concerned, the proof is in the pudding.  But short of going out and looking for fights (as Motobu Choki famously did) competition, physical preparation and diligent partner practice in the dojo will have to suffice.  With this, keeping it simple, and proper attitude, while not guaranteed, a good chance for victory in the real deal exists.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> the majority of practitioners receiving flawed instruction don't know that it's flawed.


How can that be possible? 

If your instructor tells you that a front kick is to use your toes to kick on the target, when you use it on heavy bag and it hurts your toes. You will ask your teacher to get the right answer.

A flawed technique is easily to find out through testing. If a person doesn't care about testing, he deserves to learn flawed technique.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can that be possible?
> 
> If your instructor tells you that a front kick is to use your toes to kick on the target, when you use it on heavy bag and it hurts your toes. You will ask your teacher to get the right answer.
> 
> A flawed technique is easily to find out through testing. If a person doesn't care about testing, he deserves to learn flawed technique.


What if you're never taught about testing?


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So first I'll answer your questions. 1: Can Frank cook? Assuming he somehow managed to learn everything without the food in hand, then probably. His first few attempts will probably suck, but then once he gets used to holding food, barring any lack of talent, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to cook, improvise his menu/recipes, all that jazz.


Yeah, I agree.  Maybe so...  but let's consider that.  10 years this guy's been training to be a chef.  10 years.  Now, put Frank in a kitchen next to a person who's been working in a real kitchen, cooking real food for 1 year.  Who's going to be the more proficient chef?   I'd say the person with real experience.  Why?  Because if you're trying to learn to do something, training is optional, but experience is essential.  Good, bad, or indifferent, we know what the second person can and can't do.  He or she has done it for a year in a kitchen, cooking real food that people have actually eaten.  Frank has trained Jane-Cook-Do.

Point is, there is a transfer of knowledge that has not yet taken place.  Frank could train like this for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and the answer to the first question would be, "Maybe... probably.  His first few attempts will probably suck."  He might be able to do some non-cooking related tasks, though, like planning a menu.  





> 2: I honestly don't know. My guess would be not entirely. He could probably help someone learn the basic stuff, but then would obviously need someone else to help if they chose to apply it and were having difficulties.


The answer is no.  He wouldn't be competent to teach someone to cook.  Come on, man.  The guy's never cooked anything.  How's he going to teach someone else to cook?  

HOWEVER, he could teach someone Jane-Cook-Do.  He will have mastered that.  Is this cooking?  No.  Will it help someone prepare to learn to cook?  Maybe...  depends...  you really can't know until someone gets ahold of some food.





> Now to address your overall point. What your talking about would be if, imagining Jane/Frank were martial artists, that she not only does not have her students compete, and/or bodyguard and/or fight, but also does not teach them how to spar. Which from your past posts isn't what I think you're getting at here.


I don't know.  What I'm trying to do is make three things very clear.  First, that training is inherently artificial, and being realistic and honest about what is and isn't training is crucial to building expertise.

Simply put, you can't train yourself to expertise.  Consider that people learn to do things all the time without training.  However, nobody has ever learned to do something without doing that thing.   If we pare back how people build expertise in a skill, it can be broken down into four stages:  training, performance, expertise, innovation.

Training: You learn HOW to do it.
Performance:  You do it until you are proficient.
Expertise:  You can do it at a high level, independently, every time.
Innovation:  You have a deep understanding of the skill and are able to put your own spin on it.​
In our chef example, this could be learning to make an omelette.  You learn how to do it.  You do it until you can do it well, and then you start to mix it up a little.  If you never make an omelette, you are stuck at the training step.  When you finally get an egg in your hand, you are only then beginning to perform... much less innovate.

Second thing is that, while skill development is linear and predictable, skill sets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets.  Building a skill set involves learning and mastering some things in order to understand and begin to master other things.  It's a series of dependencies.  If you never progress out of the training stage of the first skill, you're not learning what you think you're learning.

So, in our chef analogy, you aren't learning to cook.  You're not building mastery of cooking.  You're building mastery of Jane-Cook-Do.  And after some period of time, you might... might... be able to transfer those skills to real cooking... maybe.

Third, if you have never cooked anything, you have no business teaching someone how to cook.  It's dishonest (to the customer, if not also to yourself) to try to do so.  And even worse, you train someone who trains someone else, and you're now two full generations away from real food.  That's what many martial arts schools look like.


> I think a better comparison would be if Frank wants to be a chef, and Jane teaches him all the stuff, along with actually using food, but then never has him/he never works in an actual kitchen for a restaurant before 'graduating'. So he doesn't experience the high pressure environment, and there are no stakes to the food he makes in her kitchen (beyond whatever food he has to cook in front of Chef Jane for rank testing).


This would be like going to the cordon bleu and training alongside professional chefs who intend to work in a professional kitchen, cooking and developing skills with them.  This is precisely the advantage a combat sport has over styles like ninjutsu or aikido.

In a ninjutsu school, you aren't doing this.  There is no food to cook with.

Excuse the mixed metaphor here, but learning self defense from a ninja is like learning to fly a plane from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who opened a school in 1935 after flying bi-planes in WWI.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I'll be B. And I'll even cook.


I would love to eat your cooking!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> What if you're never taught about testing?


I'll ask my teacher how to test my skill if he hasn't shown me how. If he can't answer my question, I'll find myself another teacher.

My 1st teacher (when I was 7) was a Taiji for health person. I used the Taiji he taught me in fighting without good result. I asked him how to use Taiji in fighting. He could not answer my question. I left him.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Yeah, I agree.  Maybe so...  but let's consider that.  10 years this guy's been training to be a chef.  10 years.  Now, put Frank in a kitchen next to a person who's been working in a real kitchen, cooking real food for 1 year.  Who's going to be the more proficient chef?   I'd say the person with real experience.  Why?  Because if you're trying to learn to do something, training is optional, but experience is essential.  Good, bad, or indifferent, we know what the second person can and can't do.  He or she has done it for a year in a kitchen, cooking real food that people have actually eaten.  Frank has trained Jane-Cook-Do.
> 
> Point is, there is a transfer of knowledge that has not yet taken place.  Frank could train like this for 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and the answer to the first question would be, "Maybe... probably.  His first few attempts will probably suck."  He might be able to do some non-cooking related tasks, though, like planning a menu.  The answer is no.  He wouldn't be competent to teach someone to cook.  Come on, man.  The guy's never cooked anything.  How's he going to teach someone else to cook?
> 
> HOWEVER, he could teach someone Jane-Cook-Do.  He will have mastered that.  Is this cooking?  No.  Will it help someone prepare to learn to cook?  Maybe...  depends...  you really can't know until someone gets ahold of some food.I don't know.  What I'm trying to do is make three things very clear.  First, that training is inherently artificial, and being realistic and honest about what is and isn't training is crucial to building expertise.
> 
> Simply put, you can't train yourself to expertise.  Consider that people learn to do things all the time without training.  However, nobody has ever learned to do something without doing that thing.   If we pare back how people build expertise in a skill, it can be broken down into four stages:  training, performance, expertise, innovation.
> 
> Training: You learn HOW to do it.
> Performance:  You do it until you are proficient.
> Expertise:  You can do it at a high level, independently, every time.
> Innovation:  You have a deep understanding of the skill and are able to put your own spin on it.​
> In our chef example, this could be learning to make an omelette.  You learn how to do it.  You do it until you can do it well, and then you start to mix it up a little.  If you never make an omelette, you are stuck at the training step.  When you finally get an egg in your hand, you are only then beginning to perform... much less innovate.
> 
> Second thing is that, while skill development is linear and predictable, skill sets aren't, particularly when you start getting into complimentary skills sets.  Building a skill set involves learning and mastering some things in order to understand and begin to master other things.  It's a series of dependencies.  If you never progress out of the training stage of the first skill, you're not learning what you think you're learning.
> 
> So, in our chef analogy, you aren't learning to cook.  You're not building mastery of cooking.  You're building mastery of Jane-Cook-Do.  And after some period of time, you might... might... be able to transfer those skills to real cooking... maybe.
> 
> Third, if you have never cooked anything, you have no business teaching someone how to cook.  It's dishonest (to the customer, if not also to yourself) to try to do so.  And even worse, you train someone who trains someone else, and you're now two full generations away from real food.  That's what many martial arts schools look like.
> This would be like going to the cordon bleu and training alongside professional chefs who intend to work in a professional kitchen, cooking and developing skills with them.  This is precisely the advantage a combat sport has over styles like ninjutsu or aikido.
> 
> In a ninjutsu school, you aren't doing this.  There is no food to cook with.
> 
> Excuse the mixed metaphor here, but learning self defense from a ninja is like learning to fly a plane from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who never flew a plane, who learned from a guy who opened a school in 1935 after flying bi-planes in WWI.


So first, I agree with the first part. Frank would be worse in a kitchen, having never worked with food, then the guy who worked in a kitchen for a year. But I'd argue that they 

I agree it'd be dishonest, but only if you don't tell the person you've never cooked anything. If you're upfront about that, it's the persons choice to learn from you or not.

As for the bottom, it gets a bit confusing going between metaphor and the actual topic so apologies if this gets confusing. And I'm going to not focus on the plane part because that just complicates it further with an added metaphors. But basically you can go to a combat sport and still not actually compete. But you learn through sparring. That would be like learning how to cook with actual food, but not cooking in a professional kitchen. Even if other people you're learning with and from are all professional chefs. 

The ninjutsu school would be like learning from someone who's not a professional chef, but does cook food. And doesn't really have any way of verifying that their food is actually good, besides giving it to the people in the class and letting them judge (ie: sparring with the students). Which being mediocre could still seem really impressive to people who have never cooked food or experienced good food, but probably wouldn't get you anywhere as a professional. Which is fine, if you're goal is just to learn some basics and have fun with friends, but not fine if it's being marketed as career education/improvement. 

And we're also assuming in this scenario that the ninjutsu guy isn't actually a fighter. If the guy is a professional kickboxer or MMA fighter who just happens to be teaching ninjutsu (and he used ninjutsu in the above), then that's fine. We could replace ninjutsu with muay thai, if the muay thai guy in question has also never competed, and his teacher also never competed. Which does happen.

My reasoning is also assuming that they're still doing sparring in their dojo. If they aren't then that would be akin to learning to cook without touching food.


----------



## Steve

Okay.  Here's another stab at demonstrating the importance of application.  Real world example here.  Let's take cops.  Cops carry a firearm pretty much all the time.  Right?  They train a lot and are required to demonstrate proficiency periodically.  But many cops, I'm led to believe, never even draw their firearm.  My point here is to highlight that being a cop entails a lot of other things besides shooting people, even though they spend time training and practicing... so that if they ever DO need to shoot someone, they can do it.  Further, LEO have a vested, professional interest in being skilled in the use of their sidearm.

In spite of all of this, according to a 2008 Rand study of the NYPD over almost 10 years (98 to 06), cops missed their target more than 2/3rds of the time, even when they weren't being fired upon.  In a fire fight, when being fired upon, the hit rate was 18%.  And even at close range, under 7 yards, cops miss their target about 63% of the time.   I mean, knowing this makes it so much easier to understand why stormtroopers are such bad shots!  After this study came out, the NYPD refreshed their training programs, and you know what?  It hasn't made a difference.

And if you're interested, it looks like 25 to 45% is pretty much how it looks where the data is available.  Simply put, when a cop pull the trigger, they are probably going to hit something other than what they intend to hit, whether it's a car, a building, or a person trying to eat a cheeseburger in the next parking lot.  Why do you think this is?  I think it's one of two things.  Either that's as good as it can get and guns just aren't accurate enough to hit the target more than 1/3rd of the time, or it's because cops don't apply this skill often enough to hone that skill.  I personally think it's the latter.  They are adept at doing the things they do professionally every day.  I'd bet dollars to donuts (haha, cops and donuts... am I right?) that a cop is much more likely to be highly skilled at the kind of grappling involved in restraining people than shooting them (I hear that phone books don't leave bruises... that's a joke).  I also think that cops would be much more skilled at shooting people if they did it more often (which, they don't, thankfully).


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So first, I agree with the first part. Frank would be worse in a kitchen, having never worked with food, then the guy who worked in a kitchen for a year. But I'd argue that they
> 
> I agree it'd be dishonest, but only if you don't tell the person you've never cooked anything. If you're upfront about that, it's the persons choice to learn from you or not.
> 
> As for the bottom, it gets a bit confusing going between metaphor and the actual topic so apologies if this gets confusing. And I'm going to not focus on the plane part because that just complicates it further with an added metaphors. But basically you can go to a combat sport and still not actually compete. But you learn through sparring. That would be like learning how to cook with actual food, but not cooking in a professional kitchen. Even if other people you're learning with and from are all professional chefs.
> 
> The ninjutsu school would be like learning from someone who's not a professional chef, but does cook food. And doesn't really have any way of verifying that their food is actually good, besides giving it to the people in the class and letting them judge (ie: sparring with the students). Which being mediocre could still seem really impressive to people who have never cooked food or experienced good food, but probably wouldn't get you anywhere as a professional. Which is fine, if you're goal is just to learn some basics and have fun with friends, but not fine if it's being marketed as career education/improvement.
> 
> And we're also assuming in this scenario that the ninjutsu guy isn't actually a fighter. If the guy is a professional kickboxer or MMA fighter who just happens to be teaching ninjutsu (and he used ninjutsu in the above), then that's fine. We could replace ninjutsu with muay thai, if the muay thai guy in question has also never competed, and his teacher also never competed. Which does happen.
> 
> My reasoning is also assuming that they're still doing sparring in their dojo. If they aren't then that would be akin to learning to cook without touching food.



You would build up a bunch of pros vs a bunch of cons. And an I don't know would be a con. 

So legitimate school would be a pro.
Legitimate wins in a competition would be a pro.
Training legitimate fighters would be a pro
References from legitimate fighters would be a pro. 
Video of sparring would be a pro. 

And if you were to look at it logically the pros would have to agree with each other.

So an 80 year old trainer may not have a MMA career but has decent fighters, look likes he knows his buisness on video, has decent references. 

We can see a bad instructor if we can see them being bad. That is an easy spot.

It is the big areas of I don't knows that I think are the red flags we have to watch because they are much more subtle and much easier to work around. 

So instructor was in special forces. But because of secrecy can't tell you where or when or provide evidence. This would become an I don't know and a red flag. 

Just like in martial arts the truth is in the details.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Okay.  Here's another stab at demonstrating the importance of application.  Real world example here.  Let's take cops.  Cops carry a firearm pretty much all the time.  Right?  They train a lot and are required to demonstrate proficiency periodically.  But many cops, I'm led to believe, never even draw their firearm.  My point here is to highlight that being a cop entails a lot of other things besides shooting people, even though they spend time training and practicing... so that if they ever DO need to shoot someone, they can do it.  Further, LEO have a vested, professional interest in being skilled in the use of their sidearm.
> 
> In spite of all of this, according to a 2008 Rand study of the NYPD over almost 10 years (98 to 06), cops missed their target more than 2/3rds of the time, even when they weren't being fired upon.  In a fire fight, when being fired upon, the hit rate was 18%.  And even at close range, under 7 yards, cops miss their target about 63% of the time.   I mean, knowing this makes it so much easier to understand why stormtroopers are such bad shots!  After this study came out, the NYPD refreshed their training programs, and you know what?  It hasn't made a difference.
> 
> And if you're interested, it looks like 25 to 45% is pretty much how it looks where the data is available.  Simply put, when a cop pull the trigger, they are probably going to hit something other than what they intend to hit, whether it's a car, a building, or a person trying to eat a cheeseburger in the next parking lot.  Why do you think this is?  I think it's one of two things.  Either that's as good as it can get and guns just aren't accurate enough to hit the target more than 1/3rd of the time, or it's because cops don't apply this skill often enough to hone that skill.  I personally think it's the latter.  They are adept at doing the things they do professionally every day.  I'd bet dollars to donuts (haha, cops and donuts... am I right?) that a cop is much more likely to be highly skilled at the kind of grappling involved in restraining people than shooting them (I hear that phone books don't leave bruises... that's a joke).  I also think that cops would be much more skilled at shooting people if they did it more often (which, they don't, thankfully).



Cops are tricky though. As there is so much bullcrap surrounding their training and procedures as to never get a clear picture. 

It is industry training which is quite often designed to protect against liability and compromised with time and budget restrictions rather than teach a usable skill. And is quite often just ignored.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So first, I agree with the first part. Frank would be worse in a kitchen, having never worked with food, then the guy who worked in a kitchen for a year. But I'd argue that they
> 
> I agree it'd be dishonest, but only if you don't tell the person you've never cooked anything. If you're upfront about that, it's the persons choice to learn from you or not.
> 
> As for the bottom, it gets a bit confusing going between metaphor and the actual topic so apologies if this gets confusing. And I'm going to not focus on the plane part because that just complicates it further with an added metaphors. But basically you can go to a combat sport and still not actually compete. But you learn through sparring. That would be like learning how to cook with actual food, but not cooking in a professional kitchen. Even if other people you're learning with and from are all professional chefs.
> 
> The ninjutsu school would be like learning from someone who's not a professional chef, but does cook food. And doesn't really have any way of verifying that their food is actually good, besides giving it to the people in the class and letting them judge (ie: sparring with the students). Which being mediocre could still seem really impressive to people who have never cooked food or experienced good food, but probably wouldn't get you anywhere as a professional. Which is fine, if you're goal is just to learn some basics and have fun with friends, but not fine if it's being marketed as career education/improvement.
> 
> And we're also assuming in this scenario that the ninjutsu guy isn't actually a fighter. If the guy is a professional kickboxer or MMA fighter who just happens to be teaching ninjutsu (and he used ninjutsu in the above), then that's fine. We could replace ninjutsu with muay thai, if the muay thai guy in question has also never competed, and his teacher also never competed. Which does happen.
> 
> My reasoning is also assuming that they're still doing sparring in their dojo. If they aren't then that would be akin to learning to cook without touching food.


I love analogies, so I'm sticking with this cooking thing.

The Cordon Bleu teaches the art of French cuisine, which is a specific style.  Professional chefs start their careers here, and in the Cordon Bleu, you actually cook French food.  The instructor cooks food in front of you, and you see your fellow students cooking beside you.  Some, probably most, are working and plan to work in professional kitchens.  This is MMA, or BJJ, or boxing, or Judo.

The Gordon Blue school of cookery arts is down the street.  Gordon caters to people who have no interest in being a professional.  He got his "Chef" certificate from Jane-Cook-Do several years ago, and teaches the art of cooking without cooking, because fire and knives are too dangerous to use in training.  That's other styles.

And to be clear, this applies to every school, regardless of style.  A BJJ school that discourages competition would quickly atrophy because there's no application.  It will have become a training loop, just like the ninja school next door. It's just that some styles promote this and others, such as MMA, are structured to avoid this.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> You would build up a bunch of pros vs a bunch of cons. And an I don't know would be a con.
> 
> So legitimate school would be a pro.
> Legitimate wins in a competition would be a pro.
> Training legitimate fighters would be a pro
> References from legitimate fighters would be a pro.
> Video of sparring would be a pro.
> 
> And if you were to look at it logically the pros would have to agree with each other.
> 
> So an 80 year old trainer may not have a MMA career but has decent fighters, look likes he knows his buisness on video, has decent references.
> 
> We can see a bad instructor if we can see them being bad. That is an easy spot.
> 
> It is the big areas of I don't knows that I think are the red flags we have to watch because they are much more subtle and much easier to work around.
> 
> So instructor was in special forces. But because of secrecy can't tell you where or when or provide evidence. This would become an I don't know and a red flag.
> 
> Just like in martial arts the truth is in the details.


I agree with all of this, but only if the goal is to learn how to fight/compete. If that's your goal, then you want as many pros as you can, accepting that some pros would outweigh some cons (a local pro boxer from my area might meet all of those, but if I could have someone like cuz d'amaco in the 80s, I'd rather go with him). 

If your goal isn't to be a competitive fighter, or to learn how to effectively defend yourself/fight, but instead is to find a motivating teacher, or to hang out with your friends, or to connect with your culture, or basically anything else, then you have a different pro/con list. You still have one (if my goal is to connect with my culture, being a part of my cultures heritage would be a pro, and the school being focused on modernization would be a con).


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I love analogies, so I'm sticking with this cooking thing.
> 
> The Cordon Bleu teaches the art of French cuisine, which is a specific style.  Professional chefs start their careers here, and in the Cordon Bleu, you actually cook French food.  The instructor cooks food in front of you, and you see your fellow students cooking beside you.  Some, probably most, are working and plan to work in professional kitchens.  This is MMA, or BJJ, or boxing, or Judo.
> 
> The Gordon Blue school of cookery arts is down the street.  Gordon caters to people who have no interest in being a professional.  He got his "Chef" certificate from Jane-Cook-Do several years ago, and teaches the art of cooking without cooking, because fire and knives are too dangerous to use in training.  That's other styles.
> 
> And to be clear, this applies to every school, regardless of style.  A BJJ school that discourages competition would quickly atrophy because there's no application.  It will have become a training loop, just like the ninja school next door. It's just that some styles promote this and others, such as MMA, are structured to avoid this.


Again, I'd argue that the better analogy would be in cooking without cooking in a restaurant. Because if we focus on those that don't cook/spar at all, I 100% agree that isn't helping anyone. Unless there goal isn't learning to fight/cook.

Outside of that, I agree with your overall point. With one new caveat-going to drop bears pros/cons list. The style shouldn't necessarily be listed as a pro or a con. If it's a boxing dojo where no one does any sparring, or any competition, that's worse than the TKD dojo where half the people going there are competing in kickboxing.


----------



## dvcochran

Buka said:


> Living in a later time zone than most of you, over coffee every morning I go to the internet places I frequent and read about what's transpired in the rest of the world whilst moi was getting some much needed beauty sleep.
> 
> A lot of times, like today, I had to go back several pages on the forum to see what the hell everybody was arguing about.
> 
> Still drowsy, the coffee yet to kick in, I saw a lot of "so if A taught B, and then B goes on to teach C, who can't cook worth a squat, but he teaches D, whose mother was a hampster..."
> 
> Then I finally got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all caught up. Carry on. You bunch of pussies.
> 
> Whoa! Them's fighting words! Let's have an online, quarantined, virtual free for all!
> 
> I'll be B. And I'll even cook.


I cannot tell you how much I agree with this post.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Yeah.  Okay.  Until you accept that you don't get it, you won't get it.  I don't think you're a very good listener.


Swinging door there, swinging door.


----------



## dvcochran

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, since you agree with my post and I was making the same point that Steve was making in the posts you were berating him for, then I guess you missed the point that you actually agree with Steve,
> 
> 
> Yeah, some people can start out with bad instruction and through practical experience learn to find the gems hidden in the dross. (Heck, some people can start out with _no_ instruction and through practical experience develop a solid system.) However it's not exactly fair to the student to expect them to have to do that. Especially since, as you note, they very likely wouldn't even know that the instruction they're getting is compromised,
> 
> 
> I agree that the majority of practitioners receiving flawed instruction don't know that it's flawed. I'm not so sure about not caring. A solid majority of instructors I've met over the years have touted self-defense/fighting ability as a benefit of what they teach and a solid majority of students I've met seem to regard that as an important aspect of their training as well.


I was speaking of the portion of people who are practicing for exercise/social interaction.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I agree with all of this, but only if the goal is to learn how to fight/compete. If that's your goal, then you want as many pros as you can, accepting that some pros would outweigh some cons (a local pro boxer from my area might meet all of those, but if I could have someone like cuz d'amaco in the 80s, I'd rather go with him).
> 
> If your goal isn't to be a competitive fighter, or to learn how to effectively defend yourself/fight, but instead is to find a motivating teacher, or to hang out with your friends, or to connect with your culture, or basically anything else, then you have a different pro/con list. You still have one (if my goal is to connect with my culture, being a part of my cultures heritage would be a pro, and the school being focused on modernization would be a con).



They are not mutually exclusive and so the water gets muddied there. 

Quite often an art that teaches heritage uses that heritage to support its effectiveness.

So I may do krav maga because I think Israelis are cool. But I don't do krav maga because if the Israelis do it it has to work.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> I was speaking of the portion of people who are practicing for exercise/social interaction.



What martial arts are you specifically describing? I was having a think about it and I can see the argument that say boxersise doesn't need any real martial value and shouldn't claim it. And say that would be fine.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> They are not mutually exclusive and so the water gets muddied there.
> 
> Quite often an art that teaches heritage uses that heritage to support its effectiveness.
> 
> So I may do krav maga because I think Israelis are cool. But I don't do krav maga because if the Israelis do it it has to work.


Yup. And if you have multiple goals, such as heritage and effectiveness, then you'll have a longer list. At some point if your list of required pros is too long or specific, you may have to decide what's more important. Or figure out a way to get it. So if I really really want to learn wushu because I think it looks awesome, that might be something I'm not willing to give up. But I also want to learn how to actually fight. But none of the wushu places near me teach me to fight. I now have to decide which is more important. I can train wushu and give up on combat effectiveness, or train MMA at the gym next door and give up on the cool flips and flashy sword stuff. 

Or I can do both, so I learn both things. Or train wushu and then compete in amateur MMA fights and dog brothers fights to learn how to actually apply it. So without them teaching me combact effectiveness, it doesn't mean I can't learn combat effectiveness, so long as I know that's not what I'm getting going into the school.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> I would love to eat your cooking!



And I'd love to cook for you.

Other than grilling steaks or burgers, and sautéing fish, the only things I'll make guests/friends are Chicken - Marsala, Picatta, roasted, soup, or stuffed with goat cheese and baked. Any kind of risotto dish - any kind at all, shrimp and pasta dishes, Bolognese sauces, omelettes, omelettes, omelettes. Vegetable pies, killer eggplant parm....and I mean killer. Crazy kind of sandwiches - only imagination holds you back. Tarts, especially lemon, elaborate antipastos, and some other various things.

The problem I have with cooking is I really don't understand the process. I'm slow, but I don't care. The concept of making an entire Thanksgiving dinner and having everything all ready at _the same time_ is so foreign to me, I just don't know how anyone can do it.

But, man, I love to eat. I know everyone says that, but packing away groceries is an art form.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> "Or, for the sake of discussions, we can just listen a bit and see if there's something useful to discuss.
> 
> You seem to think we all owe you some proof. Nobody does, except maybe the folks who train you."
> 
> That is a refusal. Which is clearly a purposeful attempt to hide information.
> 
> You have to understand that my bias is generated by your dishonesty. I see these sorts of. I never said that, I never meant that, you didn't understand my intentional vague posts, I don't have to show evidence, I don't have to support separating truth from fiction.
> 
> And that adds up to a bias.
> 
> Without evidence to the contrary it is a very reasonable bias.
> 
> It allowes you to work off hypotheticals and anecdotes and this faith based discussion.
> 
> I should be having this problem discussing a religion. Not martial arts. Which is a practical mesuable activity.


You keep asserting that my training is based entirely on hypotheticals and anecdotes. That's ignoring a large part of my training. Which you do because it fits your narrative. 

But go ahead and call me dishonest, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> And I'd love to cook for you.
> 
> Other than grilling steaks or burgers, and sautéing fish, the only things I'll make guests/friends are Chicken - Marsala, Picatta, roasted, soup, or stuffed with goat cheese and baked. Any kind of risotto dish - any kind at all, shrimp and pasta dishes, Bolognese sauces, omelettes, omelettes, omelettes. Vegetable pies, killer eggplant parm....and I mean killer. Crazy kind of sandwiches - only imagination holds you back. Tarts, especially lemon, elaborate antipastos, and some other various things.
> 
> The problem I have with cooking is I really don't understand the process. I'm slow, but I don't care. The concept of making an entire Thanksgiving dinner and having everything all ready at _the same time_ is so foreign to me, I just don't know how anyone can do it.
> 
> But, man, I love to eat. I know everyone says that, but packing away groceries is an art form.



Man, I feel that. I'm not sure I've ever finished three dishes at the same time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I see your point.  It's a bit of semantics, really, "gradual" vs "progressive."
> 
> So, let's apply your model here to something outside of martial arts.  I mentioned cooking before, so let's stick with that.
> 
> Person A is a James Beard award winning, Michelin star rated, classically trained chef.  Let's call her Chef Jane.  Chef Jane owns two successful restaurants and has worked in the field for over 30 years.  She is a bona fide expert in the field, respected even among other successful chefs.  She opens a school to teach people to cook, using a system she creates that she has called "Jane-cook-do."  She rents a warehouse and sets it up with everything one might need to cook minus the food. She has ovens, bowls, mixers, plates, you name it.  No food, though.
> 
> She gets a group of people who enroll in her school, and they meet three times per week for about 1 hour, maybe 2.  They work through a very thoughtfully crafted curriculum that starts with easy recipes and then works up to progressively more complex recipes.  Students are required to practice all of the techniques, from knife skills, to building up their baking muscles by stirring cement, to any other kind of simulation you can think of.  Over time, these students gain ranks, until after a period of time (let's say ten years) they attain the rank of "chef."    Most students drop out, but Person B, let's call this person Frank, is serious about this.  Being a chef is his life's dream.  After 10 years, Frank has never touched any food, but he has practiced every technique, and has memorized hundreds of recipes.
> 
> I'm trying to go out of my way to say that Chef Jane tried to think of everything.  Absent food, she has really tried to deliver a thoughtful, comprehensive culinary education to her students... just without access to any food.  Everything else has been taken into consideration.
> 
> Two questions:
> 1:  Can Frank cook?
> 
> 2:  Is Frank competent to teach someone else to cook?


Isn't there a point between professional chef and not touching food?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Isn't there a point between professional chef and not touching food?


Yeah, in an Mma gym there is.  just as there is in a boxing gym, or a BJJ school.   Like the amateur who trains at the cordon bleu.

But in a ninja school, there isn’t.  No food to cook, and as @Monkey Turned Wolf and I agreed earlier, you really can’t fake it, no matter how long you train.  You are, at the very best, approaching the cusp of transferring the training into application.   Like Frank.  You might transition pretty quick, but will probably suck for a while.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How can that be possible?
> 
> If your instructor tells you that a front kick is to use your toes to kick on the target, when you use it on heavy bag and it hurts your toes. You will ask your teacher to get the right answer.
> 
> A flawed technique is easily to find out through testing. If a person doesn't care about testing, he deserves to learn flawed technique.


It's deeper than that, John. If I teach you a technique and tell you it will work against X attack from Y style, how will you know that's not true? (Think of the many takedown defenses that claim to be able to handle shoot fighters, but would fail miserably against a shoot fighters.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What martial arts are you specifically describing? I was having a think about it and I can see the argument that say boxersise doesn't need any real martial value and shouldn't claim it. And say that would be fine.


I don't think it's specific arts. Some of the people I trained with definitely seemed to fall into the group he's describing, while others definitely did not.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yeah, in an Mma gym there is.  just as there is in a boxing gym, or a BJJ school.   Like the amateur who trains at the cordon bleu.
> 
> But in a ninja school, there isn’t.  No food to cook, and as @Monkey Turned Wolf and I agreed earlier, you really can’t fake it, no matter how long you train.  You are, at the very best, approaching the cusp of transferring the training into application.   Like Frank.  You might transition pretty quick, but will probably suck for a while.


Why is it style-specific? Or are you talking about them training to be ninjas (which they can't really practice)?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Why is it style-specific? Or are you talking about them training to be ninjas (which they can't really practice)?


It’s application specific.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> If I teach you a technique and tell you it will work against X attack from Y style, how will you know that's not true? (Think of the many takedown defenses that claim to be able to handle shoot fighters, but would fail miserably against a shoot fighters.)


If I don't have intention to test it, it will be my fault.

A student who has no desire to test his skill is a student that any MA teacher wants to ignore.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

gpseymour said:


> Why is it style-specific? Or are you talking about them training to be ninjas (which they can't really practice)?


Speaking from my own time in the Bujinkan: there was no sparring; techniques were mostly practiced against highly unrealistic attacks; there  was a fair amount of mystical woowoo; neither the students nor teachers seemed to grasp the difference between (somewhat) high percentage moves, low percentage moves, and no percentage moves. Oh, and everyone seemed convinced they were practicing the deadliest, most effective art around. (The epithet “partial art” was frequently used to describe other systems.)

Despite all that, there were elements of Bujinkan training which I think helped my growth as a martial artist and carried over as I moved on to systems with live training. However it was definitely practicing in the kitchen with no food and no way to test which recipes were good and which were crap.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I don't have intention to test it, it will be my fault.
> 
> A student who has no desire to test his skill is a student that any MA teacher wants to ignore.


Unfortunately there are a whole bunch of martial arts instructors out there who only want that kind of student.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You keep asserting that my training is based entirely on hypotheticals and anecdotes. That's ignoring a large part of my training. Which you do because it fits your narrative.
> 
> But go ahead and call me dishonest, if it makes you feel better.



It is not about feelings. That is why I showed the evidence.

Your quote.
The place where your argument falls flat is the use of the word “refusal”, where you clearly paint it as a purposeful attempt to hide information.

Also your quote.
You seem to think we all owe you some proof. Nobody does, except maybe the folks who train you."


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. And if you have multiple goals, such as heritage and effectiveness, then you'll have a longer list. At some point if your list of required pros is too long or specific, you may have to decide what's more important. Or figure out a way to get it. So if I really really want to learn wushu because I think it looks awesome, that might be something I'm not willing to give up. But I also want to learn how to actually fight. But none of the wushu places near me teach me to fight. I now have to decide which is more important. I can train wushu and give up on combat effectiveness, or train MMA at the gym next door and give up on the cool flips and flashy sword stuff.
> 
> Or I can do both, so I learn both things. Or train wushu and then compete in amateur MMA fights and dog brothers fights to learn how to actually apply it. So without them teaching me combact effectiveness, it doesn't mean I can't learn combat effectiveness, so long as I know that's not what I'm getting going into the school.



So faith based.

So long as the belief makes you happy then it has merit. 

People might subscribe to healing crystals because they meet girls. But that doesn't make healing crystals work.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> So faith based.
> 
> So long as the belief makes you happy then it has merit.
> 
> People might subscribe to healing crystals because they meet girls. But that doesn't make healing crystals work.


If you got faith based out of that, you need to reread it. I specified that it might not work, and that if that's the case try something else that does work, while you train it for whatever you do want. In the case I gave, cool performance xma stuff.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> If you got faith based out of that, you need to reread it. I specified that it might not work, and that if that's the case try something else that does work, while you train it for whatever you do want. In the case I gave, cool performance xma stuff.



But we are still seppartating works from doesn't work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> Speaking from my own time in the Bujinkan: there was no sparring; techniques were mostly practiced against highly unrealistic attacks; there  was a fair amount of mystical woowoo; neither the students nor teachers seemed to grasp the difference between (somewhat) high percentage moves, low percentage moves, and no percentage moves. Oh, and everyone seemed convinced they were practicing the deadliest, most effective art around. (The epithet “partial art” was frequently used to describe other systems.)
> 
> Despite all that, there were elements of Bujinkan training which I think helped my growth as a martial artist and carried over as I moved on to systems with live training. However it was definitely practicing in the kitchen with no food and no way to test which recipes were good and which were crap.


I remembered you talking about that in the past. My point was that any style can add resistive training and other events to put the food back in the kitchen to varying degrees. Lack of application, while a common trait in some styles and even families if arts (I'm looking at you, aiki arts), isn't an inherent characteristic of the style.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If I don't have intention to test it, it will be my fault.
> 
> A student who has no desire to test his skill is a student that any MA teacher wants to ignore.


If you only test it in the same group, you may think you've tested it. But if nobody is using the training against the shoot fighter it claims to work on, it may not. 

This is a major advantage of having folks in the group who apply outside that group, at work, in competition, sparring with folks from different styles, etc. They often ask better questions and see weaknesses others may not. They improve the casual students who don't test it outside that school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is not about feelings. That is why I showed the evidence.
> 
> Your quote.
> The place where your argument falls flat is the use of the word “refusal”, where you clearly paint it as a purposeful attempt to hide information.
> 
> Also your quote.
> You seem to think we all owe you some proof. Nobody does, except maybe the folks who train you."


Yeah,  can see why you'd read it that way.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> What martial arts are you specifically describing? I was having a think about it and I can see the argument that say boxersise doesn't need any real martial value and shouldn't claim it. And say that would be fine.


I suppose it is all about intent. If there is a lack of choices in your area and boxercise is you only choice, I would say it is better than nothing for someone only looking to get in better shape. 
We have three commercial gyms but only 2 MA schools of the same style in my town so I can really relate to the lack of choices without considerable travel.


----------



## dvcochran

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Again, I'd argue that the better analogy would be in cooking without cooking in a restaurant. Because if we focus on those that don't cook/spar at all, I 100% agree that isn't helping anyone. Unless there goal isn't learning to fight/cook.
> 
> Outside of that, I agree with your overall point. With one new caveat-going to drop bears pros/cons list. The style shouldn't necessarily be listed as a pro or a con. If it's a boxing dojo where no one does any sparring, or any competition, that's worse than the TKD dojo where half the people going there are competing in kickboxing.


So out of all this back and forth between you and @Steve and all the cooking comparisons, just cut to the chase.
What MA styles do you feel are the posers? Which ones work and which do not?

Yes, there is more to the question but I want to see where you go with this first.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. And if you have multiple goals, such as heritage and effectiveness, then you'll have a longer list. At some point if your list of required pros is too long or specific, you may have to decide what's more important. Or figure out a way to get it. So if I really really want to learn wushu because I think it looks awesome, that might be something I'm not willing to give up. But I also want to learn how to actually fight. But none of the wushu places near me teach me to fight. I now have to decide which is more important. I can train wushu and give up on combat effectiveness, or train MMA at the gym next door and give up on the cool flips and flashy sword stuff.
> 
> Or I can do both, so I learn both things. Or train wushu and then compete in amateur MMA fights and dog brothers fights to learn how to actually apply it. So without them teaching me combact effectiveness, it doesn't mean I can't learn combat effectiveness, so long as I know that's not what I'm getting going into the school.


Central to this conversation is the idea of an instructor who believes that his or her Wushu doesn't teach people how to fight; it teaches self defense.

That said, if you're training Wushu and one of your central goals is to use Wushu to compete successfully, one of two things will happen.  Your Wushu will improve, or you will learn that Wushu is ill-suited to fighting.

Further, this will be individual development.  Your Wushu skills employed while fighting will improve, but the Wushu being taught by your instructor, and the Wushu being learned by your fellow students, will not.  You are, at this point, learning it on your own.  As I said before, you can learn to do things by doing them without training.  By changing the context of your Wushu, you're effectively going it alone, without the systemic support of training.  It's harder to do this, but people just sort of figure things out all the time.  Much easier if the training is aligned to the goal.  As my grandfather once said, "You can teach a pig to climb a tree, but it's a whole lot easier to hire a squirrel."



gpseymour said:


> I remembered you talking about that in the past. My point was that any style can add resistive training and other events to put the food back in the kitchen to varying degrees. Lack of application, while a common trait in some styles and even families if arts (I'm looking at you, aiki arts), isn't an inherent characteristic of the style.


No matter how good the training is, it can only get you to the edge of proficiency, unless training is the product. You can get a degree in Jane-Cook-Do, train for 10 years and become a certified "Chef."  But if you've never cooked an egg, you're likely going to suck at it for a while, no matter how long you've cooked.  Think about the implications of that fundamental truth in a self defense context.  The stakes are much higher than inedible food.



dvcochran said:


> I suppose it is all about intent. If there is a lack of choices in your area and boxercise is you only choice, I would say it is better than nothing for someone only looking to get in better shape.
> We have three commercial gyms but only 2 MA schools of the same style in my town so I can really relate to the lack of choices without considerable travel.


If getting in shape is your goal, boxercise sounds like a great choice.  Why would you think that's settling?



dvcochran said:


> So out of all this back and forth between you and @Steve and all the cooking comparisons, just cut to the chase.
> What MA styles do you feel are the posers? Which ones work and which do not?
> 
> Yes, there is more to the question but I want to see where you go with this first.


Posers?  Why are you framing this discussion in that way?  Also, it's really funny to me, in my pre-coffee state, that you're asking us to cut to the chase while also admitting you have a hidden agenda.  That's moxy.

With that out of the way, it's curious to me that you can't answer this question based on what I've already posted.  It's not about styles as a blanket statement.  Rather, it's a way to evaluate any training.  The question is, are you learning to do what you think you're learning?  It's about how well training (any training) aligns with the goals of the training.  When a person's individual goals are at odds with the training program, you have a situation like the wushu guy mentioned above, where you're essentially learning it on your own.

When the instructors stated goals are at odds with the training, you have a situation like the guys who "cook" without food.  This is common in schools where "self defense" is the core goal.  If you're training "for self defense" in a "self defense" school, you are cooking without food.  No matter how long you train, you will still probably suck when you initially try to transfer your training into application.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

dvcochran said:


> So out of all this back and forth between you and @Steve and all the cooking comparisons, just cut to the chase.
> What MA styles do you feel are the posers? Which ones work and which do not?
> 
> Yes, there is more to the question but I want to see where you go with this first.


I do not feel there are specific styles that are posers. I feel there can be schools which are posers, and those are schools that either a: encourage no sparring (one poster om this sub states that he has replaced sparring with something else and i withold my judgment on that until i see it), b: those that limit sparring to the point of uselessness (think no touch stuff) c: those that are focused purely on perfirmance, d: those that discourage theit members from engaging in competition, and e: those that discourage people from training outside of the school/style. And even then, a school is only a 'poser' with a, b or c if they're dishonest (d and e are auto 'posers') otherwise they're just ineffective for fighting or self defense. 

As for specific styles, dim mak? Jedi-fu? Outside of that I have trouble thinking of a style where I know _every school_ in a style is like that. It's why i mentioned a ninjutsu school could be good if trained right, and a boxing school bad.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> But we are still seppartating works from doesn't work.


Yup. And acknowledging what does and doesn't work. Boxercise like you mentioned is the perfect example. It'll get you fit, but won't teach you to fight better, really. And if you recognize that and the boxercise instructor recognizes that it's fine. It only  becomes an issue when they state that by learning boxercise you can go out and win fights against randos on the street.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. And acknowledging what does and doesn't work. Boxercise like you mentioned is the perfect example. It'll get you fit, but won't teach you to fight better, really. And if you recognize that and the boxercise instructor recognizes that it's fine. It only  becomes an issue when they state that by learning boxercise you can go out and win fights against randos on the street.


How is boxercise functionally different from a school that teaches self defense?  In both cases, you're getting in shape by mimicking the movements that other people apply in context.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Central to this conversation is the idea of an instructor who believes that his or her Wushu doesn't teach people how to fight; it teaches self defense.
> 
> That said, if you're training Wushu and one of your central goals is to use Wushu to compete successfully, one of two things will happen.  Your Wushu will improve, or you will learn that Wushu is ill-suited to fighting.
> 
> Further, this will be individual development.  Your Wushu skills employed while fighting will improve, but the Wushu being taught by your instructor, and the Wushu being learned by your fellow students, will not.  You are, at this point, learning it on your own.  As I said before, you can learn to do things by doing them without training.  By changing the context of your Wushu, you're effectively going it alone, without the systemic support of training.  It's harder to do this, but people just sort of figure things out all the time.  Much easier if the training is aligned to the goal.  As my grandfather once said, "You can teach a pig to climb a tree, but it's a whole lot easier to hire a squirrel.


Regarding the first-i have trouble understanding how someone could learn or think they're learning self defense without learning how to fight.

Regarding the second, yup it'll be tougher if you try to fight on your own with wushu. Which is why i also gave the option of training both wushu and something else, if you absolutely can't let go of wushu. But that's an individuals choice to make, and i feel it's common sense that if youre going to a performance based school and adapting it on your own, it's going to be tougher than if you had a coach or group that's helping you.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> How is boxercise functionally different from a school that teaches self defense?  In both cases, you're getting in shape by mimicking the movements that other people apply in context.


That depends on the SD school. One of the kempo schools I trained at was an SD school. They're main goal was to teach SD, and for most of the time that I went there, there was only a few consistent people besides myself. The teacher was a professional kickboxer, his assistant was an amateur kickboxer, one of the other black belts was in the military (i forget what branch, but he saw combat) one of the other students was a former kickboxer and collegiate wrestling, another had his first fights when he was at this dojo, wnded up joining his hs wrestling team at our instructors recommendation, and has since gone on to become an MMA fighter, two more had no interest in competition, and I had two fights scheduled that both fell through for different reasons before deciding it wasn't in the stars for me. They taught self defense based in kempo, but also heavily based in kickboxing and wrestling. And we would constantly be doing sparring as if preparing for matches.

So that's how it's different. A school that teaches self defense can and should also be teaching application, and encouraging people to compete if they want to test their skills. I've never heard it even suggested that a boxercise class teach application or encourage people to compete.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Regarding the first-i have trouble understanding how someone could learn or think they're learning self defense without learning how to fight.
> 
> Regarding the second, yup it'll be tougher if you try to fight on your own with wushu. Which is why i also gave the option of training both wushu and something else, if you absolutely can't let go of wushu. But that's an individuals choice to make, and i feel it's common sense that if youre going to a performance based school and adapting it on your own, it's going to be tougher than if you had a coach or group that's helping you.


As the saying goes, "Common sense isn't all that common."  

The term "self defense" is a tough one.  First, I don't think most self defense schools teach people to fight.  It's just not part of the model.  Mostly, they teach movements that mimic the skills other people apply professionally.  Just like boxercise, most self defense training is copsercize or navy seal-cercize or isreali-soldier... cicize.  The only self defense training program I've ever seen that I would consider ACTUAL self defense training was focused, had measurable goals, and was accountable to specific outcomes.  It wasn't "self defense" training.  Rather, it was training for young women who were at high risk of sexual assault on college campuses.  They learned skills they could apply which reduced their risk for being assaulted and for those assaults to be successful.   Interestingly, if I remember correctly, it took 12 weeks and was very successful.

Regarding the second, sure, it's common sense.  My point in saying it out loud is to acknowledge that training is valuable and plays an important role in skill development.  While you CAN just go it alone and figure it out, it's often much easier, less frustrating, and more successful in the end if you just train appropriately for the task. Simply put, it's always easier if you have a goal and train for the goal vs having training and shoehorning it into a goal.  But if you're applying technique, a little training goes a long way.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Yup. And acknowledging what does and doesn't work. Boxercise like you mentioned is the perfect example. It'll get you fit, but won't teach you to fight better, really. And if you recognize that and the boxercise instructor recognizes that it's fine. It only  becomes an issue when they state that by learning boxercise you can go out and win fights against randos on the street.



Yeah ok. So we are still seppartating people's motivations from the actual factual evidence of a working art.

I thought you were going for something like boxersise works because there are people who only want to boxersise.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Regarding the first-i have trouble understanding how someone could learn or think they're learning self defense without learning how to fight.
> 
> Regarding the second, yup it'll be tougher if you try to fight on your own with wushu. Which is why i also gave the option of training both wushu and something else, if you absolutely can't let go of wushu. But that's an individuals choice to make, and i feel it's common sense that if youre going to a performance based school and adapting it on your own, it's going to be tougher than if you had a coach or group that's helping you.



People can be convinced of all sorts of stuff especially anecdotally.

I keep putting up that video of water divining to illustrate this.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

So the problem is 

- SD school teaches SD.
- Health exercise school teaches health exercise.
- Inner peace school teaches inner peace.
- ...

but they don't teach fighting.


----------



## dvcochran

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I do not feel there are specific styles that are posers. I feel there can be schools which are posers, and those are schools that either a: encourage no sparring (one poster om this sub states that he has replaced sparring with something else and i withold my judgment on that until i see it), b: those that limit sparring to the point of uselessness (think no touch stuff) c: those that are focused purely on perfirmance, d: those that discourage theit members from engaging in competition, and e: those that discourage people from training outside of the school/style. And even then, a school is only a 'poser' with a, b or c if they're dishonest (d and e are auto 'posers') otherwise they're just ineffective for fighting or self defense.
> 
> As for specific styles, dim mak? Jedi-fu? Outside of that I have trouble thinking of a style where I know _every school_ in a style is like that. It's why i mentioned a ninjutsu school could be good if trained right, and a boxing school bad.


Can you elaborate on 'C'?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> As the saying goes, "Common sense isn't all that common."
> 
> The term "self defense" is a tough one.  First, I don't think most self defense schools teach people to fight.  It's just not part of the model.  Mostly, they teach movements that mimic the skills other people apply professionally.  Just like boxercise, most self defense training is copsercize or navy seal-cercize or isreali-soldier... cicize.  The only self defense training program I've ever seen that I would consider ACTUAL self defense training was focused, had measurable goals, and was accountable to specific outcomes.  It wasn't "self defense" training.  Rather, it was training for young women who were at high risk of sexual assault on college campuses.  They learned skills they could apply which reduced their risk for being assaulted and for those assaults to be successful.   Interestingly, if I remember correctly, it took 12 weeks and was very successful.
> 
> Regarding the second, sure, it's common sense.  My point in saying it out loud is to acknowledge that training is valuable and plays an important role in skill development.  While you CAN just go it alone and figure it out, it's often much easier, less frustrating, and more successful in the end if you just train appropriately for the task. Simply put, it's always easier if you have a goal and train for the goal vs having training and shoehorning it into a goal.  But if you're applying technique, a little training goes a long way.


I am having a hard time understanding/picturing you idea of what self defense/teaching self defense is. Can you elaborate?


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> I am having a hard time understanding/picturing you idea of what self defense/teaching self defense is. Can you elaborate?



Think along the lines of cash in transit.

Which I can only do as pdf links.

Cash-in-transit guidance material | Safe Work Australia


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Yeah ok. So we are still seppartating people's motivations from the actual factual evidence of a working art.
> 
> I thought you were going for something like boxersise works because there are people who only want to boxersise.


Boxercise does work... just not for boxing.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Why would you think that's settling?


Who said anything about settling? If a person is a neophyte about training/MA/working out is it completely uncharted territory for them. They simply do not know what they do not know and, since the choices are limited in the first place they do what is available to them. Where they go from there is up to them. 



Steve said:


> Posers? Why are you framing this discussion in that way? Also, it's really funny to me, in my pre-coffee state, that you're asking us to cut to the chase while also admitting you have a hidden agenda. That's moxy.
> 
> With that out of the way, it's curious to me that you can't answer this question based on what I've already posted. It's not about styles as a blanket statement. Rather, it's a way to evaluate any training. The question is, are you learning to do what you think you're learning? It's about how well training (any training) aligns with the goals of the training. When a person's individual goals are at odds with the training program, you have a situation like the wushu guy mentioned above, where you're essentially learning it on your own.
> 
> When the instructors stated goals are at odds with the training, you have a situation like the guys who "cook" without food. This is common in schools where "self defense" is the core goal. If you're training "for self defense" in a "self defense" school, you are cooking without food. No matter how long you train, you will still probably suck when you initially try to transfer your training into application.


 
I framed it as I did to get the question out of the way. Whether you realize it or not a Lot of what has been said in this thread has skirted around the edges of implying some styles are crap. The fact that you are implying schools goes without saying. There are people who peruse this site who do not have a lot of MA knowledge. I would hate to know I was the person who drove someone away from working out for the wrong reasons, simply because they misunderstood someone's intent. 

I mentioned this in another thread; what is your definition of self defense or more so, teaching self defense? I have been in a Lot of MA schools of various styles all over North and Central America. Very few of them did Not include SD in some context.
I fully agree there has to be application that pushes and challenges the practitioner but nobody can sustain competition level training all the time.
Even if a person is learning mostly strength and conditioning this would help them in most SD situations. Yes, boxercise may be a stretch in this context.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah ok. So we are still seppartating people's motivations from the actual factual evidence of a working art.
> 
> I thought you were going for something like boxersise works because there are people who only want to boxersise.


If it works for whatever your goal is, then it works. If it doesn't work for your goal, then it doesn't work.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

dvcochran said:


> Can you elaborate on 'C'?


Things like XMA, those flashy bo and nunchuck demonstrations, the chinese shaolin wushu shows, stuntmen, that kinda stuff.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Who said anything about settling? If a person is a neophyte about training/MA/working out is it completely uncharted territory for them. They simply do not know what they do not know and, since the choices are limited in the first place they do what is available to them. Where they go from there is up to them.


When you use the phrase, "better than nothing," that suggests that you think that choice is settling.


> I framed it as I did to get the question out of the way. Whether you realize it or not a Lot of what has been said in this thread has skirted around the edges of implying some styles are crap. The fact that you are implying schools goes without saying. There are people who peruse this site who do not have a lot of MA knowledge. I would hate to know I was the person who drove someone away from working out for the wrong reasons, simply because they misunderstood someone's intent.


Oh, I get it now.  You're not having discussions.  You're serving the public good.  That explains a lot.

So, for the record, then, my opinion is that you're going to be much more successful learning a combat sport or taking cardio-kickboxing classes if your goal is self defense.  In fact, I think you're probably better off at a parkour school or doing crossfit than training in many styles that are 'self defense' oriented, if your goal is to be safer.

Now, if you equate fighting skill to self defense, unless you're being mugged or assaulted frequently, the best you can do is develop skill in a complimentary skill set.  You can get a job as a cop, a bouncer, join the military, or become a freelance mercenary.  You could, I guess, join a gang or get yourself arrested so you can do some hard time.  I bet those guys have really solid self defense skills.  Or, if those aren't on the table, you can get pretty close training MMA, or another combat sport, and developing skill through competition.

I use ninjutsu as an example a lot, because it's the quintessential non-combat, self defense art.  But to be clear, if you think it's fun, like the costumes, or are interested in the culture and history of the art, great.  Knock yourself out (no pun intended).

But if we're getting to what makes people less likely to be victimized, I believe it's more to do with building real skills and understanding the subsidiary benefits of the activity. It's useful to train in an art where you get to use what you learn. Judo, MMA, wrestling, Shuai Jiao, boxing... they all have an advantage over arts where you don't use what you learn. And that, in itself, is useful, because you will know not just that the techniques work, but that YOU can make the techniques work. So, when it comes to whether someone will be able to perform in an emergency, the school teacher who competes in Judo is much more likely to succeed in using the skills in an emergency than the school teacher who has learned several ways to kill or maim someone with their car keys. This is because the Judoka has applied the skills in a complimentary situation, in the same way that a cop will be able to rely on skills used on the job if he or she is in a self defense situation.

But that's actually not the part that I believe makes me safer. The big thing is the subsidiary benefits of training in anything that has some structural integrity, which can be achieved by doing activities that don't involve fighting or maiming or killing. Confidence, fitness, coordination, positive self image, feeling like you're a part of a group... all of these things help you lead a balanced lifestyle. Not doing drugs or hanging out in bars, starting fights at picnics or otherwise engaging in a high risk lifestyle. These also help.


----------



## Gweilo

Steve said:


> As the saying goes, "Common sense isn't all that common.



Never a truer comment made

Imo, if people want to keep fit by boxercise, thats great, but lets be honest, these programs are predominantly American, whilst there are some epic American martial artists, past and present, Americans have an inbuilt ability to moneytise everything, as long as it looks good, sounds good, someone, somehere is going to buy it.if its sold as an exercise regime, fine, if its sold as an exercise regime that doubles as a self defense system, as used by Rambo, with a one time special offer, and a free nutri bullet, and 3 one on one video classes with 35th dan Clamydia expert, not so good. You only have your own culture to blame.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Yeah ok. So we are still seppartating people's motivations from the actual factual evidence of a working art.
> 
> I thought you were going for something like boxersise works because there are people who only want to boxersise.



Oh DB, you do try, the evidence you quote and seek, are facts and figures quoted by the art you train, and the people who train you, all ma are guilty of this, when are you going to understand, its not the system trained, per say, its the attitude of the student and the quality of training received, and the students understanding and application of that training. Sports related stats, do not always equate to true sd senario.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> When you use the phrase, "better than nothing," that suggests that you think that choice is settling.
> Oh, I get it now.  You're not having discussions.  You're serving the public good.  That explains a lot.
> 
> So, for the record, then, my opinion is that you're going to be much more successful learning a combat sport or taking cardio-kickboxing classes if your goal is self defense.  In fact, I think you're probably better off at a parkour school or doing crossfit than training in many styles that are 'self defense' oriented, if your goal is to be safer.
> 
> Now, if you equate fighting skill to self defense, unless you're being mugged or assaulted frequently, the best you can do is develop skill in a complimentary skill set.  You can get a job as a cop, a bouncer, join the military, or become a freelance mercenary.  You could, I guess, join a gang or get yourself arrested so you can do some hard time.  I bet those guys have really solid self defense skills.  Or, if those aren't on the table, you can get pretty close training MMA, or another combat sport, and developing skill through competition.
> 
> I use ninjutsu as an example a lot, because it's the quintessential non-combat, self defense art.  But to be clear, if you think it's fun, like the costumes, or are interested in the culture and history of the art, great.  Knock yourself out (no pun intended).
> 
> But if we're getting to what makes people less likely to be victimized, I believe it's more to do with building real skills and understanding the subsidiary benefits of the activity. It's useful to train in an art where you get to use what you learn. Judo, MMA, wrestling, Shuai Jiao, boxing... they all have an advantage over arts where you don't use what you learn. And that, in itself, is useful, because you will know not just that the techniques work, but that YOU can make the techniques work. So, when it comes to whether someone will be able to perform in an emergency, the school teacher who competes in Judo is much more likely to succeed in using the skills in an emergency than the school teacher who has learned several ways to kill or maim someone with their car keys. This is because the Judoka has applied the skills in a complimentary situation, in the same way that a cop will be able to rely on skills used on the job if he or she is in a self defense situation.
> 
> But that's actually not the part that I believe makes me safer. The big thing is the subsidiary benefits of training in anything that has some structural integrity, which can be achieved by doing activities that don't involve fighting or maiming or killing. Confidence, fitness, coordination, positive self image, feeling like you're a part of a group... all of these things help you lead a balanced lifestyle. Not doing drugs or hanging out in bars, starting fights at picnics or otherwise engaging in a high risk lifestyle. These also help.


Well that was a brilliant bit of common knowledge. 
Try not to pat yourself on the back too hard.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> No matter how good the training is, it can only get you to the edge of proficiency, unless training is the product. You can get a degree in Jane-Cook-Do, train for 10 years and become a certified "Chef." But if you've never cooked an egg, you're likely going to suck at it for a while, no matter how long you've cooked. Think about the implications of that fundamental truth in a self defense context. The stakes are much higher than inedible food.



This is a rehash of an old debate. Fighting skills are the endpoint, not “self-defense”. Those skills can be applied in a lot of different ways. The student’s purpose (training for self-defense) doesn’t magically invalidate any and all of the other areas those skills can be applied. 

So, no, training with a self-defense purpose is not like cooking without food. It’s more like learning to cook, including how to rescue food from some cooking mistakes, and not being able to fully recreate all of the mistakes, so some of the learning is theoretical. The rest is just learning to cook. 

Training BJJ for self-defense is largely just training BJJ.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Well that was a brilliant bit of common knowledge.
> Try not to pat yourself on the back too hard.


Hey man.  I really hope you get whatever you need to pull you out of this funk, because posts like this just aren’t okay.

Edit:  but on the bright side, does this mean you agree with me?  If so, could you explain to @gpseymour that this is common knowledge?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is a rehash of an old debate. Fighting skills are the endpoint, not “self-defense”. Those skills can be applied in a lot of different ways. The student’s purpose (training for self-defense) doesn’t magically invalidate any and all of the other areas those skills can be applied.
> 
> So, no, training with a self-defense purpose is not like cooking without food. It’s more like learning to cook, including how to rescue food from some cooking mistakes, and not being able to fully recreate all of the mistakes, so some of the learning is theoretical. The rest is just learning to cook.
> 
> Training BJJ for self-defense is largely just training BJJ.


I would never equate training BJJ with training for self defense.  That’s exactly the point.  

However, I would say training and competing in BJJ promotes demonstrable skill development that could be complimentary.  People who train in other “grappling” styles find out very quickly if they have been wasting their time or not.   People with years, sometimes a decade or more, of experience realize that they still suck pretty bad.  Consider how well an average ninja would do vs a an average wrestler on their first day at a BJJ school.  One has been cooking food, and the other has been mimicking the process of cooking food.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I would never equate training BJJ with training for self defense.  That’s exactly the point.
> 
> However, I would say training and competing in BJJ promotes demonstrable skill development.  People who train in other “grappling” styles find out very quickly if they have been wasting their time or not.   People with years, sometimes a decade or more, of experience realize that they still suck pretty bad.  Consider how well an average ninja would do vs a an average wrestler on their first day at a BJJ school.  One has been cooking food, and the other has been mimicking the process of cooking food.


You’ve entirely missed my point. Unfortunately, you seem to do so on purpose.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You’ve entirely missed my point. Unfortunately, you seem to do so on purpose.


Really?  That implies that I secretly agree with you.  Much more likely that we just disagree.  I think, if the students aren’t applying skills, the best you can hope for is to get them close to application. Alternatively, you teach them your system, and hope it’s close enough to transfer the skills.   If Jane-cook-do is good enough, maybe after 10 years, Old Frank will be able to catch up on the food part pretty quick.  The rest is just luck and confirmation bias.  

As for this being a rehash, of course it is.  as @dvcochran says above, it’s common knowledge.  Talking about how literally every skill is developed from birth to death in human experience... except self defense skill, if you’re to be believed,


----------



## Steve

How do chefs learn to fix their mistakes?  They make mistakes and fix them, Gerry.  Or they make mistakes and pitch them, and then do them until they don’t make that mistake again. Or you log enough hours developing the skill that you are expert enough to innovate.

how does a pilot learn to land a commercial plane in the Hudson?

answer, they become really, really good pilots.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> how does a pilot learn to land a commercial plane in the Hudson?
> 
> answer, they become really, really good pilots.


Agree! You can't produce any good student by using the SD teaching method.

SD teaching = train 1/2 of MA.

Does SD training include "equipment training"?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Hey man.  I really hope you get whatever you need to pull you out of this funk, because posts like this just aren’t okay.
> 
> Edit:  but on the bright side, does this mean you agree with me?  If so, could you explain to @gpseymour that this is common knowledge?


Ah, one of those dish it out but cannot take it guys I see. That post was nice to many I have seen here.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Ah, one of those dish it out but cannot take it guys I see. That post was nice to many I have seen here.


Oh, I see.  Somewhere along the way, I hurt your feelings and so you’re acting out.  I guess that explains your saltiness.  Well, if you’re going to be snarky, could you at least add some value to the discussion while you do it?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Oh, I see.  Somewhere along the way, I hurt your feelings and so you’re acting out.  I guess that explains your saltiness.  Well, if you’re going to be snarky, could you at least add some value to the discussion while you do it?


You have no idea how far off base you are.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Let's spend more time on addressing the subject and less on each other's subjectively assumed interpretations and feelings.  

Like Buka, I LOVE to eat, but all the food analogies in this thread have ruined my appetite.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Oh DB, you do try, the evidence you quote and seek, are facts and figures quoted by the art you train, and the people who train you, all ma are guilty of this, when are you going to understand, its not the system trained, per say, its the attitude of the student and the quality of training received, and the students understanding and application of that training. Sports related stats, do not always equate to true sd senario.



Yeah. Yeah. This old chestnut.


The only people who are stopping anybody quoting some self defense facts and figures are the people who are trying to hide the fact there isn't any. 

You can't find a genre of martial arts more addicted to anecdotes, hypotheticals, and experts with no practical experience.

I could find 20 MMA fighters that would eat alive the top self defense instructors in the world. And who would teach you for the cost of a carton of beer. 

I could find 20 MMA fighters with more self defense experience than most of your top self defense guys. 

Otherwise if it is not the system.

Why do similar systems produce similar results?

Are you suggesting that krav guys and aikido guys don't win BJJ competitions because they just all happen to be consistently lazy?

Or does their system not have the tools to equip them to engage in a specifactivity.


The difference is that self defense isn't actually performed by anybody and sport is. Which means you can train in self defense and be terrible at it and it quite likely won't matter. Because you may never use it. You can be a top self defense expert and not have a clue about self defense.

If you are a sportsperson you are guaranteed to have to use it.  And you have to be good at that sports to be a top sports person.

Which is the very simple premise that has been explained for the last to pages.


----------



## Steve

isshinryuronin said:


> Let's spend more time on addressing the subject and less on each other's subjectively assumed interpretations and feelings.
> 
> Like Buka, I LOVE to eat, but all the food analogies in this thread have ruined my appetite.


my analogies are amazing!


----------



## isshinryuronin

drop bear said:


> I could find 20 MMA fighters that would eat alive the top self defense instructors in the world.


Most self defense is taught to nonprofessionals to fight against other nonprofessionals.  This will work most of the time.  Most scuffles one gets into do not involve MMA fighters.  You are comparing apples and oranges. 



drop bear said:


> Are you suggesting that krav guys and aikido guys don't win BJJ competitions because they just all happen to be consistently lazy


If a BJJ guy fought a Krav Maga guy using Krav Maga rules, the BJJ guy will be at a disadvantage.  McGregor did extremely well against Mayweather using boxing rules.  If they fought using MMA rules, McGregor would have wiped the floor with him.

If one is objectively honest, it can be seen that different arts have different purposes and it is biased to judge them head to head on a single purpose.  Each offers certain advantages and benefits (sometimes not directly related to fighting) that appeals to different people. 

If an MMA/BJJ guy got me on the ground, I could not out-grapple them.  But (if he didn't immediately get my back) I could gouge the eyes or sink my teeth into something soft, or even give his balls a good squeeze.  He probably does not train much to defend these attacks and I may gain the advantage.  Does that mean that my (fictional) art based on these techniques is superior?  Such comparisons and debates are ridiculous.

You need not work so hard to defend your position.  Let everyone practice their art for their own purposes and benefits from a qualified teacher who doesn't oversell his art's capabilities.  That way, we can all be happy.


----------



## drop bear

isshinryuronin said:


> Most self defense is taught to nonprofessionals to fight against other nonprofessionals. This will work most of the time. Most scuffles one gets into do not involve MMA fighters. You are comparing apples and oranges.



That is kind of my point.


----------



## drop bear

isshinryuronin said:


> If an MMA/BJJ guy got me on the ground, I could not out-grapple them. But (if he didn't immediately get my back) I could gouge the eyes or sink my teeth into something soft, or even give his balls a good squeeze. He probably does not train much to defend these attacks and I may gain the advantage. Does that mean that my (fictional) art based on these techniques is superior? Such comparisons and debates are ridiculous.



We can see MMA and BJJ working in street environments though where eye gouges and groin grabs are used though.


----------



## drop bear

isshinryuronin said:


> You need not work so hard to defend your position. Let everyone practice their art for their own purposes and benefits from a qualified teacher who doesn't oversell his art's capabilities. That way, we can all be happy.



It is almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion with someone who does not have tools to separate fact from fiction though.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I would never equate training BJJ with training for self defense.  That’s exactly the point.
> 
> However, I would say training and competing in BJJ promotes demonstrable skill development that could be complimentary.  People who train in other “grappling” styles find out very quickly if they have been wasting their time or not.   People with years, sometimes a decade or more, of experience realize that they still suck pretty bad.  Consider how well an average ninja would do vs a an average wrestler on their first day at a BJJ school.  One has been cooking food, and the other has been mimicking the process of cooking food.


I feel like our differences are a result of differing experiences. All self defense that I've learned is based on demonstrable skill development through competition, in NAGA and MMA. The same for BJJ. The school that I train at currently does mostly BJJ for self defense, and most of the people compete. I already discussed my past school. Doing self defense, or teaching self defense, doesn't mean that there is no skill development, or that there isn't any competition. Apparently (not from my experiences but from what I've gathered of others), people stating they teach self defense means they don't teach applicable skills and encourage non-competing. None of the places I've gone to for SD encourage that, so I guess my main issue is associating SD schools with non-applicable skills and no-sparring or fighting.


----------



## Ivan

drop bear said:


> Sorry I have to go soon so I will flesh this out better later.
> 
> But mentioning the fence made me think of this. Doing a fence but not understanding distancing or angles does not work very well.
> 
> Eye gouging without understanding striking or grappling well enough to employ  it.
> 
> Doing half of the things needed to make martial arts.
> 
> It bugs me.


I wanted to try out a Shorinji Kempo team and the Sensei was one of the most awesome people I’d ever met. However the first technique we were taught was a flick to the eye...
I was then also overwhelmed by a number of grappling and striking techniques and had to practice multiple yet different techniques each session. The grappling techniques were too long winded for me. 

The Traditional Jujitsu class I used to attend was great, in the respect that we would practice a set number of techniques, every day for 2 hours straight with just straight repetition. Apart from this, the first thing I was taught in Jujitsu was the theory, which J think was a much better approach. I ended up leaving because they didn’t do sparring however.


Imo when teaching a martial art, the first thing that should be taught are the theories behind its origins. For example, when teaching taekwondo, I think it’s important to mention its emphasis on kicks came from the idea that the legs are stronger than the arms, and if made faster than the arms, you could become the ultimate fighter.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Ivan said:


> For example, when teaching taekwondo, I think it’s important to mention its emphasis on kicks came from the idea that the legs are stronger than the arms, and if made faster than the arms, you could become the ultimate fighter.



I don't know enough about TKD to dispute this being its origins. But I have so many responses to fast kicks turning you into the ultimate fighter.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I feel like our differences are a result of differing experiences. All self defense that I've learned is based on demonstrable skill development through competition, in NAGA and MMA. The same for BJJ. The school that I train at currently does mostly BJJ for self defense, and most of the people compete. I already discussed my past school. Doing self defense, or teaching self defense, doesn't mean that there is no skill development, or that there isn't any competition. Apparently (not from my experiences but from what I've gathered of others), people stating they teach self defense means they don't teach applicable skills and encourage non-competing. None of the places I've gone to for SD encourage that, so I guess my main issue is associating SD schools with non-applicable skills and no-sparring or fighting.



Who are the top guys in self defense?

Let's say we put them in a field against say jocko wilink


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> SD schools.


Does SD school also teach a complete MA system? If a MA school teaches a complete MA system, it's not a SD school.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does SD school also teach a complete MA system? If a MA school teaches a complete MA system, it's not a SD school.



I disagree. I have always suggested the standard for self defense being the equivalent of MMA plus.

Not MMA light.

And honestly if all you did was refine solid basics under pressure. You would have a complete martial arts for self defense system.

The concept is called being a boring percentage fighter. Where you just take the most likely tools to work and refine them with no risks.


----------



## dvcochran

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does SD school also teach a complete MA system? If a MA school teaches a complete MA system, it's not a SD school.


I suppose I have never seen a purely self defense school then.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does SD school also teach a complete MA system? If a MA school teaches a complete MA system, it's not a SD school.


Those could be two separate things. So a school could teach both self defense and a martial art. That’s more semantics than anything though


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Who are the top guys in self defense?
> 
> Let's say we put them in a field against say jocko wilink


No clue. I’ve also no clue who the top Muay Thai, bjj, ufc, kickboxing, fencing guys are though. And there may be a competition out there that determines it that I’m unaware of. But there’s no need for there to be a “top”, not everything is a competition.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dvcochran said:


> I suppose I have never seen a purely self defense school then.


My concern is whether a SD school help his students to develop the "foundation". Many women SD school doesn't teach foundation building. IMO, those teaching can be called as fake MA. Without horse stance, bow-arrow stance, ..., there is no way that a student can learn power generation.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> not everything is a competition.


If you have blocked a punch 10,000 times, your chance to block the 10,001 punch will be high. That's competition (compete against your past record).

To test your MA skill can be as simple as you punch at me, i try to block it. IMO, there exist no other way to develop MA skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Really?  That implies that I secretly agree with you.  Much more likely that we just disagree.  I think, if the students aren’t applying skills, the best you can hope for is to get them close to application. Alternatively, you teach them your system, and hope it’s close enough to transfer the skills.   If Jane-cook-do is good enough, maybe after 10 years, Old Frank will be able to catch up on the food part pretty quick.  The rest is just luck and confirmation bias.
> 
> As for this being a rehash, of course it is.  as @dvcochran says above, it’s common knowledge.  Talking about how literally every skill is developed from birth to death in human experience... except self defense skill, if you’re to be believed,


I’m Im not sure what about that would possibly imply we agree. You just ignore the point, rather than discussing it. I can only surmise as to the reason for that, but secret agreement isn’t anywhere on the list of likely reasons.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> How do chefs learn to fix their mistakes?  They make mistakes and fix them, Gerry.  Or they make mistakes and pitch them, and then do them until they don’t make that mistake again. Or you log enough hours developing the skill that you are expert enough to innovate.
> 
> how does a pilot learn to land a commercial plane in the Hudson?
> 
> answer, they become really, really good pilots.



Are you implying he spent hours landing actual planes on actual rivers? If not, you’ve just made the exact analogy I made about a year ago, which you thought not quite right. 

Odd that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! You can't produce any good student by using the SD teaching method.
> 
> SD teaching = train 1/2 of MA.
> 
> Does SD training include "equipment training"?


Why should SD training necessarily exclude those things?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My concern is whether a SD school help his students to develop the "foundation". Many women SD school doesn't teach foundation building. IMO, those teaching can be called as fake MA. Without horse stance, bow-arrow stance, ..., there is no way that a student can learn power generation.


It is true some (I’d guess many) SD schools don’t do a good job building a foundation. But that isn’t inherent in SD training. Nothing is, any more than it is in any orientation of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Does SD school also teach a complete MA system? If a MA school teaches a complete MA system, it's not a SD school.


Why not?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I disagree. I have always suggested the standard for self defense being the equivalent of MMA plus.
> 
> Not MMA light.
> 
> And honestly if all you did was refine solid basics under pressure. You would have a complete martial arts for self defense system.
> 
> The concept is called being a boring percentage fighter. Where you just take the most likely tools to work and refine them with no risks.


That is, in fact, the principle behind the “foundation” curriculum that students start as soon as they enter my program. Basic strikes. Basic movement, basic grappling. Everything else builds on that.


----------



## Buka

Gweilo said:


> Never a truer comment made
> 
> Imo, if people want to keep fit by boxercise, thats great, but lets be honest, these programs are predominantly American, whilst there are some epic American martial artists, past and present, Americans have an inbuilt ability to moneytise everything, as long as it looks good, sounds good, someone, somehere is going to buy it.if its sold as an exercise regime, fine, if its sold as an exercise regime that doubles as a self defense system, as used by Rambo, with a one time special offer, and a free nutri bullet, and 3 one on one video classes with 35th dan Clamydia expert, not so good. You only have your own culture to blame.



I think the "You only have your own culture to blame" is insulting. And it paints with way too broad a brush.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> Why not?


A: Dear master! What should I do to deal with a flying knee?
B: You don't need to learn that. This is a SD class. Your opponent will never use flying knee on you.

A: Dear master! Why do we train so much foot sweep in our school?
B: Because it's an important part of our MA system.

If you assume your opponent doesn't know much MA, your goal will not be a good MA person yourself. Your goal will be low.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> No clue. I’ve also no clue who the top Muay Thai, bjj, ufc, kickboxing, fencing guys are though. And there may be a competition out there that determines it that I’m unaware of. But there’s no need for there to be a “top”, not everything is a competition.



There should definitely be leaders in a field of expertise though. Otherwise you don't have a direction of travel.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> A: Dear master! What should I do to deal with a flying knee?
> B: You don't need to learn that. This is a SD class. Your opponent will never use flying knee on you.
> 
> A: Dear master! Why do we train so much foot sweep in our school?
> B: Because it's an important part of our MA system.
> 
> If you assume your opponent doesn't know much MA, your goal will not be a good MA person yourself. Your goal will be low.


SD doesn't have to ignore the trained folks. It sometimes does, and most start with the premise that that's not the most likely situation, but there's nothing inherent in SD training that excludes that. SD training in many cases is just MA training with a specific focus as one of the priorities, and often not the only one. Every place I've trained talked at least a little about SD, and most would consider themselves SD-oriented. Among those I'm referring to are a competition-oriented Judo program, a style-oriented Shotokan Karatedo program, a pretty traditional NGA program (actually 4 of those), a fusion of Jujutsu grappling and FMA stick and knife work, and others. There's really nothing much they have in common, except they all talked about SD.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There should definitely be leaders in a field of expertise though. Otherwise you don't have a direction of travel.


If we start with the premise that SD isn't a field of expertise (rather, it's an area of focus), then we can look for leaders in a meaningful way. If we want to find the best fighters teaching SD, our best bet is to look for those who are teaching SD and are competing or have done so in the past (so we have a record to work from). If we want the best teachers, it's harder to measure. What do we want them to be the best at teaching? If it's fighting, then again, we have to settle for looking at those who have students who compete in something we feel reasonably aproximates fighting. If it's staying out of fights, de-escalation, awareness, or some other self-defense/self-protection skill besides fighting, there's not going to be a reasonable statistical way to get to that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> they all talked about SD.


I have never used the term SD in my life. I don't like to live in a world that everybody all try to get me and I have to defend myself.


----------



## Gweilo

Buka said:


> I think the "You only have your own culture to blame" is insulting. And it paints with way too broad a brush.



Im sorry you feel that way, Americans have the abillity to monetise everything, there are lots of american rags to riches stories.
America has more infomercials selling the dream, than any other country, they also have more shopping channels, they also have more millionaires that started with nothing,and it is true that if it looks good, and sounds good, Americans will buy it.
Another American trait is you take things too personally, and they are very eager to shoot from the hip, at the slightest displeasure, which is why americans get labelled as gung ho, shoot first ask questions later, its part of what makes americans, american, and if you take it as an insult, thats your problem, as it was not intended


----------



## dvcochran

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My concern is whether a SD school help his students to develop the "foundation". Many women SD school doesn't teach foundation building. IMO, those teaching can be called as fake MA. Without horse stance, bow-arrow stance, ..., there is no way that a student can learn power generation.



When I do a SD presentation to a group or professional organization I Never describe it as a school or course. It is always stressed that it is a demonstration and a significant portion of time is spent emphasizing that the class will Not teach them how to defend themselves at large. More so that this idea is unrealistic at large. Nuggets of value to use, possibility. I frame it as an Introduction at best. To be thought provoking and encourage the need to continue the practice in an organized environment with instruction. One thing I Always do is show them how an idea can work but also how it can fail.
I know that sounds pitchy but it is never framed that way. The emphasis is on them Not leaving the class thinking they really know anything.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> If we start with the premise that SD isn't a field of expertise (rather, it's an area of focus), then we can look for leaders in a meaningful way. If we want to find the best fighters teaching SD, our best bet is to look for those who are teaching SD and are competing or have done so in the past (so we have a record to work from). If we want the best teachers, it's harder to measure. What do we want them to be the best at teaching? If it's fighting, then again, we have to settle for looking at those who have students who compete in something we feel reasonably aproximates fighting. If it's staying out of fights, de-escalation, awareness, or some other self-defense/self-protection skill besides fighting, there's not going to be a reasonable statistical way to get to that.


Agree. In this context @Steve made a good argument that SD skills can be specific to certain trades. However there is quite a lot of overlapping material that applies across any conceivable scenario. SA really comes to mind here. 
Who the SD expert is an anybody's guess. Just like teaching MA and never using contact/resistance is a bad, non-working idea, the same is true for SD. There are lots if tools to use nowadays to safely practice skills/drills at full speed & power. It is long gone now but we had a Bob that was destroyed by knife slices. And that was using very dull, blunt blades. Bob is one of the best practice inventions every IMHO.
I think there are more than a few people here who watch a tons of videos of bad material and paint all MA/SD/SA teaching environments with the same brush. Just a foolish assertion.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I’m Im not sure what about that would possibly imply we agree. You just ignore the point, rather than discussing it. I can only surmise as to the reason for that, but secret agreement isn’t anywhere on the list of likely reasons.


You missed what I was trying to say.  You’re saying I’m misunderstanding you on purpose, or ignoring you.   I think we just disagree.   It doesn’t have to be malicious.  You’re taking this personally and ascribing intent that’s not there.  If we disagree, I’m fine with it.  No big deal.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Are you implying he spent hours landing actual planes on actual rivers? If not, you’ve just made the exact analogy I made about a year ago, which you thought not quite right.
> 
> Odd that.


No, I’m overtly stating he was a really, really good pilot.  He was at a point where he had such mastery of his skill set (an expert among experts) that he could innovate on the fly (no pun intended).  Do you think a pilot less experienced would have saved the lives of everyone that day?   More to the point, do you think someone who has only ever played MS Flight Simulator Pro could have done so?


----------



## Steve

Gweilo said:


> Im sorry you feel that way, Americans have the abillity to monetise everything, there are lots of american rags to riches stories.
> America has more infomercials selling the dream, than any other country, they also have more shopping channels, they also have more millionaires that started with nothing,and it is true that if it looks good, and sounds good, Americans will buy it.
> Another American trait is you take things too personally, and they are very eager to shoot from the hip, at the slightest displeasure, which is why americans get labelled as gung ho, shoot first ask questions later, its part of what makes americans, american, and if you take it as an insult, thats your problem, as it was not intended


I don’t know, man.   Japan sells some crazy stuff.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> When I do a SD presentation to a group or professional organization I Never describe it as a school or course. It is always stressed that it is a demonstration and a significant portion of time is spent emphasizing that the class will Not teach them how to defend themselves at large. More so that this idea is unrealistic at large. Nuggets of value to use, possibility. I frame it as an Introduction at best. To be thought provoking and encourage the need to continue the practice in an organized environment with instruction. One thing I Always do is show them how an idea can work but also how it can fail.
> I know that sounds pitchy but it is never framed that way. The emphasis is on them Not leaving the class thinking they really know anything.


That’s quite a gig.  I’m not teaching you anything.  Hopefully, you’ll get a nugget.  But maybe not.   You will leave this class not knowing anything.

That is the most honest description of self defense training I’ve seen on this forum.  I’m imagining how easy all of the training and coaching I do would be if I could remove any requirement to deliver performance based results.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I feel like our differences are a result of differing experiences. All self defense that I've learned is based on demonstrable skill development through competition, in NAGA and MMA. The same for BJJ. The school that I train at currently does mostly BJJ for self defense, and most of the people compete. I already discussed my past school. Doing self defense, or teaching self defense, doesn't mean that there is no skill development, or that there isn't any competition. Apparently (not from my experiences but from what I've gathered of others), people stating they teach self defense means they don't teach applicable skills and encourage non-competing. None of the places I've gone to for SD encourage that, so I guess my main issue is associating SD schools with non-applicable skills and no-sparring or fighting.


Depends on the teacher and the student.  In less than two generations, BJJ has split into two camps: sport and self defense.  Think about that in the context of what I’ve been saying.

I don’t have a problem with this.  Rather, I see it as a natural deviation based on the expertise of the individual instructor and the application of the individual students. 

think about some hypotheticals, presuming that the instructor is qualified in both schools.  A cop who trains in a self defense oriented school that competes, or a cop who trains in a sport oriented school.  Vs a school teacher who trains in each.   What are they getting from the school in each scenario?  What are they bringing to the table, in terms of application?  And, given time, what would they eventually be qualified to teach?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> A cop who trains in a self defense oriented school that competes, or a cop who trains in a sport oriented school.  Vs a school teacher who trains in each.   What are they getting from the school in each scenario?  What are they bringing to the table, in terms of application?  And, given time, what would they eventually be qualified to teach?


I don't know about BJJ. But for Chinese wrestling the difference is noticeable.

Chinese wrestling for combat (I don't use the term SD) - you can hit on your opponent's arms as hard as you can when you move in.

Chinese wrestling for sport - you are not allowed to do that.


----------



## Buka

Gweilo said:


> Im sorry you feel that way, Americans have the abillity to monetise everything, there are lots of american rags to riches stories.
> America has more infomercials selling the dream, than any other country, they also have more shopping channels, they also have more millionaires that started with nothing,and it is true that if it looks good, and sounds good, Americans will buy it.
> Another American trait is you take things too personally, and they are very eager to shoot from the hip, at the slightest displeasure, which is why americans get labelled as gung ho, shoot first ask questions later, its part of what makes americans, american, and if you take it as an insult, thats your problem, as it was not intended



And, yet, you continue. 

I tire of the anti American opinions expressed here. I guess people think all Americans are the same. No cultural diversity here at all.

Very open minded, that.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> Depends on the teacher and the student.  In less than two generations, BJJ has split into two camps: sport and self defense.  Think about that in the context of what I’ve been saying.
> 
> I don’t have a problem with this.  Rather, I see it as a natural deviation based on the expertise of the individual instructor and the application of the individual students.
> 
> think about some hypotheticals, presuming that the instructor is qualified in both schools.  A cop who trains in a self defense oriented school that competes, or a cop who trains in a sport oriented school.  Vs a school teacher who trains in each.   What are they getting from the school in each scenario?  What are they bringing to the table, in terms of application?  And, given time, what would they eventually be qualified to teach?


In the SD school that competes, they should also be learning from people things like verbal deescalation/conflict resolution, and situational awareness. Also, with BJJ in particular, I don't believe sport oriented schools will teach how to handle multiple attackers or when weapons are involved. Obviously teaching how to handle multiple attackers in general has it's pitfalls, but there are certain strategies that can be taught with it. And adding a knife into BJJ can change the game completely.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Gweilo said:


> Im sorry you feel that way, Americans have the abillity to monetise everything, there are lots of american rags to riches stories.
> America has more infomercials selling the dream, than any other country, they also have more shopping channels, they also have more millionaires that started with nothing,and it is true that if it looks good, and sounds good, Americans will buy it.
> Another American trait is you take things too personally, and they are very eager to shoot from the hip, at the slightest displeasure, which is why americans get labelled as gung ho, shoot first ask questions later, its part of what makes americans, american, and if you take it as an insult, thats your problem, as it was not intended


There are about 6 different cultures in america, depending on the region that you're from. Which culture are you referring to here? Unless you would also suggest that all of western europe is the same culture regardless of country, and there's no difference besides language between ireland and italy for instance.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> In the SD school that competes, they should also be learning from people things like verbal deescalation/conflict resolution, and situational awareness. Also, with BJJ in particular, I don't believe sport oriented schools will teach how to handle multiple attackers or when weapons are involved. Obviously teaching how to handle multiple attackers in general has it's pitfalls, but there are certain strategies that can be taught with it. And adding a knife into BJJ can change the game completely.



Yes but they should be learning something that isn't absolute hogwash.

Deescalation, awareness from people not qualified is pointless.

Knives and multiple defense from people who cannot demonstrate it working is pointless.

This is precisely where we could look to leaders in these fields so we can get a gauge if we are even traveling in the right direction.

Who would these guys be again?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> And adding a knife into BJJ can change the game completely.


No need to add in knife. Just adding in a spikes ring will change the BJJ game completely.

- BJJ can destroy the throwing art.
- Spikes ring can destroy the ground game.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> No need to add in knife. Just adding in a spikes ring will change the BJJ game completely.
> 
> - BJJ can destroy the throwing art.
> - Spikes ring can destroy the ground game.



Only sort of.

There is a change in priority where you need to watch out for striking from people off their back.

But there are still tools in grappling that deal with that.

The reality is you focus more on gift wrapping and kimouras.





I have never considered that knee chop by the way. 





And then prioritize striking rather than a top side sub.

If someone has the basic grappling skills these issues are addressed fairly quickly.


If you don't have the basic grappling then you will need to invest a lot more time solving these.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have never used the term SD in my life. I don't like to live in a world that everybody all try to get me and I have to defend myself.


Some were kind of paranoid like they, but most weren’t. They mostly focused on teaching the art/system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Gweilo said:


> Im sorry you feel that way, Americans have the abillity to monetise everything, there are lots of american rags to riches stories.
> America has more infomercials selling the dream, than any other country, they also have more shopping channels, they also have more millionaires that started with nothing,and it is true that if it looks good, and sounds good, Americans will buy it.
> Another American trait is you take things too personally, and they are very eager to shoot from the hip, at the slightest displeasure, which is why americans get labelled as gung ho, shoot first ask questions later, its part of what makes americans, american, and if you take it as an insult, thats your problem, as it was not intended


All of that personality stereotype is just that. There are Americans who are like some or all of those things. There are many more who don’t fit any of those descriptions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You missed what I was trying to say.  You’re saying I’m misunderstanding you on purpose, or ignoring you.   I think we just disagree.   It doesn’t have to be malicious.  You’re taking this personally and ascribing intent that’s not there.  If we disagree, I’m fine with it.  No big deal.


I’m fine with disagreement, too. I’m not fine with arguments that seem disingenuous. I may be misreading the situation, though. Text-based discussions pack All lot of the communication cues, of course.

And I’m cranky these days.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> That’s quite a gig.  I’m not teaching you anything.  Hopefully, you’ll get a nugget.  But maybe not.   You will leave this class not knowing anything.
> 
> That is the most honest description of self defense training I’ve seen on this forum.  I’m imagining how easy all of the training and coaching I do would be if I could remove any requirement to deliver performance based results.


And I am the one post questionable stuff here.
It is astounding how totally clueless you are on some of this stuff.

And you never have explained what your idea of SD training/teaching is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> No, I’m overtly stating he was a really, really good pilot.  He was at a point where he had such mastery of his skill set (an expert among experts) that he could innovate on the fly (no pun intended).  Do you think a pilot less experienced would have saved the lives of everyone that day?   More to the point, do you think someone who has only ever played MS Flight Simulator Pro could have done so?


This is precisely the argument I made previously. Doing throws and such in drills is a simulator. A resisting opponent/partner is actually flying. The small portion of training that is specific to SD is like a pilot learning how to handle emergencies and practicing the procedures in a safe manner (with no actual emergency). 

So folks who train for SD actually can apply. Competition and other application opportunities (because competition is only one option for application) exist in their universe. And a few of them work in situations where they have to apply the emergency procedures more often. Those are analogous perhaps to fighter pilots. 


Steve said:


> That’s quite a gig.  I’m not teaching you anything.  Hopefully, you’ll get a nugget.  But maybe not.   You will leave this class not knowing anything.
> 
> That is the most honest description of self defense training I’ve seen on this forum.  I’m imagining how easy all of the training and coaching I do would be if I could remove any requirement to deliver performance based results.


You know, you complain about claims and mock when those claims aren’t made.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You know, you complain about claims and mock when those claims aren’t made.



It is about accountability.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> So folks who train for SD ...


If you train SD, do you train neck choke from behind?

If you

- do, since neck choke is offense and not defense, you are not trainning SD.
- don't, you only train 1/2 MA.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> And I am the one post questionable stuff here.
> It is astounding how totally clueless you are on some of this stuff.
> 
> And you never have explained what your idea of SD training/teaching is.


Like I said earlier, this kind of post in which you do nothing but attack the poster is just not okay. Or maybe it is okay around here now.   I’ve been away for a bit and there’s a new batch of moderators.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is precisely the argument I made previously. Doing throws and such in drills is a simulator. A resisting opponent/partner is actually flying. The small portion of training that is specific to SD is like a pilot learning how to handle emergencies and practicing the procedures in a safe manner (with no actual emergency).


the key you are glossing over is that Capt. Sullenberger is an actual pilot.  A really, really good one.  





> You know, you complain about claims and mock when those claims aren’t made.


Gerry, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.  I’m not mocking anyone.  As a trainer, i would love to be able to teach whatever I want with no claims to teaching anything usable. That is, however, Quintessentially faith based training.  It’s a great gig if you can swing it, because you could literally teach whatever you want.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> So folks who train for SD ...


I don't train SD because all my training emphasizes on I attack first. I believe this violate the SD guideline.


----------



## _Simon_

Gweilo said:


> Im sorry you feel that way, Americans have the abillity to monetise everything, there are lots of american rags to riches stories.
> America has more infomercials selling the dream, than any other country, they also have more shopping channels, they also have more millionaires that started with nothing,and it is true that if it looks good, and sounds good, Americans will buy it.
> Another American trait is you take things too personally, and they are very eager to shoot from the hip, at the slightest displeasure, which is why americans get labelled as gung ho, shoot first ask questions later, its part of what makes americans, american, and if you take it as an insult, thats your problem, as it was not intended



Whoa...

That's a really unfortunate view to take on Gweilo... quite a generalisation. Of course some aspects of cultures have characteristics, but to say every American is therefore the same because of a trend you see, is missing quite alot. I've seen and been privileged to meet some of the most beautiful, thoughtful, compassionate Americans, and the degree of philanthropy in America is staggering. Perhaps the commercial and marketing aspects is one aspect of the culture, and isn't representative of the total?

My background is Croatian, and my aunty hates ALL Serbians due to, you know, the past. Because they're Serbian, they apparently all act a certain way and are evil. My dad had one single bad encounter with an indigenous man decades ago. He still hold them all with the same view. Just some thoughts, take it with a grain of salt if you like.


----------



## isshinryuronin

Gweilo said:


> Im sorry you feel that way, Americans have the abillity to monetise everything, there are lots of american rags to riches stories.
> America has more infomercials selling the dream, than any other country, they also have more shopping channels, they also have more millionaires that started with nothing,and it is true that if it looks good, and sounds good, Americans will buy it.
> Another American trait is you take things too personally, and they are very eager to shoot from the hip, at the slightest displeasure, which is why americans get labelled as gung ho, shoot first ask questions later, its part of what makes americans, american, and if you take it as an insult, thats your problem, as it was not intended


As an American, I think that, in the quoted post above in you opening comments, you have painted a somewhat truer picture of our culture by providing some context.  Our country provides most everyone with the opportunity and freedom for upward mobility, even in the face of some lingering discrimination.  Not perfect, but with hard and smart work and willingness for risk, much is possible here.  We buy stuff because we can, even if nonsensical.

Your second set of comments, while again pretty much true, lacks context.  In 1876, the USA was only a hundred years old.  European countries were much older by centuries, well ordered and structured and well civilized.  Our country still had wide tracts of wilderness and individuals had to fend for themselves.  Except for in the big cities, almost everyone had a gun.  We have a reputation as a self-reliant people with a bit of an ego problem.  We also have a track record of winning, all of which contributes to our stereotypical swagger.  As a whole, our population is not as disciplined as the Europeans - we were never as a nation ruled by kings or dictators. I'm not putting down any other country, I envy some parts of other cultures, not present in my own.

So, I'm not insulted.  We are all a product of our history, good and/or bad.


----------



## Gweilo

_Simon_ said:


> Whoa...
> 
> That's a really unfortunate view to take on Gweilo... quite a generalisation. Of course some aspects of cultures have characteristics, but to say every American is therefore the same because of a trend you see, is missing quite alot. I've seen and been privileged to meet some of the most beautiful, thoughtful, compassionate Americans, and the degree of philanthropy in America is staggering. Perhaps the commercial and marketing aspects is one aspect of the culture, and isn't representative of the total?
> 
> My background is Croatian, and my aunty hates ALL Serbians due to, you know, the past. Because they're Serbian, they apparently all act a certain way and are evil. My dad had one single bad encounter with an indigenous man decades ago. He still hold them all with the same view. Just some thoughts, take it with a grain of salt if you like.



Ok, obviously, the way I am writing it, seems to be coming ocross not exactly as intended to some, so one last go.
Firstly I like Americans, and have enjoyed visiting there.
Last time I was there, I met a bloke in Idaho, whos passion was wrestling, he used to work a regular job, and needed more money, mainly to fund his wrestling, equipment, travel, competition fees etc, so he started an online business, he made a nice profit, he then told others of his profits, and developed a online course for a fee, to teach others what he had done, he is now estimated to be worth over 60 million dollars, you can check him out if you wish, google Russell Brunson, there is another bloke called Anthony Robbins, made millions by telling people to get off their butts, take action, follow their dreams, and he has 100s of testimonials from people hes helped.
My point is, in America opportunities can be created, and vast profits made by those willing to take it, this creates confidence, and creativity, there is real opportunity, a former kick boxer can teach kick boxing, and kick boxing based fitness programs.
With this confidence and creativity, Americans are not scared to give it a go, if it looks good, and sounds good, whats to lose, a couple of thousand bucks and a bit of time, this mentality can leave the door open to bad purchases and scams (this is my British scepticle side). I have an aunty who lives in Boston, in her kitchen she have every gadget going, nutri bullet, kitchen ninja, which as far as I can tell do the same thing, 2 or 3 mixers, juicers, but, used them once or twice, then just left in the kitchen cupboard, when asked why, she had seen it on tv, and thought oh thats good, gotta grt me one of those.
I suppose I am steriotyping, but only by experience. As with the comments about Serbs and Croats, their reputationnis probably because of a history of troubles, but met a few Croats, and quite a few Serbs and others frombthe former Yougaslavia area, not met any bad ones, same as all the Russians I have met, anyhow off for my cup o tea, fish n chips, and collecting my bowler hat from the dry cleaners.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Yes but they should be learning something that isn't absolute hogwash.
> 
> Deescalation, awareness from people not qualified is pointless.
> 
> Knives and multiple defense from people who cannot demonstrate it working is pointless.
> 
> This is precisely where we could look to leaders in these fields so we can get a gauge if we are even traveling in the right direction.
> 
> Who would these guys be again?


I was just qualifying the differences between sport BJJ and SD BJJ. If you want some sort of controllable organization that quantifies people's reliability, feel free to start it yourself.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Gweilo said:


> Ok, obviously, the way I am writing it, seems to be coming ocross not exactly as intended to some, so one last go.
> Firstly I like Americans, and have enjoyed visiting there.
> Last time I was there, I met a bloke in Idaho, whos passion was wrestling, he used to work a regular job, and needed more money, mainly to fund his wrestling, equipment, travel, competition fees etc, so he started an online business, he made a nice profit, he then told others of his profits, and developed a online course for a fee, to teach others what he had done, he is now estimated to be worth over 60 million dollars, you can check him out if you wish, google Russell Brunson, there is another bloke called Anthony Robbins, made millions by telling people to get off their butts, take action, follow their dreams, and he has 100s of testimonials from people hes helped.
> My point is, in America opportunities can be created, and vast profits made by those willing to take it, this creates confidence, and creativity, there is real opportunity, a former kick boxer can teach kick boxing, and kick boxing based fitness programs.
> With this confidence and creativity, Americans are not scared to give it a go, if it looks good, and sounds good, whats to lose, a couple of thousand bucks and a bit of time, this mentality can leave the door open to bad purchases and scams (this is my British scepticle side). I have an aunty who lives in Boston, in her kitchen she have every gadget going, nutri bullet, kitchen ninja, which as far as I can tell do the same thing, 2 or 3 mixers, juicers, but, used them once or twice, then just left in the kitchen cupboard, when asked why, she had seen it on tv, and thought oh thats good, gotta grt me one of those.
> I suppose I am steriotyping, but only by experience. As with the comments about Serbs and Croats, their reputationnis probably because of a history of troubles, but met a few Croats, and quite a few Serbs and others frombthe former Yougaslavia area, not met any bad ones, same as all the Russians I have met, anyhow off for my cup o tea, fish n chips, and collecting my bowler hat from the dry cleaners.


I guess I fail to see how that's just an american thing. Online, anyone can start a business, and spread it anywhere. The same opportunities that Russell and Anthony created, literally anyone, from any part of the world, can do the same. America may be the best market for that, or it might not, I really don't know, but you don't have to limit yourself geographically when you're using a network that spans the globe.


----------



## Gweilo

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I guess I fail to see how that's just an american thing. Online, anyone can start a business, and spread it anywhere. The same opportunities that Russell and Anthony created, literally anyone, from any part of the world, can do the same. America may be the best market for that, or it might not, I really don't know, but you don't have to limit yourself geographically when you're using a network that spans the globe.



Whilst I agree with anyone anywhere can acheive this, outside of the USA online business platforms are modelled on American business, where the foundations started in the late 90's, there are some business platforms here in the UK, are just realising they may have missed a trick with the online part of business, and trying to catch up. Here in the UK, the mentality is caution with a new business model, let others test it out first, then join the trend, where as in the US, the mentality is get into a trend at the beginning to maximise profit, the other obvious difference, whilst us British are confident, we will keep a lid on things, not tell others, be greedy in a way, by keeping it to ourselves, in the US the confidence is shout it from the roof tops, others take this as brash, cocky, bigheaded, when its look if I can do it confidnce as Isshin said, a winning mentality, which was my meaning of its in your culture, give it a go, looks good sounds good, and if it does not work, the mentality is "next".


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I was just qualifying the differences between sport BJJ and SD BJJ. If you want some sort of controllable organization that quantifies people's reliability, feel free to start it yourself.



Yeah. But it is not a difference if it doesn't do anything. It becomes irrelevant.

May as well say the difference is SD trains in camo pants. 

*If you want some sort of controllable organization that quantifies people's reliability, feel free to start it yourself.*

It is called competition. 

Otherwise you can't keep using this idea that there is no definable test of ability as some sort of defense of a systems worth. I mean it makes no sense.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But it is not a difference if it doesn't do anything. It becomes irrelevant.
> 
> May as well say the difference is SD trains in camo pants.
> 
> *If you want some sort of controllable organization that quantifies people's reliability, feel free to start it yourself.*
> 
> It is called competition.
> 
> Otherwise you can't keep using this idea that there is no definable test of ability as some sort of defense of a systems worth. I mean it makes no sense.


So create the competition. Figure out a way to make conflict resolution into a competition. Or weapon training (also called the dog brothers, who have succesfully turned that part of grappling plus weapons into SD competition), or multiple attacker training into a competition. Once you create it, and offer some sort of cash for winning, I'm sure you'll find out who's best at it. Until then, don't complain that it doesn't exist just because no one's offering a reward for competing in that regard.

And incorporating conflict resolution, weapons, multiple attackers and situational awareness is far different than incorporating camo pants. I wouldn't expect you to get that though, considering your past posts here.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Gweilo said:


> Whilst I agree with anyone anywhere can acheive this, outside of the USA online business platforms are modelled on American business, where the foundations started in the late 90's, there are some business platforms here in the UK, are just realising they may have missed a trick with the online part of business, and trying to catch up. Here in the UK, the mentality is caution with a new business model, let others test it out first, then join the trend, where as in the US, the mentality is get into a trend at the beginning to maximise profit, the other obvious difference, whilst us British are confident, we will keep a lid on things, not tell others, be greedy in a way, by keeping it to ourselves, in the US the confidence is shout it from the roof tops, others take this as brash, cocky, bigheaded, when its look if I can do it confidnce as Isshin said, a winning mentality, which was my meaning of its in your culture, give it a go, looks good sounds good, and if it does not work, the mentality is "next".


Oddly, the only online business that I've ever looked into the start of (since it relates directly into my career) is headspace. The reason that's odd is that it's an online business that started and grew from london. It later spread it's offices to california, but the founder is a londonite.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you train SD, do you train neck choke from behind?
> 
> If you
> 
> - do, since neck choke is offense and not defense, you are not trainning SD.
> - don't, you only train 1/2 MA.


Where on earth do you get the notion that self-defense can’t include finishing and even preemptive techniques???

SD training tends to mostly (not exclusively) start from receiving an attack, and tends to spend time working from worst-case positions. Other than that, it’s just MA training, whether it’s good or bad.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Gweilo said:


> Whilst I agree with anyone anywhere can acheive this, outside of the USA online business platforms are modelled on American business, where the foundations started in the late 90's, there are some business platforms here in the UK, are just realising they may have missed a trick with the online part of business, and trying to catch up. Here in the UK, the mentality is caution with a new business model, let others test it out first, then join the trend, where as in the US, the mentality is get into a trend at the beginning to maximise profit, the other obvious difference, whilst us British are confident, we will keep a lid on things, not tell others, be greedy in a way, by keeping it to ourselves, in the US the confidence is shout it from the roof tops, others take this as brash, cocky, bigheaded, when its look if I can do it confidnce as Isshin said, a winning mentality, which was my meaning of its in your culture, give it a go, looks good sounds good, and if it does not work, the mentality is "next".


And again, there are 6 (possibly more) different cultures in the USA. There's the Northeast, Southeast, Plains, Mississippi Valley, Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest. Those are the 6 I generally go by but others include more distinctions. I lump the great lakes and rocky mountains into the plains, but that might be because I haven't spent significant time in any of those to realize the differences. I'd also argue that the mid-east (Pennsylvania to North Carolina-ish) is different from either the southeast or northeast, but that might be because I've spent too much time along the coast.And if you spend any time in one then move to another you'll notice the differences. It's really easy when you live away from the US to lump it all as one culture, but really tough to do so when you spend any significant time here, and travel between them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> the key you are glossing over is that Capt. Sullenberger is an actual pilot.  A really, really good one.



No, I’m not missing that. You’re missing that throwing people who don’t want to be thrown is flying the plane, not a simulator. 



> Gerry, I’m not sure what you’re talking about.  I’m not mocking anyone.  As a trainer, i would love to be able to teach whatever I want with no claims to teaching anything usable. That is, however, Quintessentially faith based training.  It’s a great gig if you can swing it, because you could literally teach whatever you want.



Your tone comes across as mocking in that post. You dislike the claims made by some in SD circles with seminars and short courses (and I largely agree on that point). But when someone doesn’t commit that sin, you mock that they haven’t said they are teaching skills. 

Personally, I believe there’s value in folks learning that learning to fight takes time and commitment. Some movies (and some advertising) have made it seem otherwise, so it’s useful education. Just telling people doesn’t seem to work well - some experience with the process makes the learning curve clear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't train SD because all my training emphasizes on I attack first. I believe this violate the SD guideline.


If you can only fight by attacking first, yes, that training is not well suited to defensive use, where you may not get the opportunity to do so.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Like I said earlier, this kind of post in which you do nothing but attack the poster is just not okay. Or maybe it is okay around here now.   I’ve been away for a bit and there’s a new batch of moderators.


Do you not realize you have been doing the same thing, just not as direct as I may be doing it? 
A white horse painted grey is still a white horse (yes, I have likely said this before).


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> No, I’m not missing that. You’re missing that throwing people who don’t want to be thrown is flying the plane, not a simulator.


And when are you ever throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown?  Only time I ever did was in competition.  The one thing training, no matter how good, can ever do, is simulate application.  Further, and this is the key, a BJJ black belt who has no actual, practical experience applying skills shouldn't open his own school.  Just like a random karate master or ninja or aikidoka who has no actual, practical experience applying skills should probably not be teaching self defense. 

Simply put, if you're not applying your skills, you aren't the pilot in the analogy.  You aren't cooking actual food.  You aren't playing a round of golf or riding an actual bike.  You're never taking the step out of training and into performance.  And without application, there is no expertise, and without expertise... honest to goodness expertise... you will never get to the point of innovation, where you can take skills you have mastered and apply them in a completely different context, even under extreme stress.  This is what it takes to land a plane in the Hudson River.

Training --->  Performance -->  Expertise --> Innovation
You .................................................................Capt. Sullenberger


> Your tone comes across as mocking in that post. You dislike the claims made by some in SD circles with seminars and short courses (and I largely agree on that point). But when someone doesn’t commit that sin, you mock that they haven’t said they are teaching skills.
> 
> Personally, I believe there’s value in folks learning that learning to fight takes time and commitment. Some movies (and some advertising) have made it seem otherwise, so it’s useful education. Just telling people doesn’t seem to work well - some experience with the process makes the learning curve clear.


Mocking isn't quite right, and dislike is completely the wrong word.  Disagreement isn't mocking, and it isn't disliking.  At most, I'll give you sincere amusement.   I used the language he used, which was (paraphrasing slightly) that he taught no usable skills, and told them at the outset that this was an introduction in which the best they could hope for was a nugget of some kind.  I mean, that's really the nut of the issue here, and he articulated it very well. 


dvcochran said:


> Do you not realize you have been doing the same thing, just not as direct as I may be doing it?
> A white horse painted grey is still a white horse (yes, I have likely said this before).


There's a real difference between addressing the post and addressing the poster.  You seem to want to make this personal, which I frankly don't get.  Well, that's not entirely true.  I understand why, because you've shared that you conduct seminars in which you do not expect to teach any functional skill.  Like I said earlier, as a trainer, that's one heck of a gig if you can get it.  There is zero accountability there.  

It's analogous to professional trainers we see all the time who work for these national training corporations.  The corporation has these packages on various topics, from managing virtual workgroups to coaching to you name it.  The facilitators they have are professional facilitators, with varying expertise.  Sometimes, they send a facilitator to teach subjects that he or she is just not qualified to teach.  And you can tell.  They will facilitate their way through the session, but regardless of how well they know the material, their lack of depth is revealed the first moment someone asks a real world question.  In professional training, I personally don't think someone without real world experience coaching and supervising employees has any business teaching others to do so.  If you've never managed a virtual team, I don't think you have any business teaching others to do so.  

And presuming the instructor is fully qualified, if you're not managing a virtual team, you will get very little out of the training on that subject because you aren't applying what you're learning.  If you're not managing employees, training on coaching subordinates is going to be pointless, because you aren't applying those skills. 

There's an evaluation model commonly used in professional training called the Kirkpatrick model.  Lots of information on it if you google it, but essentially, there are four stages to evaluating the effectiveness of training:  Reaction, Learning, Transfer, and Results.  I'll leave it to you guys whether you are curious about the model.  To the point here, seminars such as @dvcochran described can only be evaluated at the first stage.  Training without application can only ever be evaluated at the second stage.  That's the best one can do without application.

If you have application, it's really easy to think of how the training can be evaluated to the Transfer level.  Results might take some planning, because it involves thinking about measurable results at the outset.  This is easy if it's considered at the outset, but can be tricky if you haven't thought about measurable results up front.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> I understand why, because you've shared that you conduct seminars in which you do not expect to teach any functional skill. Like I said earlier, as a trainer, that's one heck of a gig if you can get it. There is zero accountability there.


As I read dvcochran's post, he was talking about more of a demo or a sample taste for people who want to see what it would be like to pursue training. For a short one time session, that's all anyone could realistically deliver, so kudos to him for being honest about it. Teaching of functional skills would only be possible during longer sustained training, so that's where any "accountability" would be found.



Steve said:


> And when are you ever throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown? Only time I ever did was in competition.


I've thrown people who don't want to be thrown during sparring/randori hundreds (thousands?) of times. The only thing different about doing it in an official tournament is some extra adrenaline. (I've done that too, but not nearly as often as I've done regular sparring in the gym.)


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> As I read dvcochran's post, he was talking about more of a demo or a sample taste for people who want to see what it would be like to pursue training. For a short one time session, that's all anyone could realistically deliver, so kudos to him for being honest about it. Teaching of functional skills would only be possible during longer sustained training, so that's where any "accountability" would be found.


Maybe so.  He did use the word "demonstration."  However, he also used the term "class" and the thread is on training, not sales demonstrations.  All that said, hopefully, he isn't charging for these demonstrations.  Regarding "accountability", I haven't seen any evidence of that.  I'm sincerely interested in hearing what that looks like.



> I've thrown people who don't want to be thrown during sparring/randori hundreds (thousands?) of times. The only thing different about doing it in an official tournament is some extra adrenaline. (I've done that too, but not nearly as often as I've done regular sparring in the gym.)


This is where subjective language like "doesn't want to be thrown" causes problems.  I mean, sure, your training partner might not want to be thrown.  But how much training value does their sincere desire to stay upright give you?   If your instructor hasn't ever applied their skills, and no one else in the school applies the skills, then how do you know what you're learning.  There's no independent, measurable result.  Just a giant feedback loop.

Think about it like this: what's the difference between learning a grappling technique from a bujinkan taijutsu instructor and the same technique from a BJJ instructor?  They both teach people to throw other people, and I'm sure, if asked, the student would say, "Hey man, I've thrown hundreds of people who didn't want to be thrown."  The technique is the same.  Let's say the training is the same, too.  I mean, randori/sparring, a sincere desire to learn and apply the techniques... for real.  Let's even say, like Hatsumi, that the instructor's, instructor's instructor trained in judo, western boxing, and a few other styles.  I think (hope?) that we can all agree that learning a grappling technique in a bujinkan school and learning that same technique in a BJJ school would render different results.  The question is, why?  What's different?

Now step that up from a skill to a skill set.  You are learning something from your instructors, I'm not suggesting otherwise.  I'm saying, without application, you aren't learning what you think.  And your instructor might not even know it, if they've also been taught within the echo chamber of their style.  He or she might believe they are teaching you things you aren't learning, if they have no experience, either.   The best you can hope for, is that the training mimics the real thing closely enough to give you some hope of transferring the skills to application when needed.  But that's not application, much less expertise.  Ultimately, as @drop bear says, that's faith.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So create the competition. Figure out a way to make conflict resolution into a competition. Or weapon training (also called the dog brothers, who have succesfully turned that part of grappling plus weapons into SD competition), or multiple attacker training into a competition. Once you create it, and offer some sort of cash for winning, I'm sure you'll find out who's best at it. Until then, don't complain that it doesn't exist just because no one's offering a reward for competing in that regard.
> 
> And incorporating conflict resolution, weapons, multiple attackers and situational awareness is far different than incorporating camo pants. I wouldn't expect you to get that though, considering your past posts here.



Ok. So we can't tell if self defense works. Or to what extent. We can't tell if an instructor is any good at it. And a self defense instructor admits  quite possibly we can train self defense and not take away anything at all from it. 

Results don't matter.

And this is acceptable by people defending the merits of self defence. 

I can't fix that. 

The best I can do is tell people to do martial arts where results do matter. Especially if your motivation is to survive some sort of violent attack. 

*And incorporating conflict resolution, weapons, multiple attackers and situational awareness is far different than incorporating camo pants*.

If by incorporating you mean role play by people who have no expertise in the subject then it is exactly the same as incorporating camo pants.

If I go to my gym and pretend to be an astronaut. I will not become an astronaut.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> As I read dvcochran's post, he was talking about more of a demo or a sample taste for people who want to see what it would be like to pursue training. For a short one time session, that's all anyone could realistically deliver, so kudos to him for being honest about it. Teaching of functional skills would only be possible during longer sustained training, so that's where any "accountability" would be found.



Yeah but what is the point?

This comes up  Lot and it is a very strange outlook.

Let's go back to our flying analogy.

So now for whatever reason we only have two weeks to learn to fly a plane. And instead of just saying no it can't be done. We set up a flying school that doesn't work. 

And when we have plane crashes it is ok because we only had two weeks?


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Maybe so. He did use the word "demonstration." However, he also used the term "class" and the thread is on training, not sales demonstrations. All that said, hopefully, he isn't charging for these demonstrations. Regarding "accountability", I haven't seen any evidence of that. I'm sincerely interested in hearing what that looks like.



It will wind up being industry training. Which is as often about mitigating liability more than teaching a functional skill. 

It is one of those things I feel is grossly negligent for a bunch of reasons. But is deemed perfectly acceptable by people who are holding the purse strings.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If you can only fight by attacking first, yes, that training is not well suited to defensive use, where you may not get the opportunity to do so.



Not if it is done with scientific method. Because to improve your ambush you will improve your counter ambush.

I used to know some airforce defense guard. And their training was to oppose the SAS. So both elements got covered.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> It will wind up being industry training. Which is as often about mitigating liability more than teaching a functional skill.
> 
> It is one of those things I feel is grossly negligent for a bunch of reasons. But is deemed perfectly acceptable by people who are holding the purse strings.


We refer to that as "checking the box" training.  That gets back to my earlier comments, which is that being paid to provide training for which there is no expectation of any results is a damn good gig, if you can get it.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Ok, obviously, the way I am writing it, seems to be coming ocross not exactly as intended to some, so one last go.
> Firstly I like Americans, and have enjoyed visiting there.
> Last time I was there, I met a bloke in Idaho, whos passion was wrestling, he used to work a regular job, and needed more money, mainly to fund his wrestling, equipment, travel, competition fees etc, so he started an online business, he made a nice profit, he then told others of his profits, and developed a online course for a fee, to teach others what he had done, he is now estimated to be worth over 60 million dollars, you can check him out if you wish, google Russell Brunson, there is another bloke called Anthony Robbins, made millions by telling people to get off their butts, take action, follow their dreams, and he has 100s of testimonials from people hes helped.
> My point is, in America opportunities can be created, and vast profits made by those willing to take it, this creates confidence, and creativity, there is real opportunity, a former kick boxer can teach kick boxing, and kick boxing based fitness programs.
> With this confidence and creativity, Americans are not scared to give it a go, if it looks good, and sounds good, whats to lose, a couple of thousand bucks and a bit of time, this mentality can leave the door open to bad purchases and scams (this is my British scepticle side). I have an aunty who lives in Boston, in her kitchen she have every gadget going, nutri bullet, kitchen ninja, which as far as I can tell do the same thing, 2 or 3 mixers, juicers, but, used them once or twice, then just left in the kitchen cupboard, when asked why, she had seen it on tv, and thought oh thats good, gotta grt me one of those.
> I suppose I am steriotyping, but only by experience. As with the comments about Serbs and Croats, their reputationnis probably because of a history of troubles, but met a few Croats, and quite a few Serbs and others frombthe former Yougaslavia area, not met any bad ones, same as all the Russians I have met, anyhow off for my cup o tea, fish n chips, and collecting my bowler hat from the dry cleaners.



There is a concept called exeptionalism. Which is this ironic American trait that makes them all offended when American is not painted as the bestest most awesome thing in the world. 

They are just super sensitive about some subjects that the rest of us would take on the chin. 

Call someone a liberal and see what happens.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> We refer to that as "checking the box" training.  That gets back to my earlier comments, which is that being paid to provide training for which there is no expectation of any results is a damn good gig, if you can get it.



See from a security guard point of view. I found these outrageously self serving.

You can literally make up the circumstances that will occur and you don't have to be influenced by any real world issues. 

By doing this you can then set policy based on this fake set of circumstances.

You can then pass on responsibility and liability to your most powerless and most at risk. 

It is treated people as disposable. 

This might be fine when, as I have done, I get trained to blow up a balloon. And it is an irritation.

It is not fine when I am trained to fight a real guy who wants to hurt me.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> See from a security guard point of view. I found these outrageously self serving.
> 
> You can literally make up the circumstances that will occur and you don't have to be influenced by any real world issues.
> 
> By doing this you can then set policy based on this fake set of circumstances.
> 
> You can then pass on responsibility and liability to your most powerless and most at risk.
> 
> It is treated people as disposable.
> 
> This might be fine when, as I have done, I get trained to blow up a balloon. And it is an irritation.
> 
> It is not fine when I am trained to fight a real guy who wants to hurt me.


This is where that kirkpatrick evaluation model can add a lot of value.  When the trainee is expected not just to transfer the training into 'on the job' skills, and the results are measured, there is accountability.  The whole point of the Kirkpatrick model is that it combines immediate feedback on the training (levels 1 and 2) with longer term feedback that evaluates whether the training made any difference (levels 3 and 4).  If the training isn't effective, or if it doesn't matter whether it's effective, you will see a lot of emphasis on level 1 and 2 feedback and no mention of any longer term evaluation of results.

And to be clear, longer training doesn't necessarily mean more effective training.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> There is a concept called exeptionalism. Which is this ironic American trait that makes them all offended when American is not painted as the bestest most awesome thing in the world.


You take that back, you son of a...  oooh.  





> They are just super sensitive about some subjects that the rest of us would take on the chin.


Yeah right.  You come from the land down under, where the women glow and men chunder (whatever that means).





> Call someone a liberal and see what happens.


Liberals don't mind being called liberal or progressive.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Call someone a liberal and see what happens.


Call someone a conservative and see what happens.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> This is where that kirkpatrick evaluation model can add a lot of value.  When the trainee is expected not just to transfer the training into 'on the job' skills, and the results are measured, there is accountability.  The whole point of the Kirkpatrick model is that it combines immediate feedback on the training (levels 1 and 2) with longer term feedback that evaluates whether the training made any difference (levels 3 and 4).  If the training isn't effective, or if it doesn't matter whether it's effective, you will see a lot of emphasis on level 1 and 2 feedback and no mention of any longer term evaluation of results.
> 
> And to be clear, longer training doesn't necessarily mean more effective training.



I will have a look at the model.

There are things like flying a plane and fighting that have a minimum time limit though.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> You take that back, you son of a...  oooh.  Yeah right.  You come from the land down under, where the women glow and men chunder (whatever that means).Liberals don't mind being called liberal or progressive.



It means vomit.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> This is where that kirkpatrick evaluation model can add a lot of value.



Very close to scientific method.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Very close to scientific method.


Similar, but this is a way to evaluate whether training is doing any good, rather than test a hypothesis.  Most training gathers only level 1 feedback.   Was the training engaging?  Was the instructor well organized?  Did he or she appear credible?   

More to the point, you can’t gather level 3 or level 4 feedback if the skills are never applied.  The data just won’t exist.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> It means vomit.


Really???  That’s gross.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> As I read dvcochran's post, he was talking about more of a demo or a sample taste for people who want to see what it would be like to pursue training. For a short one time session, that's all anyone could realistically deliver, so kudos to him for being honest about it. Teaching of functional skills would only be possible during longer sustained training, so that's where any "accountability" would be found.
> 
> 
> I've thrown people who don't want to be thrown during sparring/randori hundreds (thousands?) of times. The only thing different about doing it in an official tournament is some extra adrenaline. (I've done that too, but not nearly as often as I've done regular sparring in the gym.)


@Steve, Tony gets at exactly what I’m talking about here. He’s often clearer than I, so maybe his post will make more sense than mine.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hhhh


drop bear said:


> Not if it is done with scientific method. Because to improve your ambush you will improve your counter ambush.
> 
> I used to know some airforce defense guard. And their training was to oppose the SAS. So both elements got covered.


That sounds like it includes training from NOT attacking first. So not the same as his description. The scientific method doesn’t change that, so I’m not sure why you brought it up there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is a concept called exeptionalism. Which is this ironic American trait that makes them all offended when American is not painted as the bestest most awesome thing in the world.
> 
> They are just super sensitive about some subjects that the rest of us would take on the chin.
> 
> Call someone a liberal and see what happens.


Another interesting stereotype.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> This is where subjective language like "doesn't want to be thrown" causes problems. I mean, sure, your training partner might not want to be thrown. But how much training value does their sincere desire to stay upright give you? If your instructor hasn't ever applied their skills, and no one else in the school applies the skills, then how do you know what you're learning. There's no independent, measurable result. Just a giant feedback loop.


Throwing someone who is trying not to let you throw them (and who is trying to throw or strike you at the same time) _is _the application of the skill. If your instructor has done that, then they have applied the skill. If your sparring partner who you manage to throw today  is the same guy who managed to throw you yesterday during sparring, then they have also applied the skill.

You can make the point that "what if everyone in your school just sucks?" But then you could make the same argument even if you went to a tournament for an official competition - maybe everybody who came to that tournament just sucks. 

In my experience, most people have a lifetime of experience with keeping their balance and not being made to fall over easily. Sure, you find klutzes with poor balance, but if you train with a reasonably large set of people you will find a good percentage that require some work and some skill to take down when they're fighting back. Even if they aren't particularly skilled to begin with, the act of doing randori on a regular basis will make them harder to take down and better at threatening you with takedowns of their own. Honestly, even if the instruction is crappy - if you regularly spar full out takedowns with thirty other sparring partners, at least some of whom are reasonably athletic and bigger or stronger than you are, and you regularly have success completing takedowns - then you probably have at least the basics of some functional skills.

One advantage that competition does have is diversifying and increasing the size of the talent pool you are practicing against. If you've only sparred with 5 out-of-shape guys who all have the same background, that isn't much of a basis for comparison or improvement, If you've sparred with 100 fit guys from a variety of backgrounds, that's significantly better. 

My competition experience isn't that extensive. If you put together the different types of tournaments I've been to where throws are part of the allowable techniques, then I've been up against maybe 26 different guys, mostly in my weight class, from maybe 10-12 different schools.

On the other hand, in my regular sparring I've been up against 100s of guys, with a wide variety of shapes and sizes, with backgrounds in Judo, wrestling, Sambo, Sumo, BJJ, other forms of jujutsu, MMA, other martial arts, football, rugby, powerlifting, and who knows what else. I'm pretty certain that if I was able to count up the number of different schools that those sparring partners had trained at, it would come out to way more than the number of different schools I competed against in tournaments.

Comparing the two sets of experiences, I think I've learned a lot more from my non-tournament sparring than my official competition experience,




Steve said:


> Think about it like this: what's the difference between learning a grappling technique from a bujinkan taijutsu instructor and the same technique from a BJJ instructor? They both teach people to throw other people, and I'm sure, if asked, the student would say, "Hey man, I've thrown hundreds of people who didn't want to be thrown." The technique is the same. Let's say the training is the same, too. I mean, randori/sparring, a sincere desire to learn and apply the techniques... for real.


The difference is that in the Bujinkan Taijutsu class, they don't spar. They don't randori. They don't throw someone who is actively fighting against being thrown. If the student said "Hey man, I've thrown hundreds of people who didn't want to be thrown" then they would be lying.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> And when are you ever throwing someone who doesn't want to be thrown?  Only time I ever did was in competition.  The one thing training, no matter how good, can ever do, is simulate application.  Further, and this is the key, a BJJ black belt who has no actual, practical experience applying skills shouldn't open his own school.  Just like a random karate master or ninja or aikidoka who has no actual, practical experience applying skills should probably not be teaching self defense.
> 
> Simply put, if you're not applying your skills, you aren't the pilot in the analogy.  You aren't cooking actual food.  You aren't playing a round of golf or riding an actual bike.  You're never taking the step out of training and into performance.  And without application, there is no expertise, and without expertise... honest to goodness expertise... you will never get to the point of innovation, where you can take skills you have mastered and apply them in a completely different context, even under extreme stress.  This is what it takes to land a plane in the Hudson River.
> 
> Training --->  Performance -->  Expertise --> Innovation
> You .................................................................Capt. Sullenberger
> Mocking isn't quite right, and dislike is completely the wrong word.  Disagreement isn't mocking, and it isn't disliking.  At most, I'll give you sincere amusement.   I used the language he used, which was (paraphrasing slightly) that he taught no usable skills, and told them at the outset that this was an introduction in which the best they could hope for was a nugget of some kind.  I mean, that's really the nut of the issue here, and he articulated it very well.
> There's a real difference between addressing the post and addressing the poster.  You seem to want to make this personal, which I frankly don't get.  Well, that's not entirely true.  I understand why, because you've shared that you conduct seminars in which you do not expect to teach any functional skill.  Like I said earlier, as a trainer, that's one heck of a gig if you can get it.  There is zero accountability there.
> 
> It's analogous to professional trainers we see all the time who work for these national training corporations.  The corporation has these packages on various topics, from managing virtual workgroups to coaching to you name it.  The facilitators they have are professional facilitators, with varying expertise.  Sometimes, they send a facilitator to teach subjects that he or she is just not qualified to teach.  And you can tell.  They will facilitate their way through the session, but regardless of how well they know the material, their lack of depth is revealed the first moment someone asks a real world question.  In professional training, I personally don't think someone without real world experience coaching and supervising employees has any business teaching others to do so.  If you've never managed a virtual team, I don't think you have any business teaching others to do so.
> 
> And presuming the instructor is fully qualified, if you're not managing a virtual team, you will get very little out of the training on that subject because you aren't applying what you're learning.  If you're not managing employees, training on coaching subordinates is going to be pointless, because you aren't applying those skills.
> 
> There's an evaluation model commonly used in professional training called the Kirkpatrick model.  Lots of information on it if you google it, but essentially, there are four stages to evaluating the effectiveness of training:  Reaction, Learning, Transfer, and Results.  I'll leave it to you guys whether you are curious about the model.  To the point here, seminars such as @dvcochran described can only be evaluated at the first stage.  Training without application can only ever be evaluated at the second stage.  That's the best one can do without application.
> 
> If you have application, it's really easy to think of how the training can be evaluated to the Transfer level.  Results might take some planning, because it involves thinking about measurable results at the outset.  This is easy if it's considered at the outset, but can be tricky if you haven't thought about measurable results up front.



I cannot remember if I specifically used the word seminar. A 2-3 hour class hardly constitutes a seminar. I did clearly say it was an introduction, not the full course meal. 
Your obsession with wanting to shoot holes in My (yes that is you making it personal) comments is baffling. How you think specifically calling me out is not personal is even more baffling. You are consistent, I will give you that.
 Yet, you still have not identified what you think a SD teacher or class should be. Instead you jumped into misdirection using a teaching model.
Yes I know it is still heavily used but the Kirkpatrick model is pretty old, 50's I think. It gets a Lot knocks for being self edifying within the teaching/learning industry a not much of anywhere else.
I have always heard it is where the saying 'paralysis by analysis' originated from.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> @Steve, Tony gets at exactly what I’m talking about here. He’s often clearer than I, so maybe his post will make more sense than mine.[/QUOTE


LOL.  Okay, man.  I'll avoid accusing you of ignoring me. 


Tony Dismukes said:


> Throwing someone who is trying not to let you throw them (and who is trying to throw or strike you at the same time) _is _the application of the skill. If your instructor has done that, then they have applied the skill. If your sparring partner who you manage to throw today  is the same guy who managed to throw you yesterday during sparring, then they have also applied the skill.
> 
> You can make the point that "what if everyone in your school just sucks?" But then you could make the same argument even if you went to a tournament for an official competition - maybe everybody who came to that tournament just sucks.
> 
> In my experience, most people have a lifetime of experience with keeping their balance and not being made to fall over easily. Sure, you find klutzes with poor balance, but if you train with a reasonably large set of people you will find a good percentage that require some work and some skill to take down when they're fighting back. Even if they aren't particularly skilled to begin with, the act of doing randori on a regular basis will make them harder to take down and better at threatening you with takedowns of their own. Honestly, even if the instruction is crappy - if you regularly spar full out takedowns with thirty other sparring partners, at least some of whom are reasonably athletic and bigger or stronger than you are, and you regularly have success completing takedowns - then you probably have at least the basics of some functional skills.
> 
> One advantage that competition does have is diversifying and increasing the size of the talent pool you are practicing against. If you've only sparred with 5 out-of-shape guys who all have the same background, that isn't much of a basis for comparison or improvement, If you've sparred with 100 fit guys from a variety of backgrounds, that's significantly better.
> 
> My competition experience isn't that extensive. If you put together the different types of tournaments I've been to where throws are part of the allowable techniques, then I've been up against maybe 26 different guys, mostly in my weight class, from maybe 10-12 different schools.
> 
> On the other hand, in my regular sparring I've been up against 100s of guys, with a wide variety of shapes and sizes, with backgrounds in Judo, wrestling, Sambo, Sumo, BJJ, other forms of jujutsu, MMA, other martial arts, football, rugby, powerlifting, and who knows what else. I'm pretty certain that if I was able to count up the number of different schools that those sparring partners had trained at, it would come out to way more than the number of different schools I competed against in tournaments.
> 
> Comparing the two sets of experiences, I think I've learned a lot more from my non-tournament sparring than my official competition experience,


That's an interesting thought.  Thinking about it, I'd agree that sparring 100 of guys with a wide variety of backgrounds from a wide range of schools, it checks the boxes.  It is objective and independent of the training environment.  Just to bring this back, as an instructor, your experience is what you bring to the table.  If you didn't test your skills against these 100s of guys with varying backgrounds from dozens of schools, you couldn't pass the benefits of that to your students.  AND, your students, while they can benefit from the quality of your instruction, cannot substitute your own experience for theirs.  So, do you encourage your students to go to different schools and replicate your own form of application?  Why or why not?  

There's also a whole lot of calibration that forms the foundation for your training.  You train in a school with a qualified instructor in a style that encourages calibration, with people from widely varied backgrounds who all apply their skills in different ways (except for maybe the jujutsu guys... who knows about them?).  Internally, I think you mentioned you have students who compete in all kinds of different rulesets.  Remove all of that calibration, and things start to break down fast.  

Which is where we are with the Bujinkan.  It's been just a few generations...  I mean, the founder is still alive, for Pete's sake.  What happened?


> The difference is that in the Bujinkan Taijutsu class, they don't spar. They don't randori. They don't throw someone who is actively fighting against being thrown. If the student said "Hey man, I've thrown hundreds of people who didn't want to be thrown" then they would be lying.


But, just as some "self defense oriented" aikido schools do, let's say this one does.  They spar... a lot.  Every class.  The technique is the same.  

Let's take it one step further.  Let's say that the instructor comes from a strong Judo background, where he routinely applied the technique.  He teaches ninjutsu, but blends his Judo into the training, including randori.  We've seen this before.  It's not unrealistic for this to happen.  Could he "throw someone who doesn't want to be thrown?"  Maybe.  Let's say probably.  What about his students?  I think it's a crap shoot.  What about their students?  I'd say odds are long.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Yeah but what is the point?
> 
> This comes up  Lot and it is a very strange outlook.
> 
> Let's go back to our flying analogy.
> 
> So now for whatever reason we only have two weeks to learn to fly a plane. And instead of just saying no it can't be done. We set up a flying school that doesn't work.
> 
> And when we have plane crashes it is ok because we only had two weeks?


I see no logic in that analogy. Would you not be an absolute idiot to think you are going to learn how to fly a plane in 2 weeks? 
I am Always very clear not to plant seeds of competency. More food for thought to get them to the next step. Nothing at all innocuous. It is factual, not a rah, rah class.
If I say something like 'try before you buy' or an intro to psychology do this make more sense to you? The SD classes I mentioned would be no different. In no way were they 'buying' anything or gaining a level of proficiency. They were however getting exposure to many of the 'standard' what if's and an idea of what teaching curriculum would be like.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I cannot remember if I specifically used the word seminar. A 2-3 hour class hardly constitutes a seminar. I did clearly say it was an introduction, not the full course meal.
> Your obsession with wanting to shoot holes in My (yes that is you making it personal) comments is baffling. How you think specifically calling me out is not personal is even more baffling. You are consistent, I will give you that.
> Yet, you still have not identified what you think a SD teacher or class should be. Instead you jumped into misdirection using a teaching model.
> Yes I know it is still heavily used but the Kirkpatrick model is pretty old, 50's I think. It gets a Lot knocks for being self edifying within the teaching/learning industry a not much of anywhere else.
> I have always heard it is where the saying 'paralysis by analysis' originated from.


Kirkpatrick is specifically intended to evaluate whether training is working.  Self-edifying?  What does that even mean?  I mean, it's an evaluation model.  By definition, it's intended to understand the effectiveness of training. It will either support the training (which I think is what you mean by self-edify, but that's an odd turn of phrase) or demonstrate that the training was not effective.  

Regarding a self defense program I think is really solid, I think I mentioned earlier in this thread a program from a few years back in Canada. The goal was to reduce the incidence of sexual assault and to reduce the number of assaults that were successful.   It was a 12 week program that was demonstrably successful.

I think crossfit is also a really solid self defense program.  

If I remember correctly, you did read and respond to this with some snarky comment about it being common knowledge.  

Dude, I think I'm going to have to break up with you.  You're unfriendly and unreasonable.  I just don't think we have a future, you and me.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Kirkpatrick is specifically intended to evaluate whether training is working.  Self-edifying?  What does that even mean?  I mean, it's an evaluation model.  By definition, it's intended to understand the effectiveness of training. It will either support the training (which I think is what you mean by self-edify, but that's an odd turn of phrase) or demonstrate that the training was not effective.
> 
> Regarding a self defense program I think is really solid, I think I mentioned earlier in this thread a program from a few years back in Canada. The goal was to reduce the incidence of sexual assault and to reduce the number of assaults that were successful.   It was a 12 week program that was demonstrably successful.
> 
> I think crossfit is also a really solid self defense program.
> 
> If I remember correctly, you did read and respond to this with some snarky comment about it being common knowledge.
> 
> Dude, I think I'm going to have to break up with you.  You're unfriendly and unreasonable.  I just don't think we have a future, you and me.


Well, we agree on something. 
I am saying this as a sincere advise, you really need to 'hear' what you write. Snarky would be putting your content lightly.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> So, do you encourage your students to go to different schools and replicate your own form of application? Why or why not?


Yes! Absolutely! The more experience with a wide variety of sparring partners the better.

I will add that I'm lucky enough to teach at a gym where we have a large number of tough practitioners from a variety of backgrounds come through. A student who only trained at our gym for the last 10 years would have had the opportunity to spar with wrestlers, judoka, jiujiteiros, MMA fighters (pro and amateur), sambists, sumotori, capoeristas, kyokushin karateka, boxers (pro and amateur), thai boxers, and more. (Unfortunately the majority of students don't take advantage of most of those opportunities, but they are there.)

Even so, I encourage students to visit other schools and train with other people when they have the chance.



Steve said:


> But, just as some "self defense oriented" aikido schools do, let's say this one does. They spar... a lot. Every class. The technique is the same.
> 
> Let's take it one step further. Let's say that the instructor comes from a strong Judo background, where he routinely applied the technique. He teaches ninjutsu, but blends his Judo into the training, including randori. We've seen this before. It's not unrealistic for this to happen. Could he "throw someone who doesn't want to be thrown?" Maybe. Let's say probably. What about his students? I think it's a crap shoot. What about their students? I'd say odds are long.


I think that if the students in the school sparred regularly every class, they would develop usable skills. I think they would also modify many of their techniques and they would learn the difference between the high percentage, low percentage, and no percentage moves in their curriculum. 

Now would they be as good at applying those techniques as equally hard working practitioners of Judo, BJJ, Boxing, or MMA? Probably not for a while. I expect it would take a few generations of students sparring to refine the knowledge base, training methods, and curriculum. If only one school did the sparring it would take even longer, because they just wouldn't have enough of a talent pool working on it. But if all Bujinkan schools engaged in high-quality sparring on a regular basis, then they'd get there eventually.

Of course if only the one teacher did that and then his students didn't spar and their students didn't spar, then you are right - functional skills would be unlikely.


----------



## Steve

> I think that if the students in the school sparred regularly every class, they would develop usable skills. I think they would also modify many of their techniques and they would learn the difference between the high percentage, low percentage, and no percentage moves in their curriculum.
> 
> Now would they be as good at applying those techniques as equally hard working practitioners of Judo, BJJ, Boxing, or MMA? Probably not for a while. I expect it would take a few generations of students sparring to refine the knowledge base, training methods, and curriculum. If only one school did the sparring it would take even longer, because they just wouldn't have enough of a talent pool working on it. But if all Bujinkan schools engaged in high-quality sparring on a regular basis, then they'd get there eventually.
> 
> Of course if only the one teacher did that and then his students didn't spar and their students didn't spar, then you are right - functional skills would be unlikely.


just to confirm.  You're saying a school that spars could independently rediscover practical grappling skill without any sort of external application?  Just by sparring?  I disagree.

I would say, however, that introducing  some external application, if the training made some sense, they could get up to speed pretty fast.  Not the same thing, though.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> There is a concept called exeptionalism. Which is this ironic American trait that makes them all offended when American is not painted as the bestest most awesome thing in the world.
> 
> They are just super sensitive about some subjects that the rest of us would take on the chin.
> 
> Call someone a liberal and see what happens.



Yes I got that


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I think crossfit is also a really solid self defense program.


This is an interesting comment. So good fitness is effective for SD, but not good fitness + some fighting skills? This suggests I’ve missed something in your basic premise.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> just to confirm.  You're saying a school that spars could independently rediscover practical grappling skill without any sort of external application?  Just by sparring?  I disagree.
> 
> I would say, however, that introducing  some external application, if the training made some sense, they could get up to speed pretty fast.  Not the same thing, though.


I have to disagree with you, from my own experience. I’m quite good at the Classical forms in NGA (the stylized versions for teaching the principles without resistance) because I spent a lot of time training the hardest ones. That was time without much resistance. Applying some resistance later, I quickly figured out which were just technical drills and which were applicable. Then that went deeper, to which were more reliable.

That’s with only one person doing the work. Put a whole school (even a small one) to that task, and it almost certainly gets refined faster and more deeply, even if it’s all done internally to the group. It’s the attitude that matters, a desire to dig in and see what works and why (something I was probably first introduced to by a BJJ/MMA guy). And if the techniques are learned well (even from a classical, low-resistance model) the counters are also understood, which makes the resistive training effective.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is an interesting comment. So good fitness is effective for SD, but not good fitness + some fighting skills? This suggests I’ve missed something in your basic premise.


Lol.  We've seen nothing that shows that studying ninjutsu or any self defense "oriented" art will help you any more than avoiding risky behaviors and being fit.  I've provided anecdotal evidence in the past where people have credited their parkour training for American Ninja Warrior competitions as saving them from being raped. 

So, it's kind of the other way around.  I default to the idea that most people, particularly where students are routinely applying the skills, aren't really learning to fight.  But being confident, having high self esteem, being fit, and avoiding high risk behaviors (e.g., taking oxycontin recreationally, hanging out in alleys looking for heroin, looking for fights at the bar) are very practical, attainable things that most people can do to be safer. 

Further, I think believing you can fight, when you can't, can actually make you less safe.  I mentioned the stakes before.  The stakes for thinking you're learning to cook, but not really cooking food... those stakes are pretty low.  If someone gives you real food to cook, and you burn the veggies and overcook the meat... no big deal.  You realize that you don't know what you think you do and move on.  You might look like one of those kids on the singing shows who is being told for the first time in their lives that they are tone deaf.  But that's just embarrassment. 

Thinking you can fight when you cannot could lead to all kinds of trouble for you.  It's very likely to turn a bad situation worse. 


gpseymour said:


> I have to disagree with you, from my own experience. I’m quite good at the Classical forms in NGA (the stylized versions for teaching the principles without resistance) because I spent a lot of time training the hardest ones. That was time without much resistance. Applying some resistance later, I quickly figured out which were just technical drills and which were applicable. Then that went deeper, to which were more reliable.
> 
> That’s with only one person doing the work. Put a whole school (even a small one) to that task, and it almost certainly gets refined faster and more deeply, even if it’s all done internally to the group. It’s the attitude that matters, a desire to dig in and see what works and why (something I was probably first introduced to by a BJJ/MMA guy). And if the techniques are learned well (even from a classical, low-resistance model) the counters are also understood, which makes the resistive training effective.


As I said before, what you're essentially doing is selling the process of rediscovering something that already exists.  Unless you are a bone fide expert, there are big problems with this.  1, you have no external application, so there is no way to see if what you're doing works at all.  2: because no one really knows what they're doing, you will waste a lot of time, learning really, who knows what? and 3: you will have huge gaps and blind spots that you are completely unaware of.  There's a certain level of trust in every school.  The student can't do what the instructor can, so the student has to trust that when the instructor says, "keep your elbows in tight," that even though that feels wrong and doesn't work for you, it will eventually work.  When the instructor says, "Okay, now put your left leg in, and now take it out... put it back and shake it all about," that it looks silly, but you do it for a reason, because even though you can't make it work now, you will eventually. 

Ever heard the term crappling?  That's what happens when schools independently attempt to rediscover their grappling without knowing what they're doing.  All kinds of examples of this on YouTube, if you're interested.  The point is, the issue with "classical" training is that it is so far removed from application, who knows whether it makes any sense at all.  The craziest things have come out of the Bujinkan and that's only a few generations from the founder who had studied Judo, wrestling, and western boxing.  In these crappling videos, we see the instructor teaching the technique, and the students earnestly trying to learn the technique, confident that if they keep at it, it will eventually work.  That happens where there is no application, because you're not learning the skills in pursuit of some kind of measurable, objective goal. 

Also, the entire idea of selling a something that puts the onus of inventing the product on the student is galling to me.  "Hey guys.  For $75 per month, I'll teach you some things that probably don't work.  But together, we'll figure it out.  Try extending your arm...  oh, that didn't work.  I'll drive you to the ER.  The rest of you, snap to it.  I'll be back in a few."


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> just to confirm. You're saying a school that spars could independently rediscover practical grappling skill without any sort of external application? Just by sparring? I disagree.



Absolutely. How do you think any sort of "practical grappling" was developed in the first place? A bunch of guys set some parameters for victory (putting the opponent on the ground, pinning them, making them tap out, whatever) and then spent a whole bunch of time trying to beat each other according to those conditions - i.e. sparring. Unlike something like swordfighting where any sort of sparring has to be a watered-down simulation of the real thing, in pure grappling sparring _is_ the real application.

Not to mention that the Bujinkan actually has a foundation of valid techniques to start with. (They also have a bunch of crap which has been added over the years, but sparring is the quickest way to identify the difference between the crap and the valid material.)



Steve said:


> I would say, however, that introducing some external application, if the training made some sense, they could get up to speed pretty fast. Not the same thing, though.


What do you mean by external application here? Do you mean sparring with folks outside the school or the art? That would certainly help speed up the process, but it's not 100% necessary. The majority of folkstyle wrestlers don't go out sparring judoka, jiujiteiros, sambists, sumotori, etc., but they generally have pretty functional skills. (More to the point, the development of folkstyle wrestling didn't require testing against all those other arts.)

Where you have a point is the relative number of people in the talent pool working to develop the art. I tell my students that every one of them is a scientist in the huge research lab we have going on to identify problems, discover what works and how to improve the answers we already have. If your total research team for your art is 20 practitioners, then you're going to have a hard time ever catching up to systems like Judo, wrestling, or BJJ where hundreds of thousands or even millions of participants have been working for decades to improve the art. (I still think they could develop some functional skills, they'd just be way behind compared to an average Judo dojo, for example.)

On the other hand, if _every_ X-kan school incorporated good quality sparring that would probably raise the talent pool to probably tens of thousands of practitioners, which is enough to make some solid progress.

Another factor to consider is that once you have good sparring as a regular part of your training, then the external validation frequently comes to you. Part of the reason I've been able to spar wrestlers, judoka, sambists, etc isn't just that I've gone to other schools. They come to BJJ because they know they'll get some good grappling in. Right now the Bujinkan isn't really getting much benefit from all the former wrestlers, judoka, etc in their ranks because those guys don't get to spar and show their fellow students the limitations of what they're doing. Let them all spar and use what they already know and they'll make everybody improve. In addition, more students will sign up who have that sort of prior experience.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Tony Dismukes said:


> Absolutely. How do you think any sort of "practical grappling" was developed in the first place?


The only issue for this approach is that you may produce many students who has the throwing skill, but don't have the solid foundation. To use their skill to against average opponent, it will work. To use their skill to against the best of the best, their skill may not work.

To train a MA system, you have to go through the foundation building process. Just to train SD, you may not have to.

Example of foundation building.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> just to confirm.  You're saying a school that spars could independently rediscover practical grappling skill without any sort of external application?  Just by sparring?  I disagree.


Agree with you on this.

Give your students 10 years to wrestle on the mat, they will never be able to develop "hip throw".

Give your students 30 years to wrestle on the mat, they will never be able to develop "leg twisting" throw.

Confucius said, "I have spent 3 days in thinking and ended with nothing. I prefer to spend those 3 days to study instead."


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> Hhhh
> 
> That sounds like it includes training from NOT attacking first. So not the same as his description. The scientific method doesn’t change that, so I’m not sure why you brought it up there.


He assumes if self defense is in the name, there is no way anything is being done with the scientific method.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The only issue for this approach is that you may produce many students who has the throwing skill, but don't have the solid foundation. To use their skill to against average opponent, it will work. To use their skill to against the best of the best, their skill may not work.
> 
> To train a MA system, you have to go through the foundation building process. Just to train SD, you may not have to.
> 
> Example of foundation building.





Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree with you on this.
> 
> Give your students 10 years to wrestle on the mat, they will never be able to develop "hip throw".
> 
> Give your students 30 years to wrestle on the mat, they will never be able to develop "leg twisting" throw.
> 
> Confucius said, "I have spent 3 days in thinking and ended with nothing. I prefer to spend those 3 days to study instead."


Yeah, but the context was discussing schools that already have a technical foundation, but have lost understanding of application due to generations of not sparring and not fighting. They’re not having to start completely from scratch. 

Of course, even well established effective grappling arts started out with taking the lessons learned from live wrestling and systemizing them into a technical foundation so that every new student didn’t have to reinvent the wheel. I don’t think anyone is proposing just sparring without studying, drilling, and building foundational skill.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> Absolutely. How do you think any sort of "practical grappling" was developed in the first place? A bunch of guys set some parameters for victory (putting the opponent on the ground, pinning them, making them tap out, whatever) and then spent a whole bunch of time trying to beat each other according to those conditions - i.e. sparring. Unlike something like swordfighting where any sort of sparring has to be a watered-down simulation of the real thing, in pure grappling sparring _is_ the real application.
> 
> Not to mention that the Bujinkan actually has a foundation of valid techniques to start with. (They also have a bunch of crap which has been added over the years, but sparring is the quickest way to identify the difference between the crap and the valid material.)
> 
> 
> What do you mean by external application here? Do you mean sparring with folks outside the school or the art? That would certainly help speed up the process, but it's not 100% necessary. The majority of folkstyle wrestlers don't go out sparring judoka, jiujiteiros, sambists, sumotori, etc., but they generally have pretty functional skills. (More to the point, the development of folkstyle wrestling didn't require testing against all those other arts.)
> 
> Where you have a point is the relative number of people in the talent pool working to develop the art. I tell my students that every one of them is a scientist in the huge research lab we have going on to identify problems, discover what works and how to improve the answers we already have. If your total research team for your art is 20 practitioners, then you're going to have a hard time ever catching up to systems like Judo, wrestling, or BJJ where hundreds of thousands or even millions of participants have been working for decades to improve the art. (I still think they could develop some functional skills, they'd just be way behind compared to an average Judo dojo, for example.)
> 
> On the other hand, if _every_ X-kan school incorporated good quality sparring that would probably raise the talent pool to probably tens of thousands of practitioners, which is enough to make some solid progress.
> 
> Another factor to consider is that once you have good sparring as a regular part of your training, then the external validation frequently comes to you. Part of the reason I've been able to spar wrestlers, judoka, sambists, etc isn't just that I've gone to other schools. They come to BJJ because they know they'll get some good grappling in. Right now the Bujinkan isn't really getting much benefit from all the former wrestlers, judoka, etc in their ranks because those guys don't get to spar and show their fellow students the limitations of what they're doing. Let them all spar and use what they already know and they'll make everybody improve. In addition, more students will sign up who have that sort of prior experience.


There's a lot here that I agree with.  It's a lot, though, and in the interest of limited time, I'll just hit a few quick points.

First, bigger picture, the discussion has moved quite a bit from whether someone who has no practical expertise in self defense is qualified to teach it, to a larger discussion about how generations of application can lead to the development and innovation within a skill set.  I think it's interesting, and I've got a few comments, but the two topics are tenuously connected.  Bringing back the cooking analogy, we're no longer talking about a bona fide expert chef developing a system for teaching people how to cook (with or without food).  We're talking about a person who is aware that cooking exists, trying to figure out how to cook with a group of like minded people.  Or more accurately, charging a group of like minded people for the privilege.  

If you're suggesting that this group of curious folks could, with food and fire, figure out how to cook, sure.  I think they could.  But they'd have to cook a lot of food, and whether they could ever achieve a level of proficiency (much less expertise) is a huge question mark that depends on several things: skills they already have, the quality and depth of the available resources, and application (i.e., actually cooking food).  In other words, take a guy who has eaten a lot of cooked food, and who has cook books and the tools (oven, etc) available, and who then cooks a lot of food, he might be able to figure it out with no formal training.  Given a lot of application (cooking food), he might even get pretty good.   What he's learning, though, will be limited to what he knows he can learn and his creativity.  He may never reach even basic proficiency relative to someone who was taught to cook by someone who was competent to teach.  And he won't know that until his skills are tested.  Without any external calibration, he is developing (or not developing) skill in a vacuum.  I've said many times, you're always learning something.  This is analogous to a bunch of ninja deciding to rediscover effective grappling internally.  

Take the folk wrestling example and apply that to the development of MMA.  30 years ago, MMA was a completely different thing.  Skills were rudimentary and fragmented.  Fast forward, after three or four generations of focused application, and the skill set is fairly well defined and the skill level is much higher than in the early days.  Applying the skills (ninjutsu, sumo, sambo, judo, bjj, western boxing, JKD, just off the top of my head) in a different context exposed a lot of holes in the skill sets that were invisible to the practitioners prior to UFC 1.  In less than a decade, the sport had evolved significantly.  By 2005, the sport had evolved into roughly what it is today.  Skill levels had rounded out, and there was far less specialization.  This would not have happened without application.  And by application, I mean, on a broad level with a lot of input and innovation from a diverse background of complimentary skill sets.  Take a group of feral dancers who want to fight in MMA.  They train for 30 years and think they've got it all figured out.  They send their best fighter to compete in an MMA event.  How do you think he does?  That's what you're talking about with the bujinkan rediscovering grappling.  

So, all that to say, when I talk about application, I'm trying to keep things clean and clear.  But Gerry is right.  There is application within a self defense school.  Everyone is learning something.  I just don't think it's self defense.  I don't even think it's practical skill.  A person who trains in Tae Bo is learning movements that mimic boxing and kickboxing.  They are becoming skilled at those movements.  Eventually, given time, a person who commits to Tae Bo could become an expert in Tae Bo.  But that doesn't mean they are expert at kickboxing.  It doesn't even mean they could use that movement in the context of a fight, even if the instructor emphasizes that he teaches Tae Bo with a self defense orientation.


----------



## Steve

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don’t think anyone is proposing just sparring without studying, drilling, and building foundational skill.


Building foundational skill is exactly the issue... well, building that foundational skill so that it can be relied upon outside of the context of the training.  Much less building functional skill to a point of expertise in that context.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> He assumes if self defense is in the name, there is no way anything is being done with the scientific method.


If hope and blind trust are involved, it's hard to argue that the scientific method is also involved.  I think they're mutually exclusive.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> If hope and blind trust are involved, it's hard to argue that the scientific method is also involved.  I think they're mutually exclusive.


I mentioned one school that focused on competition that i trained in. In reality all the ones I've spent significant time in had the majority of students competing full contact/grappling/both, but still taught SD as the focus. And people would do well competing. Plus all the bjj sd schools out there with competition and rank validation through competition, and judo schools doing the same.

So I don't see why sd automatically means blind trust.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So I don't see why sd automatically means blind trust.


If you spar/wrestle 15 rounds daily, in 5 years you will have 5 x 365 x 15 = 27,375 rounds of sport experience. Where can you develop 27,375 times of SD experience?

Since your SD experience is not real, how can you trust it?


----------



## Steve

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you spar/wrestle 15 rounds daily, in 5 years you will have 5 x 365 x 15 = 27,375 rounds of sport experience. Where can you develop 27,375 times of SD experience?
> 
> Since your SD experience is not real, how can you trust it?


Yes.  That's the dilemma, exactly.  Depending on the quality and context of your sparring, your sport experience may not translate at all to any kind of SD application.  

It may not even be good grappling.  27,375 rounds of crappy grappling with crappy partners, under the instruction of someone who has no functional grappling skill, is a lot of wasted time.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I mentioned one school that focused on competition that i trained in. In reality all the ones I've spent significant time in had the majority of students competing full contact/grappling/both, but still taught SD as the focus. And people would do well competing. Plus all the bjj sd schools out there with competition and rank validation through competition, and judo schools doing the same.
> 
> So I don't see why sd automatically means blind trust.


It doesn't, if the context for the self defense instruction is well defined and the instructor is competent to teach to that context.  So, if a cop is teaching skills based on his/her experience as a cop, great.  If I'm a cop, I might even be able to apply those skills in context, and develop my own expertise in that area.  Otherwise, it's hope and prayers.

Anyone else a fan of John Mulaney's stand up?  I think he's one of the funniest people around right now.  Tells a great story.  In his most recent netflix special, he talks about "Street Smarts" as taught by Officer J. J. Bittenbinder, a Chicago police officer.  I won't spoil it.  Do yourselves a favor and check it out.  My stomach hurt I was laughing so hard.  I also think it has some relevance to this thread.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> It doesn't, if the context for the self defense instruction is well defined and the instructor is competent to teach to that context.  So, if a cop is teaching skills based on his/her experience as a cop, great.  If I'm a cop, I might even be able to apply those skills in context, and develop my own expertise in that area.  Otherwise, it's hope and prayers.
> 
> Anyone else a fan of John Mulaney's stand up?  I think he's one of the funniest people around right now.  Tells a great story.  In his most recent netflix special, he talks about "Street Smarts" as taught by Officer J. J. Bittenbinder, a Chicago police officer.  I won't spoil it.  Do yourselves a favor and check it out.  My stomach hurt I was laughing so hard.  I also think it has some relevance to this thread.


So it can be done. Which means that sd does not automatically mean the scientific method can't be used, like dropbear said.

And ive been meaning to check it out, huge melaney fan. Might look it up on sunday if I remember.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So it can be done. Which means that sd does not automatically mean the scientific method can't be used, like dropbear said.
> 
> And ive been meaning to check it out, huge melaney fan. Might look it up on sunday if I remember.


I don’t know, man.   I mean, if you’re talking about cops teaching other cops, sure.   Or a data driven self defense program that is mitigating risk of sexual assault in a college campus for young women, totally.  If you’re talking about an earnest, well meaning, white collar guy who learned a system from another guy, I don’t think so.

Glad to see you online.  Hopefully this means your back is feeling better.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> My competition experience isn't that extensive. If you put together the different types of tournaments I've been to where throws are part of the allowable techniques, then I've been up against maybe 26 different guys, mostly in my weight class, from maybe 10-12 different schools.
> 
> On the other hand, in my regular sparring I've been up against 100s of guys, with a wide variety of shapes and sizes, with backgrounds in Judo, wrestling, Sambo, Sumo, BJJ, other forms of jujutsu, MMA, other martial arts, football, rugby, powerlifting, and who knows what else. I'm pretty certain that if I was able to count up the number of different schools that those sparring partners had trained at, it would come out to way more than the number of different schools I competed against in tournaments.



Yeah. But you may have done some. You may have sparred guys who have done some tournaments. And trained with so.e MMAers or wrestlers. 

Then your gene pool of experience and expertise skyrockets. They have sparred and competed with guys, and they have. And you have move on from thecollective experience of the ten guys in your room to the collective experience of thousands of guys. 

And BJJ is a legitimate pathway to excellence. So if I sparred with a thousand bjj guys and a thousand ninjas. The likelihood is I will run across more subject matter experts in BJJ. Especially if I am looking for that. 

This reminds me of the single arm guard pass that was legitimately used as a go to. Because people were not good enough at triangles to show its short comings. I think this would be the result of ninjitsu solely trying to lift their game by sparring internally.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I don’t know, man.   I mean, if you’re talking about cops teaching other cops, sure.   Or a data driven self defense program that is mitigating risk of sexual assault in a college campus for young women, totally.  If you’re talking about an earnest, well meaning, white collar guy who learned a system from another guy, I don’t think so.
> 
> Glad to see you online.  Hopefully this means your back is feeling better.


That's my point though. That it can be done. Not if it normally is or not, but that it's possible. That needs to be determined/accepted first before we can discuss the how.

And not yet. Had to go to work today, so spent the morning icing it and took a bunch of ibuprofen with me for the day. Going to see how long I last with this.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> So it can be done. Which means that sd does not automatically mean the scientific method can't be used, like dropbear said.
> 
> And ive been meaning to check it out, huge melaney fan. Might look it up on sunday if I remember.



Back the truck up there.

I have said it can be done. Showed videos of it being done. But it is ultimately sportifying the process.

Where it cannot be done is where SD guys choose to rely on anecdotes and hypotheticals. Rather than data and testing.

But within the culture of SD anecdotes and hypotheticals are king.

We are talking about expertise in a field where nobody can even tell me who is legitimately good at it or bad at it.

I was looking at funker tactical just then. Not a single video of live training.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Back the truck up there.
> 
> I have said it can be done. Showed videos of it being done. But it is ultimately sportifying the process.
> 
> Where it cannot be done is where SD guys choose to rely on anecdotes and hypotheticals. Rather than data and testing.
> 
> But within the culture of SD anecdotes and hypotheticals are king.
> 
> We are talking about expertise in a field where nobody can even tell me who is legitimately good at it or bad at it.


You haven't asked who is good or bad at it though (at least I haven't seen that). Your questions are about who's the leading authority in it. If you just want someone who's good at it, look up joe saunders, he's an australian who has a podcast called managing violence where he interviews various sd big and small names. And goes over what their credentials are each time. He also spends the first episode going over his credentials. Just from listening to his first few episodes he seems to be doing SD the right way. Not sure how far his dojo is from you (look up Saunders senshido for the address) but if it's close by it might be worth checking out.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> You haven't asked who is good or bad at it though (at least I haven't seen that). Your questions are about who's the leading authority in it. If you just want someone who's good at it, look up joe saunders, he's an australian who has a podcast called managing violence where he interviews various sd big and small names. And goes over what their credentials are each time. He also spends the first episode going over his credentials. Just from listening to his first few episodes he seems to be doing SD the right way. Not sure how far his dojo is from you (look up Saunders senshido for the address) but if it's close by it might be worth checking out.


https://au.linkedin.com/in/joesaundersbrs

So what do you feel m makes him good?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> https://au.linkedin.com/in/joesaundersbrs
> 
> So what do you feel m makes him good?


That would be the guy. A couple cases just popped up, so can't go into detail now, but tonight or tomorrow I'll let you know.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> That would be the guy. A couple cases just popped up, so can't go into detail now, but tonight or tomorrow I'll let you know.



Fair enough. I am having a look myself.

It is gendai krav maga now by the way.

Gendai Krav Maga Melbourne


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> That's my point though. That it can be done. Not if it normally is or not, but that it's possible. That needs to be determined/accepted first before we can discuss the how.
> 
> And not yet. Had to go to work today, so spent the morning icing it and took a bunch of ibuprofen with me for the day. Going to see how long I last with this.


okay.  I see where you’re coming from, but acknowledging the exception doesn’t disprove the rule.  The infinite monkey theorem.  Right?  Or maybe, we should rebrand it as the infinite ninja theorem:  An infinite number of ninja, given an infinite amount of time, will eventually create a practical self defense program randomly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you spar/wrestle 15 rounds daily, in 5 years you will have 5 x 365 x 15 = 27,375 rounds of sport experience. Where can you develop 27,375 times of SD experience?
> 
> Since your SD experience is not real, how can you trust it?


You're starting from the premise that SD skill is something different. I would argue that (assuming we're talking about defending against a physical assault, rather than prevention of it) SD is just a different application of fighting skills, with some different context creating different focus in strategy and tactics.

So, you can do that 15x365x15 of sparring, and all of that is feeding into the skillset.

If we're talking about avoidance, de-escalation, etc., then most folks have no opportunity for much practice in those areas.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Back the truck up there.
> 
> I have said it can be done. Showed videos of it being done. But it is ultimately sportifying the process.
> 
> Where it cannot be done is where SD guys choose to rely on anecdotes and hypotheticals. Rather than data and testing.
> 
> But within the culture of SD anecdotes and hypotheticals are king.
> 
> We are talking about expertise in a field where nobody can even tell me who is legitimately good at it or bad at it.
> 
> I was looking at funker tactical just then. Not a single video of live training.


That's your absolutes again, I think. We talked ages ago about how I use anecdotes to feed into my decisions. You seem to have taken that as "some guy says something worked, so I teach it", which I've actually told you many times isn't the process. Anecdotes lead us to questions. Those questions drive training decisions to get answers.

But you for so long have dismissed anecdotes as "stories", though a lot of science starts with anecdotes that lead to questions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> okay.  I see where you’re coming from, but acknowledging the exception doesn’t disprove the rule.  The infinite monkey theorem.  Right?  Or maybe, we should rebrand it as the infinite ninja theorem:  An infinite number of ninja, given an infinite amount of time, will eventually create a practical self defense program randomly.


So it can't be done purposefully, only randomly?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> So it can't be done purposefully, only randomly?


I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.  Are you familiar with the infinite monkey theorem?  Idea is an infinite number of chimps with an infinite amount of time will eventually, randomly recreate the complete works of William Shakespeare.   

so, you can just keep banging away and hope for dumb luck, or you can do the hard work of honing your craft.  How do the monkeys do it?  They just bang away at the keys.  Shakespeare wrote and produced a lot of plays and he got really, really good at it.  

how did Jack Nicklaus get so good at golfing?  He played a lot of golf.  How can I get better at golf?  I’d play more golf.

how exactly does one self defend?  What does self defending look like?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Steve said:


> What does self defending look like?


I'm quite sure people won't call this SD. In other words, this technique will never be taught in any SD school.

To say that SD is only a small subset of the MA system should be fair.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I really can’t tell if you’re being serious or not.  Are you familiar with the infinite monkey theorem?  Idea is an infinite number of chimps with an infinite amount of time will eventually, randomly recreate the complete works of William Shakespeare.
> 
> so, you can just keep banging away and hope for dumb luck, or you can do the hard work of honing your craft.  How do the monkeys do it?  They just bang away at the keys.  Shakespeare wrote and produced a lot of plays and he got really, really good at it.
> 
> how did Jack Nicklaus get so good at golfing?  He played a lot of golf.  How can I get better at golf?  I’d play more golf.
> 
> how exactly does one self defend?  What does self defending look like?


Once again, you're making an implicit claim that self-defense fighting skills are things that can only be applied in a self-defense situation. Self-defense fighting skills are pretty much just fighting skills. Tony has already covered the idea that those skills can be applied in a range of situations, including sparring (internal and external) and competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm quite sure people won't call this SD. In other words, this technique will never be taught in any SD school.
> 
> To say that SD is only a small subset of the MA system should be fair.


I doubt any SD school woudl call that a self-defense technique. But eliminating things like that doesn't reduce self-defense to a "small subset". Sitting here and thinking through the martial arts I'm famililar with, the vast majority of their content - all of the basics, at any rate - would be directly applicable to self-defense situations. The only exception I can come up with might be Capoera. I know little about it, but it doesn't seem particularly suited to self-defense adaptation.


----------



## Gweilo

Just out of curiosity, how many posters here, have had to test their sd skills, in a real situation?
If you have how many times?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You're starting from the premise that SD skill is something different. I would argue that (assuming we're talking about defending against a physical assault, rather than prevention of it) SD is just a different application of fighting skills, with some different context creating different focus in strategy and tactics.
> 
> So, you can do that 15x365x15 of sparring, and all of that is feeding into the skillset.
> 
> If we're talking about avoidance, de-escalation, etc., then most folks have no opportunity for much practice in those areas.


Self defense skill is different.  How different depends on how you train, and how you intend to apply the skills.  There are at least two axis here.  The first is the whether you're learning actual skill.  The second is whether the skill you're learning is close enough to whatever specific self defense situation to translate.  The way you're sort of squishing around in this is that you're using self defense, which is a term that is vast and abstract, and you're applying it broadly to everything.  


gpseymour said:


> Once again, you're making an implicit claim that self-defense fighting skills are things that can only be applied in a self-defense situation. Self-defense fighting skills are pretty much just fighting skills. Tony has already covered the idea that those skills can be applied in a range of situations, including sparring (internal and external) and competition.


Here's the thing.  I'm being very explicit.  I am going out of my way to be explicit.  Once again, (and truly, I'm getting kind of tired of it), you're suggesting that I'm being disingenuous.  When you say things like this, or that I'm ignoring things on purpose, etc, it feels a little petty. 

I'm going to explicitly point out to you that applying skills is precisely what I have been talking about all along.  Being able to apply skills in a context is not the same as actually applying those skills.  You don't get credit for potential.  

When you talk about self defense fighting skills, I think it's interesting, because the specific skills are the same, but the context is different... and in some cases, very different.  So, as I said above, the two relevant axis here are, first, are you learning actual skill?  I believe that without application, you're probably not learning the skill.  Rather, you're learning something that mimics the skill. 

Second is the context.  The more different the context, the higher the skill level must be in order to make the transition from one to the other.  The more complimentary the two contexts are, the easier it will be to transfer the ability from one to the other.  The simple truth here is that the higher your skill level, the more likely you'll be able to apply the skill outside of the specific context for which it was learned.  So, a person who has trained in a boxing gym for 2 months is learning to punch people.  But he or she has only done it for two months, and so can barely punch correctly in the gym, much less anywhere else.

Here's an illustration:  Two women go into an MMA gym to start training.  One has been training and competing as a kickboxer for 5 years.  The other has been training cardio-kickboxing for 5 years.  They're both equally fit, both very good at their respective activities, and all other things are the same.  They're both bringing skills and experience with them to the new context.  What do you think their first day looks like?  What about long term? 

By the way, for someone who is quick to accuse others of ignoring your points, you avoid directly answering my questions pretty much every time.  Don't think I don't notice.


----------



## dvcochran

Gweilo said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many posters here, have had to test their sd skills, in a real situation?
> If you have how many times?


In the vein that I think you are asking the question, my direct answer is a big Yes. No, not at all like some cultures and environments where truly living or dying is a daily struggle but real none the less.

 I grew up in an environment and lifestyle where physicality and fighting was a just part of life. I cannot count how many times I fought with my father and siblings. It was hands on striking and grappling and while it was never life or death it was always serious enough that we often ended the fights with cuts and bruises. Sort of a rite of passage. 
When I became a teenager I rolled with a group of friends who had much the same mindset. We fought all the time either within our own group or with others. We also had a habit of clubbing with the intent of getting in a fight. Getting the bouncers to take it outside was part of the 'art' of it. After that the bouncers usually did not care what happened. It was not very often that we were all fighting at the same time but it did happen. Good times. 

Fast forward about 10-15 years and I became a LEO. I found I could handle conflict and confrontation quite naturally, something I realized was very hard for certain other officers. You learned who you could count on when things got dicey. 
I also realized just how much I used my life experiences and martial arts training just about all the time, especially in the dicey situations. From SA to SD technical skills to de-escalation to just knowing how to carry yourself. Choose your buzzword of choice, I feel they all apply. 

There is a TON of overlapping skills in what I learned in life, in what I learned in MA training, and in what I learned in job specific LEO training. There has been a poster how tries to rebuke this idea but I think their ideas originate from a lack of experiential knowledge and is more based in what they have been told (not done themselves) and theory. To use their words, no application. Remember. we are not talking about mat work here. 

Did all my SD skills come from my MA training? Absolutely not. 

Does this answer your question? It is a binary yes/no question or are you asking for examples?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> The way you're sort of squishing around in this is that you're using self defense, which is a term that is vast and abstract, and you're applying it broadly to everything.


This is Exactly what you have been doing the whole time. You are beating a dead horse, saying the same thing over and over....and over. It questions your limited knowledge of the subject. You are great in the abstract.



Steve said:


> When you talk about self defense fighting skills, I think it's interesting, because the specific skills are the same, but the context is different... and in some cases, very different. So, as I said above, the two relevant axis here are, first, are you learning actual skill? I believe that without application, you're probably not learning the skill. Rather, you're learning something that mimics the skill


A person training simply learns what a tool is, then learns how to use the tool, then how to use the tool with other tools, and then learns what else the tool can be used for. It is ALL application. You have skewed the meaning of this word into irrelevance. You are convinced there is some magic wall between learning skills and application. There is not. 
Yes, there are schools/instructor who violate good teaching but that is a much broader subject.



Steve said:


> Second is the context. The more different the context, the higher the skill level must be in order to make the transition from one to the other. The more complimentary the two contexts are, the easier it will be to transfer the ability from one to the other. The simple truth here is that the higher your skill level, the more likely you'll be able to apply the skill outside of the specific context for which it was learned.



All you have done here is repeated what @Tony Dismukes said in a previous post about diversity in training. Nothing else. 
Has it taken you this long to realize what he said earlier?



Steve said:


> Here's an illustration: Two women go into an MMA gym to start training. One has been training and competing as a kickboxer for 5 years. The other has been training cardio-kickboxing for 5 years. They're both equally fit, both very good at their respective activities, and all other things are the same. They're both bringing skills and experience with them to the new context. What do you think their first day looks like? What about long term?



How could there be a more 'nose on your face' question? That said, who knows exactly what the first day of training would involve? Very trainer specific. A good one is going to play to each person strengths. In the long term the training would converge into much the same thing.


----------



## Gweilo

dvcochran said:


> In the vein that I think you are asking the question, my direct answer is a big Yes. No, not at all like some cultures and environments where truly living or dying is a daily struggle but real none the less.
> 
> I grew up in an environment and lifestyle where physicality and fighting was a just part of life. I cannot count how many times I fought with my father and siblings. It was hands on striking and grappling and while it was never life or death it was always serious enough that we often ended the fights with cuts and bruises. Sort of a rite of passage.
> When I became a teenager I rolled with a group of friends who had much the same mindset. We fought all the time either within our own group or with others. We also had a habit of clubbing with the intent of getting in a fight. Getting the bouncers to take it outside was part of the 'art' of it. After that the bouncers usually did not care what happened. It was not very often that we were all fighting at the same time but it did happen. Good times.
> 
> Fast forward about 10-15 years and I became a LEO. I found I could handle conflict and confrontation quite naturally, something I realized was very hard for certain other officers. You learned who you could count on when things got dicey.
> I also realized just how much I used my life experiences and martial arts training just about all the time, especially in the dicey situations. From SA to SD technical skills to de-escalation to just knowing how to carry yourself. Choose your buzzword of choice, I feel they all apply.
> 
> There is a TON of overlapping skills in what I learned in life, in what I learned in MA training, and in what I learned in job specific LEO training. There has been a poster how tries to rebuke this idea but I think their ideas originate from a lack of experiential knowledge and is more based in what they have been told (not done themselves) and theory. To use their words, no application. Remember. we are not talking about mat work here.
> 
> Did all my SD skills come from my MA training? Absolutely not.
> 
> Does this answer your question? It is a binary yes/no question or are you asking for examples?



Your youth sounds very similar to mine, I was not asking for examples, everyone has a different understanding of sd, I was just curious, what I should of asked (with relation to the post conversation), is... how many here, have used their martial skills in a real sd situation?
Imo, pretty much every martial art, or sport art can be effective in sd, its whether or not the practioner have had the experience of fighting, and/or the mental capabilities to remain calm enough to execute a technique, and the control to be effective with distance work and timing.
Most of the time, a good hard smack to the face/body will end the fight, and there is no call for martial technique, but how many here has used something they learnt on the mat, to subdue, overcome, finish an opponent, outside of a sports context.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> Fair enough. I am having a look myself.
> 
> It is gendai krav maga now by the way.
> 
> Gendai Krav Maga Melbourne


Sorry about that, I think he used to teach senshido but he's been in a couple different arts so must have gotten it mixed up.

As to why I think he's good-keep in mind I haven't actually met the dude. But he started off with martial arts, then started competing in each art he tried (so he pressure tested it all), then he entered security and saw what actually did or didn't work in actual fights. But the big thing is that he then tried (I say tried because IIRC he didn't do any legitimate studies that were peer reviewed and published) to make it more scientific-speaking to people with various combat experiences, seeing if his own thoughts about self defense held up to their actual experiences. So he's got the mindset and I would bet money that what he's teaching in his classes is stuff that actually helps. 

@drop bear and @Steve if you guys have a free half hour, check out the second episode of his podcast, managing violence; he goes over his views on the barebones of what's important for self defense/'surviving' violence. I'd be curious to see what you guys think of the ideas he presents there. 

While we're at it, @Tony Dismukes and @gpseymour I'd be curious about your thoughts as well.


----------



## Gweilo

My guess is, very few, there may be the odd, reverse punch, or cheeky leg sweep, palm strike, but I doubt many, if any have won, by reverse spinning back kick, although I did use a spinning back fist once, the result was enough to tell me I had to grow up and calm down.
I think dv is correct in learning to use a tool, and use it well, I havent had a proper fight for about 3 or 4 years, and that is my sd experience of neurocognitive adaptations, I can tell by the face and body language if my potential opponent, is really up for it, or any good at fighting, 9.5 times out of ten, they are not up for it really, but displaying the persona, or they are not good enough at fighting to be confident enough, apart from remaining calm, controlling my emotions, distance and movement, there is no need for martial technique in most situations of sd, unless you are in a control situation, wher a simple lock, or throw is sufficeint.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> This is Exactly what you have been doing the whole time. You are beating a dead horse, saying the same thing over and over....and over. It questions your limited knowledge of the subject. You are great in the abstract.


I'm not sure you and I share the same definition of the word "abstract."  As I said to Gerry, I've been trying to be as specific and concrete as I possibly can.  You aren't asking questions and don't seem to want to clarify any misunderstandings.  You just keep coming back with ad hominem attacks and declarations that my posts are common knowledge.  If you agree with me, I wonder why you're so hostile about it. 

With that out of the way: 





> A person training simply learns what a tool is, then learns how to use the tool, then how to use the tool with other tools, and then learns what else the tool can be used for. It is ALL application. You have skewed the meaning of this word into irrelevance. You are convinced there is some magic wall between learning skills and application. There is not.


If this is the nut, then yeah. I think we simply disagree.  I mean, the wall isn't magical.  But yeah, learning how something works isn't the same as learning how to make it work. 

I've learned a lot about how a lot of things work that I can't do.  For example, I know a lot about how to throw pottery.  Intellectually, I know a lot more about HOW to throw pottery than I can demonstrate.  My brain knows what it's supposed to look like, but I lack the experience to execute the skill.

So, forgive me if this is obvious, but the language you use causes me to question whether you really, actually do understand the difference.  If you think a skill, any skill, can be learned without actually doing that thing, I welcome you to come up with an example.  I can't think of one, though it's easy to come up with all kinds of examples of learning _about_ how to do things. 


> Yes, there are schools/instructor who violate good teaching but that is a much broader subject.


Good teaching is an entirely different kettle of fish.  So far, I've tried to take that out of the equation by presuming that all of the training is sound.





> All you have done here is repeated what @Tony Dismukes said in a previous post about diversity in training. Nothing else.
> Has it taken you this long to realize what he said earlier?


There's a lot Tony said that I agree with.  In fact, I said exactly that in a post earlier.  So, the question is, what's different?  I'm either saying what Tony's saying, or I'm not.  If you agree with him and not me, what's the difference?  I responded to Tony, trying to explain where I thought we disagree.   


> How could there be a more 'nose on your face' question? That said, who knows exactly what the first day of training would involve? Very trainer specific. A good one is going to play to each person strengths. In the long term the training would converge into much the same thing.


ALERT:  I'm going to use the term "apply" the same way I think you guys are using it.  This may cause some confusion, but I hope not.

See, this is why things seem so obvious.  It IS obvious... until we apply it to a "self defense oriented" school.  For some reason, folks start to believe you can fake it.  I think we can all agree that the person who has applied the skills outside of training will have the most success.  The kickboxer's experience has prepared her better.  Clearly.  Obviously.  Why then, are we reluctant to use this same clear, obvious, common sense evaluation when it comes to self defense?  

I mean, substitute MMA school with whatever self defense scenario you can think of... they are both accosted by a group of angry ninja in a dark alley.  Who would be better prepared to fight their way out?  Once again, I think it's obvious that the kickboxer is better prepared.  The context in which she applied the skills she learned makes it a "nose on your face" question.  There are a lot of other obvious comparisons out there.  An experienced, well trained soldier vs Tae Bo.  An experienced, well trained cop vs Tae Bo.  An experienced, well trained bouncer vs Tae Bo. 

On the other hand, let's take this person who trains Tae Bo (with a self defense orientation) and someone who has five years experience training in Aikido (with a self defense orientation).  Who's better prepared?  Not so obvious.  I mean, I could see it going either way, all other things being equal.  What about Budo-Taijutsu and Tae Bo?    Once again, I think folks around here who are being honest can come up with a lot of examples.

So, the ball is in your court.  Frankly, I debated whether to even respond to this post or not.  Way I see it, you can ignore this post and go on about your merry way, you can respond to the points in the post, or you can continue to stay off to the side and take pot shots.  Honestly, I couldn't care less which you choose, but if the latter, I will put you on the ignore list and stop giving you any more of my time or energy.  Then you can take whatever shots you like.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> See, this is why things seem so obvious.  It IS obvious... until we apply it to a "self defense oriented" school.  For some reason, folks start to believe you can fake it.  I think we can all agree that the person who has applied the skills outside of training will have the most success.  The kickboxer's experience has prepared her better.  Clearly.  Obviously.  Why then, are we reluctant to use this same clear, obvious, common sense evaluation when it comes to self defense?
> 
> I mean, substitute MMA school with whatever self defense scenario you can think of... they are both accosted by a group of angry ninja in a dark alley.  Who would be better prepared to fight their way out?  Once again, I think it's obvious that the kickboxer is better prepared.  The context in which she applied the skills she learned makes it a "nose on your face" question.  There are a lot of other obvious comparisons out there.  An experienced, well trained soldier vs Tae Bo.  An experienced, well trained cop vs Tae Bo.  An experienced, well trained bouncer vs Tae Bo.
> 
> On the other hand, let's take this person who trains Tae Bo (with a self defense orientation) and someone who has five years experience training in Aikido (with a self defense orientation).  Who's better prepared?  Not so obvious.  I mean, I could see it going either way, all other things being equal.  What about Budo-Taijutsu and Tae Bo?    Once again, I think folks around here who are being honest can come up with a lot of examples.
> 
> So, the ball is in your court.  Frankly, I debated whether to even respond to this post or not.  Way I see it, you can ignore this post and go on about your merry way, you can respond to the points in the post, or you can continue to stay off to the side and take pot shots.  Honestly, I couldn't care less which you choose, but if the latter, I will put you on the ignore list and stop giving you any more of my time or energy.  Then you can take whatever shots you like.


I really think the difference here is a result of availability heuristics. My experience has been that most of the SD schools do apply skills in the same manner as an MMA school, and don't 'fake it'. So the comparison would be comparing an experienced, well trained cop vs a kickboxer vs a kempoist. In this example, all else (particularly fitness level) being equal, I'd say that the well trained cop is above both, thanks to his actual experience.Then the kempoist and kickboxer are about equal in most situations, especially since from my experience the two are likely to have spent a large portion of time training together. 

And to go back to your infinite monkey theorem, that would only work if the type of school or instructor I'm referring to is rare. At least from my experience, it isn't. I know it's not the majority, since I've been to plenty of schools that I left within a month because they were clearly spewing bullcrap people were buying, but it exists enough that all SD shouldn't be written off as the bullcrap schools.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I doubt any SD school woudl call that a self-defense technique. But eliminating things like that doesn't reduce self-defense to a "small subset".


Do you teach your self defense students how to counter a

- hip throw,
- foot sweep,
- leg lift,
- leg twist,
- ...?

If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, why?

For people on the street, 99% of the chance that they will never use those throws on you. If your students train counters for those throw, why? If your students don't train counters for those throws, they are only train "1/2 MA".


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you teach your self defense student how to counter a
> 
> - hip throw,
> - foot sweep,
> - leg lift,
> - leg twist.
> - ...?
> 
> If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, why?
> 
> For people on the street, 99% of the chance that they will never use those throws on you. If you train counters fr those throw, why? If your students don't train counters for those throws, they are only train "1/2 MA".


Learning how to counter something helps you land something better. If I don't know how someone is going to react to a move, and what to look for, chances are I won't do it successfully.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I doubt any SD school woudl call that a self-defense technique. But eliminating things like that doesn't reduce self-defense to a "small subset".


So you will never teach the rear neck choke to your SD students.

Do you also teach your SD students the following "offensive" techniques?

- flying side kick,
- flying knee,
- running punch,
- throwing knife,
- use kick to set up a punch,
- use punch to set up a clinch,
- ...?

I assume you won't call this SD either. See how much combat training that a SD student may miss.






I assume your SD students will never learn how to use

- kick to set up a punch,
- punch to set up a clinch,
- ...

Offense is bad, defense is good, with this kind of attitude in mind, how far can your SD students accomplish in their life long MA path?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Self defense skill is different.  How different depends on how you train, and how you intend to apply the skills.  There are at least two axis here.  The first is the whether you're learning actual skill.  The second is whether the skill you're learning is close enough to whatever specific self defense situation to translate.  The way you're sort of squishing around in this is that you're using self defense, which is a term that is vast and abstract, and you're applying it broadly to everything.
> Here's the thing.  I'm being very explicit.  I am going out of my way to be explicit.  Once again, (and truly, I'm getting kind of tired of it), you're suggesting that I'm being disingenuous.  When you say things like this, or that I'm ignoring things on purpose, etc, it feels a little petty.
> 
> I'm going to explicitly point out to you that applying skills is precisely what I have been talking about all along.  Being able to apply skills in a context is not the same as actually applying those skills.  You don't get credit for potential.
> 
> When you talk about self defense fighting skills, I think it's interesting, because the specific skills are the same, but the context is different... and in some cases, very different.  So, as I said above, the two relevant axis here are, first, are you learning actual skill?  I believe that without application, you're probably not learning the skill.  Rather, you're learning something that mimics the skill.
> 
> Second is the context.  The more different the context, the higher the skill level must be in order to make the transition from one to the other.  The more complimentary the two contexts are, the easier it will be to transfer the ability from one to the other.  The simple truth here is that the higher your skill level, the more likely you'll be able to apply the skill outside of the specific context for which it was learned.  So, a person who has trained in a boxing gym for 2 months is learning to punch people.  But he or she has only done it for two months, and so can barely punch correctly in the gym, much less anywhere else.
> 
> Here's an illustration:  Two women go into an MMA gym to start training.  One has been training and competing as a kickboxer for 5 years.  The other has been training cardio-kickboxing for 5 years.  They're both equally fit, both very good at their respective activities, and all other things are the same.  They're both bringing skills and experience with them to the new context.  What do you think their first day looks like?  What about long term?
> 
> By the way, for someone who is quick to accuse others of ignoring your points, you avoid directly answering my questions pretty much every time.  Don't think I don't notice.


Firstly, most of your questions appear to be rhetorical. I also may have missed some actual questions in the longer posts. I don't spend as much time on MT these days, so I'm trying to read faster, and may have missed questions (and points) I didn't respond to. I don't intentionally dodge questions. If they've been asked and answered in the past, I get tired of repeating. If they seem rhetorical (like the last two in this post), I don't respond, because, well, rhetorical.

As to the rest, you're still apparently calling some application application, and other application....not application? I'm not clear on that.

I agree that practicing in context matters, but not to the degree you assert here. If someone can fight, they can fight. Some train harder and get better than others. If it's good fundamentals, it translates to anywhere else good (similar) fundamentals help. Working with some scenarios will help broaden the generalization of the skills. Is it perfect for self-defense prep? No. But there's really not a good way for folks to bridge that, without taking jobs in specific sectors or going out to seek trouble. I get that you think I'm a sham because I teach with a self-defense orientation, having rarely needed to use those skills in that context (including never needing them when I've doon door work and security work). I simply disagree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Gweilo said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many posters here, have had to test their sd skills, in a real situation?
> If you have how many times?


Rarely. More when I was a teen (quite a bit back then, actually), but only a very few times as an adult, and never in a really dangerous assault of any sort.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you teach your self defense students how to counter a
> 
> - hip throw,
> - foot sweep,
> - leg lift,
> - leg twist,
> - ...?
> 
> If the answer is yes, why? If the answer is no, why?
> 
> For people on the street, 99% of the chance that they will never use those throws on you. If your students train counters for those throw, why? If your students don't train counters for those throws, they are only train "1/2 MA".


Everything I can teach them to do, I also teach them to counter. Why? Because knowing how to counter is part of defense, and also part of recognizing when to use (and not use) specific techniques. It's just part of knowing the system.

I don't generally teach counters to things I can't teach (or at least do well enough to be the "attacker" for them to work against), though I'm happy to give some ideas if a question comes up about something outside my strong experience. The latter is mostly to give them something to work with if they get a chance to experiment with someone who can do that thing. So, if they ask me how I would counter a good BJJ guard pass, I don't know, because I'm pretty sure my guard pass is weak by BJJ standards. I'd give them some ideas to try out, and suggest they experiment with those concepts if they get a chance to roll with someone who has significant BJJ experience. I had similar types of questions from a student who had a strong background in Shotokan, and wanted to bring some of our movement principles to his Shotokan sparring. I remember little of my Shotokan training, so I offered concepts to experiment with, rather than specific technique. I do this stuff because I think it helps students do more thinking for themselves, rather than depending upon canned answers from me. If I can teach them how to experiment better with what they do, they'll get better at it. Maybe better than I am, which would be cool.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So you will never teach the rear neck choke to your SD students.
> 
> Do you also teach your SD students the following "offensive" techniques?
> 
> - flying side kick,
> - flying knee,
> - running punch,
> - throwing knife,
> - use kick to set up a punch,
> - use punch to set up a clinch,
> - ...?
> 
> I assume you won't call this SD either. See how much combat training that a SD student may miss.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume your SD students will never learn how to use
> 
> - kick to set up a punch,
> - punch to set up a clinch,
> - ...
> 
> Offense is bad, defense is good, with this kind of attitude in mind, how far can your SD students accomplish in their life long MA path?


Rear naked choke is a reasonable finish to many defensive scenarios. Sneaking up with a garrot really isn't likely to be.

Why would you assume they don't learn to use kicks to set up punches? Pretty much any style that includes kicks and punches is going to include that. Same for punch to set up clinch. That's part of the standard foundation. You're making assumptions about basics, based on an outlier skill.

As for flying anything? No. I don't care for them and they don't fit well into the overall system. Throwing knives? No. That's an entirely different skill set, and unlikely to be a reliable means of defense unless very highly trained (and I'm not convinced it's reliable even then).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Sorry about that, I think he used to teach senshido but he's been in a couple different arts so must have gotten it mixed up.
> 
> As to why I think he's good-keep in mind I haven't actually met the dude. But he started off with martial arts, then started competing in each art he tried (so he pressure tested it all), then he entered security and saw what actually did or didn't work in actual fights. But the big thing is that he then tried (I say tried because IIRC he didn't do any legitimate studies that were peer reviewed and published) to make it more scientific-speaking to people with various combat experiences, seeing if his own thoughts about self defense held up to their actual experiences. So he's got the mindset and I would bet money that what he's teaching in his classes is stuff that actually helps.
> 
> @drop bear and @Steve if you guys have a free half hour, check out the second episode of his podcast, managing violence; he goes over his views on the barebones of what's important for self defense/'surviving' violence. I'd be curious to see what you guys think of the ideas he presents there.
> 
> While we're at it, @Tony Dismukes and @gpseymour I'd be curious about your thoughts as well.


I'll try to remember to come back to that later this evening and give it a listen.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Just out of curiosity, how many posters here, have had to test their sd skills, in a real situation?
> If you have how many times?



I was yelled at once.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Once again, you're making an implicit claim that self-defense fighting skills are things that can only be applied in a self-defense situation. Self-defense fighting skills are pretty much just fighting skills. Tony has already covered the idea that those skills can be applied in a range of situations, including sparring (internal and external) and competition.



But then we could judge fighting skill by observing fighting. 

Which would put the onus of self defence instructors to show observable fighting skills for people to take them seriously.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> As for flying anything? No.


So you don't teach any jumping kick to your SD students at all.

Just trying to prove that SD "is" a subset of a MA system (1/2 MA).


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I really think the difference here is a result of availability heuristics. My experience has been that most of the SD schools do apply skills in the same manner as an MMA school, and don't 'fake it'.



See I could find guys who literally travel the world teaching combat who would get handled by an average mma school.

Let's look at guys who don't ever fight.

doug marcaida, funker tactical.

Raw combat.

You never see a defendo guy sparring.

You never see a PPCT guy sparring.

Where there are guys like the dog brothers who do.

Gracie combatives who do.

And now a lot of the military systems do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I doubt any SD school woudl call that a self-defense technique.


Here is my concern. If your teacher taught you this technique. One day you decide that you no longer want to teaching MA system but to teach a SD system. You no longer teach this technique to your students. This technique will be lost forever.

A MA system then becomes 1/2 MA system.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is my concern. If your teacher taught you this technique. One day you decide that you no longer want to teaching MA system but to teach a SD system. You no longer teach this technique to your students. This technique will be lost forever.
> 
> A MA system then becomes 1/2 MA system.


[/QUOTE]

Can you choke a guy out with only half their weight on that cord?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> See I could find guys who literally travel the world teaching combat who would get handled by an average mma school.
> 
> Let's look at guys who don't ever fight.
> 
> doug marcaida, funker tactical.
> 
> Raw combat.
> 
> You never see a defendo guy sparring.
> 
> You never see a PPCT guy sparring.
> 
> Where there are guys like the dog brothers who do.
> 
> Gracie combatives who do.
> 
> And now a lot of the military systems do.


But the dog brothers could be considered self defense. IIRC gracie combatives is there self defense program. And military systems are very specifically not made for competition, but SD. I've never heard of the other ones you mentioned that don't spar. So if anything you'd agree with my point that self defense does not auto equate to playing ninja.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Can you choke a guy out with only half their weight on that cord?


As long as your opponent's weight is on your back and his feet is off the ground. You can also just drag him backward non-stop until he is out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> self defense does not auto equate to playing ninja.


If a SD guy also spar, that mean he will use offense technique such as flying side kick, flying knee, jumping kick, ..., he is training how to fight. Why do you still want to use the term SD for?

What's wrong just to admit that a person is training "how to fight"?

A: I train SD.
B: You are a good person.
C: I train how to fight.
B: You are a bad person.


----------



## Cynik75

Kung Fu Wang said:


> ...
> A: I train SD.
> B: You are a good person.
> C: I train how to fight.
> B: You are a bad person.



Exactly. Pure semiotic trick to earn some points in public perception.


----------



## Buka

To me, my opinion only, I think most people over complicate fighting, over complicate self defense.

One of the guys asked about who here has ever had to defend themselves, or been in a fight.
I honestly don't know anyone in my personal life that hasn't had to defend themselves or been in a fight.

I don't know, maybe I just know the wrong people.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> But the dog brothers could be considered self defense. IIRC gracie combatives is there self defense program. And military systems are very specifically not made for competition, but SD. I've never heard of the other ones you mentioned that don't spar. So if anything you'd agree with my point that self defense does not auto equate to playing ninja.



If you can find evidence of them sparring you can make a case that they do. This yeah I seen him fight a hundred men when nobody was looking really has no legs.

The problem with self defense is you have no discernible way of knowing who is good and who is terrible. 

So you have five fruits but two of them is poison. You don't eat the fruit. 

You need more evidence element of evidence to determine the real deal from larp ninja. Everything else is just marketing. The self defense that uses competition as a training tool dog brothers, gracie, military. Is much easier to identify truth from fiction. 

But the SD world in general avoids this method like the plague and in doing so casts the wide brush of larp ninja over the whole industry. 

Which is intentional so that people who can't apply their method can appear to. 

Like a really funny Mc Map quote. "I may not be able to beat Randy Couture in the cage but if you get him on the street....."


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> To me, my opinion only, I think most people over complicate fighting, over complicate self defense.
> 
> One of the guys asked about who here has ever had to defend themselves, or been in a fight.
> I honestly don't know anyone in my personal life that hasn't had to defend themselves or been in a fight.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I just know the wrong people.


I've been in a lot of fights, but not since the military.  I honestly don't hang around violent people.  There was a time, though, when I worked around a lot of unsavory characters.  While i don't get into many fights, I have had a lot of practice de-escalating.  While it's been a few years, there was a time when I was working daily with folks who were disabled, often mentally ill, often addicted to drugs or alcohol, often homeless, and who very often were recently released from jail.  Just about every interaction was potentially volatile.  I don't think my experience dealing with angry, irrational people is equivalent to, say, that of a police officer.  But definitely greater than the average person's.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> If you can find evidence of them sparring you can make a case that they do. This yeah I seen him fight a hundred men when nobody was looking really has no legs.
> 
> The problem with self defense is you have no discernible way of knowing who is good and who is terrible.
> 
> So you have five fruits but two of them is poison. You don't eat the fruit.
> 
> You need more evidence element of evidence to determine the real deal from larp ninja. Everything else is just marketing. The self defense that uses competition as a training tool dog brothers, gracie, military. Is much easier to identify truth from fiction.
> 
> But the SD world in general avoids this method like the plague and in doing so casts the wide brush of larp ninja over the whole industry.
> 
> Which is intentional so that people who can't apply their method can appear to.
> 
> Like a really funny Mc Map quote. "I may not be able to beat Randy Couture in the cage but if you get him on the street....."


As far as I know, there's been no systemic review of what percent of "the SD world" avoids competition as training, so can't really argue with you besides my experience which I've shared multiple times at this point, which is counter to that claim. And there is discernible ways of knowing who is good and who is not-you already mentioned the easiest one-do they support competition? Your comparison would be better as "you have five X-fruits, 3 are green, 2 are red. the red ones are poison. But only those with knowledge of this truth know that." At that point, the proper response isn't to say that all X-fruits are bad and you should avoid them,the proper response is do your research before eating those fruits.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I'm not sure you and I share the same definition of the word "abstract."


ab·stract

_adjective_
adjective: *abstract*
/abˈstrakt,ˈabˌstrakt/

1.
existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence
I am not sure what is in question with the word. It seems you keep going on about the what and the how but still have not explained specifically what it is that is missing. 




Steve said:


> If you agree with me, I wonder why you're so hostile about it.


Hostile. I am so far from being hostile that comment is hilarious. Direct and blunt? Definitely; I will not apologize for that. 



Steve said:


> But yeah, learning how something works isn't the same as learning how to make it work.


There are things that I have to do or use that I do not care if I do not know they work. It doesn't matter since it does what I need it to do. 
In the MA vein, everyone goes through the 'how' process in the beginning usually for a significant amount of time. Using your pottery analogy, I think it is safe to say that results look better now than the first time you sat at the wheel. Proficiency is So subjective and individual. Not everyone can be Rembrandt. So your best is your best. It is up to the individual to raise the bar. Some people decide their level of competency is good enough. It may be a factor of time, commitment, interest, the list is endless. Are some of them ignorant to the fact that what they think is the 'best' really is not? Yes, but now everyone falls into this category. I certainly hope they are in the minority.
I have mentioned this on the forum before; when I went to the trials I trained 4-5 hours/day 6 days/week for over 3 years and worked a 40 hour/week job and we were already farming. I made a high goal and sacrificed a lot trying to reach. A lot. I never thought about what other people should be doing because it did not matter and did not help me reach my goal. 
I find it very hard to say that anyone can claim perfection in anything. Excellent, astounding, incredible, super human, elite? Certainly. This should be the goal for everyone but it simply is not. Not everyone can be elite. Not everyone can even be proficient to a given standard. But I hope they are doing Their very best. Whether is be physical/mental limitations or just life getting in the way. 
​


Steve said:


> If you think a skill, any skill, can be learned without actually doing that thing, I welcome you to come up with an example. I can't think of one, though it's easy to come up with all kinds of examples of learning _about_ how to do things.


I fully agree with you on this. I struggle with what your message has been about something we agree is so obvious. 



Steve said:


> See, this is why things seem so obvious. It IS obvious... until we apply it to a "self defense oriented" school. For some reason, folks start to believe you can fake it. I think we can all agree that the person who has applied the skills outside of training will have the most success. The kickboxer's experience has prepared her better. Clearly. Obviously. Why then, are we reluctant to use this same clear, obvious, common sense evaluation when it comes to self defense?
> 
> I mean, substitute MMA school with whatever self defense scenario you can think of... they are both accosted by a group of angry ninja in a dark alley. Who would be better prepared to fight their way out? Once again, I think it's obvious that the kickboxer is better prepared. The context in which she applied the skills she learned makes it a "nose on your face" question. There are a lot of other obvious comparisons out there. An experienced, well trained soldier vs Tae Bo. An experienced, well trained cop vs Tae Bo. An experienced, well trained bouncer vs Tae Bo.
> 
> On the other hand, let's take this person who trains Tae Bo (with a self defense orientation) and someone who has five years experience training in Aikido (with a self defense orientation). Who's better prepared? Not so obvious. I mean, I could see it going either way, all other things being equal. What about Budo-Taijutsu and Tae Bo? Once again, I think folks around here who are being honest can come up with a lot of examples.


I just can't say it outright because we do not have the evidence to support the idea. We have information that would seem to say the kickboxer should be better but nothing concrete to say for certain. If the kickboxer has poor skills for whatever reason and the other person has been an athlete and grew up in an active environment their whole life it could easily go their way. They could easily adapt to the training quicker/better. 



Steve said:


> So, the ball is in your court. Frankly, I debated whether to even respond to this post or not. Way I see it, you can ignore this post and go on about your merry way, you can respond to the points in the post, or you can continue to stay off to the side and take pot shots. Honestly, I couldn't care less which you choose, but if the latter, I will put you on the ignore list and stop giving you any more of my time or energy. Then you can take whatever shots you like.


I have taken shots to get a response and to supply information that to me is lacking. Yes, I get personal but I do not feel I initiated ensuing line of rebuttal. 
Like I said, I am blunt, direct, and very, very busy this time of year and I get stressed like everyone else. I do not understand why you feel every post should be a line of questioning. There are a Lot of extremely informed people on the forum. A big reason I enjoy it. 
It you have felt like my whipping post I apologize for that.


----------



## dvcochran

Gweilo said:


> Your youth sounds very similar to mine, I was not asking for examples, everyone has a different understanding of sd, I was just curious, what I should of asked (with relation to the post conversation), is... how many here, have used their martial skills in a real sd situation?
> Imo, pretty much every martial art, or sport art can be effective in sd, its whether or not the practioner have had the experience of fighting, and/or the mental capabilities to remain calm enough to execute a technique, and the control to be effective with distance work and timing.
> Most of the time, a good hard smack to the face/body will end the fight, and there is no call for martial technique, but how many here has used something they learnt on the mat, to subdue, overcome, finish an opponent, outside of a sports context.


I definitely have on a number of occasions. Mostly counters and finish moves, not a lot of in between.
This may apply to some of @Steve 's post; my MA training really helped me go hands on and not really 'hurt' the person any more than necessary. One thing I have learned over the years and particularly on this forum is that my MA experience has been Very different from most people when you say you have been practicing TKD.
I also wrestled in high school and college and never have been freaked out about going to the ground even though the bulk of my MA has been in a standing out-fighting style.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> I was yelled at once.


Bear, I am asking purely out of curiosity.  Were you bouncing before you started learning MA?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> But then we could judge fighting skill by observing fighting.
> 
> Which would put the onus of self defence instructors to show observable fighting skills for people to take them seriously.


And if students and potential students want to see that, they should have the opportunity. Of course, if there's good sparring going on in class (and maybe even some open sessions with folks from elsewhere), that will give most students a pretty good clue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So you don't teach any jumping kick to your SD students at all.
> 
> Just trying to prove that SD "is" a subset of a MA system (1/2 MA).


The NGA system doesn't teach jumping kicks until after shodan, and they are never seen in sparring or other applications. So I dropped them out. I don't see much advantage to them with our style of movement. The slide-up versions of side and round kicks still fits, but not an actual jumping or flying kick.


----------



## dvcochran

Kung Fu Wang said:


> As long as your opponent's weight is on your back and his feet is off the ground. You can also just drag him backward non-stop until he is out.



Haha. This really made me laugh. I was a smaller guy when I was a LEO. I got a lot of flack over how I would handle some bigger guys that we had to go hands on with. I have a really good choke to make a person pass out. I was known for distracting a big person (which was almost everyone compared to my size) and jumping on their back and riding them until they went down. So much so that even the adjoining counties would ask me to help with some of their known trouble makers.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Can you choke a guy out with only half their weight on that cord?



Probably not considering only what you see. Surely there is some sort of follow up.
You could leave one hell of a burn line though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Here is my concern. If your teacher taught you this technique. One day you decide that you no longer want to teaching MA system but to teach a SD system. You no longer teach this technique to your students. This technique will be lost forever.
> 
> A MA system then becomes 1/2 MA system.


And if it was never in the system?

Besides, taking out a technique doesn't render a system to half its former self. I've removed several things from the curriculum I learned under. And I've added more than I've removed.

The problem here is you're LOOKING FOR reductions to prove it's 1/2 a MA. But you'd have to define what a full MA is, in a way that includes every system you consider a full MA. Then you'd have to look at all the SD systems (okay, at least several) and see how much more and less they have in them.

What I think you'd find is there's a huge variation in what's in a MA or system, regardless. There's far more difference between boxing and sport BJJ than between sport BJJ and self-defense BJJ. And there's more difference between Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu and Taekwando than between Daito-ryu and NGA.

If you only look for evidence that supports your conclusion, you'll end up with a confirmation bias. Looking for evidence that contradicts your conclusion is a better test.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a SD guy also spar, that mean he will use offense technique such as flying side kick, flying knee, jumping kick, ..., he is training how to fight. Why do you still want to use the term SD for?
> 
> What's wrong just to admit that a person is training "how to fight"?
> 
> A: I train SD.
> B: You are a good person.
> C: I train how to fight.
> B: You are a bad person.


He will use offensive techniques, yes. They need not be those you mention, though. A boxer doesn't do any of those things, but they spar all the time, and certainly have a potent offensive arsenal.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you can find evidence of them sparring you can make a case that they do. This yeah I seen him fight a hundred men when nobody was looking really has no legs.
> 
> The problem with self defense is you have no discernible way of knowing who is good and who is terrible.
> 
> So you have five fruits but two of them is poison. You don't eat the fruit.
> 
> You need more evidence element of evidence to determine the real deal from larp ninja. Everything else is just marketing. The self defense that uses competition as a training tool dog brothers, gracie, military. Is much easier to identify truth from fiction.
> 
> But the SD world in general avoids this method like the plague and in doing so casts the wide brush of larp ninja over the whole industry.
> 
> Which is intentional so that people who can't apply their method can appear to.
> 
> Like a really funny Mc Map quote. "I may not be able to beat Randy Couture in the cage but if you get him on the street....."


This is where you get really close to making the point I keep wishing you'd put effort into making so folks could listen. There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less. Guys who were taught by those folks often believe they have capacity that doesn't exist, because they believe their "secret sauce" moves would easily handle a middling MMAer, boxer, etc.

I think competition's a good idea. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to get into it, but I think it's good if at least some of the folks in a school are competing, using some of the skills they're being taught. I don't think it's strictly necessary, but man it seems like a good idea, and I'd have sorted out some stuff much earlier if I'd understood that back when I was training hard.


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less.



I think the problem goes both ways.  People who don't compete look down on competitions, but people who compete look down on those who don't.  A whole lot of judgement and not a lot of understanding in either group.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This is where you get really close to making the point I keep wishing you'd put effort into making so folks could listen. There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less. Guys who were taught by those folks often believe they have capacity that doesn't exist, because they believe their "secret sauce" moves would easily handle a middling MMAer, boxer, etc.
> 
> I think competition's a good idea. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to get into it, but I think it's good if at least some of the folks in a school are competing, using some of the skills they're being taught. I don't think it's strictly necessary, but man it seems like a good idea, and I'd have sorted out some stuff much earlier if I'd understood that back when I was training hard.



It depends what you are trying to develop. If you are trying to create an environment where a person can defend themselves in a life or death situation. 

A submission grappling match shouldn't be that big an ask to be honest.


I mean Mabye you would train some outliers with massive physical or mental challenges without competition. But the bulk of the guys really should be trained well enough to achieve at least that before you ever consider them prepared for self defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It depends what you are trying to develop. If you are trying to create an environment where a person can defend themselves in a life or death situation.
> 
> A submission grappling match shouldn't be that big an ask to be honest.
> 
> 
> I mean Mabye you would train some outliers with massive physical or mental challenges without competition. But the bulk of the guys really should be trained well enough to achieve at least that before you ever consider them prepared for self defense.


It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending. Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

gpseymour said:


> It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending. Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.


Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.


----------



## skribs

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.



That's common sense, which by itself is an oxymoron.

Some people learn a bit about a subject and know how much they don't know.  Other people know a bit about a subject and think they know everything about it.  I have a coworker that will read an article online about something, and he will start talking about it like he has a PHD level understanding of it, even if he's wrong about half of it.  He thinks he's always the smartest guy in the room.

Let's look at another form of self-defense: gun fu.  A lot of people believe that because they have a gun, they're safe.  They don't have any strategy or training in:

How to get to their gun at home (especially if a home intruder is between you and your gun)
How to draw your gun efficiently or what to do if someone attacks you closer than you can safely draw and fire (the Tueller drill)
How to effectively shoot at a moving target
How to effectively shoot under stress
Failure drills (i.e. gun fails)
Movement with the firearm
Shooting at multiple targets
Testing proper self-defense ammo for function in your firearm (I have a couple that will only feed ball ammo, and won't feed hollow-points)
Knowing what proper self-defense ammo is (not ones that will only go a couple inches into tissue, nor those that will go through several feet of tissue)
The list goes on.  Guns are a great equalizer, and I encourage people who are concerned with self-defense to own a gun.  But a lot of gun owners think that if you carry a gun while you're out and keep it in the safe at home, go to the range every once in a while and shoot at circles, and know the 4 safety rules, that's all you need.

The same applies to martial arts.  Some people think that just by being there you can learn it effectively.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

skribs said:


> That's common sense, which by itself is an oxymoron.
> 
> Some people learn a bit about a subject and know how much they don't know.  Other people know a bit about a subject and think they know everything about it.  I have a coworker that will read an article online about something, and he will start talking about it like he has a PHD level understanding of it, even if he's wrong about half of it.  He thinks he's always the smartest guy in the room.
> 
> Let's look at another form of self-defense: gun fu.  A lot of people believe that because they have a gun, they're safe.  They don't have any strategy or training in:
> 
> How to get to their gun at home (especially if a home intruder is between you and your gun)
> How to draw your gun efficiently or what to do if someone attacks you closer than you can safely draw and fire (the Tueller drill)
> How to effectively shoot at a moving target
> How to effectively shoot under stress
> Failure drills (i.e. gun fails)
> Movement with the firearm
> Shooting at multiple targets
> Testing proper self-defense ammo for function in your firearm (I have a couple that will only feed ball ammo, and won't feed hollow-points)
> Knowing what proper self-defense ammo is (not ones that will only go a couple inches into tissue, nor those that will go through several feet of tissue)
> The list goes on.  Guns are a great equalizer, and I encourage people who are concerned with self-defense to own a gun.  But a lot of gun owners think that if you carry a gun while you're out and keep it in the safe at home, go to the range every once in a while and shoot at circles, and know the 4 safety rules, that's all you need.
> 
> The same applies to martial arts.  Some people think that just by being there you can learn it effectively.


Yup. Which is why as an instructor you have to make sure they understand that's not the case. Common sense is not so common.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.


Agreed, on all points. When I was an active student, I trained harder than most (not harder than all - some did outwork me at times). Others didn't work as hard. I didn't compete (wish now I had, but it is what it is). Anyone who trained as hard as me AND competed in something meaningful would likely have gotten better results than me, or at least likely would have gotten those results quicker.

But, yeah, I find a lot of folks who train in SD-oriented schools like the orientation (not focused on a ruleset, perhaps), but aren't super concerned about their safety. Mostly, they like the physical activity, the challenge, and learning something new. The cool factor (in their mind) probably helps.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

dvcochran said:


> Haha. This really made me laugh. I was a smaller guy when I was a LEO. I got a lot of flack over how I would handle some bigger guys that we had to go hands on with. I have a really good choke to make a person pass out. I was known for distracting a big person (which was almost everyone compared to my size) and jumping on their back and riding them until they went down. So much so that even the adjoining counties would ask me to help with some of their known trouble makers.


I had used that reverse head lock on the street before (Hawaii, summer of 1983). A guy attacked a girl. I attacked that guy. The guy let the girl go. I let him go after that. Nobody got hurt. Everybody lived happy after that. I saved that girl. Even today, I still feel good about what I did that day.

This is why I don't like the term SD. If you just want to defend yourself, you can avoid fighting or run away. If you have to defend for somebody else, you can't run away.

I truly don't see any difference between

- defend for someone else, and
- fighting.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending. Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.



In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)

So some styles are a lot better at creating commitment while also having a better standard of application. 

Now if you choose to set the bar. Then that is on you. Not your students.


----------



## drop bear

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Keep in mind with this, that they should be aware SD is a "you get what you give" kinda game. If they don't want to train that hard they should know that they're chance of defending themselves won't improve as much as if they did train hard. Once they have the knowledge, it's ultimately up to them-and most probably still won't want to train that hard since, despite all the people who state SD as their reason for coming in, it really doesn't seem to be their top priority when you talk to them over the course of a couple weeks.



If you are a self defense school. I would think equipping people for self defense would be a minimum standard though.

Regardless what else people get out of training.


----------



## Buka

skribs said:


> I think the problem goes both ways.  People who don't compete look down on competitions, but people who compete look down on those who don't.  A whole lot of judgement and not a lot of understanding in either group.



Sounds like the Martial world in a nutshell, Skribs. Darn good sum up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition.


This issue can be solved very easily. In the beginner of my class, I used sparring to warm up. I made 2 circles. The person in the inside circle had to spar against the person in the outside circle. After 1 minute, the inside circle rotate, everybody will get a new sparring partner. After 10 minutes (every student had sparred with 10 opponents), the regular class started.

The moment that a student came into my class, he only had 2 options, do whatever that I told him to do, or leave and never come back.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> That's common sense, which by itself is an oxymoron.
> 
> Some people learn a bit about a subject and know how much they don't know.  Other people know a bit about a subject and think they know everything about it.  I have a coworker that will read an article online about something, and he will start talking about it like he has a PHD level understanding of it, even if he's wrong about half of it.  He thinks he's always the smartest guy in the room.
> 
> Let's look at another form of self-defense: gun fu.  A lot of people believe that because they have a gun, they're safe.  They don't have any strategy or training in:
> 
> How to get to their gun at home (especially if a home intruder is between you and your gun)
> How to draw your gun efficiently or what to do if someone attacks you closer than you can safely draw and fire (the Tueller drill)
> How to effectively shoot at a moving target
> How to effectively shoot under stress
> Failure drills (i.e. gun fails)
> Movement with the firearm
> Shooting at multiple targets
> Testing proper self-defense ammo for function in your firearm (I have a couple that will only feed ball ammo, and won't feed hollow-points)
> Knowing what proper self-defense ammo is (not ones that will only go a couple inches into tissue, nor those that will go through several feet of tissue)
> The list goes on.  Guns are a great equalizer, and I encourage people who are concerned with self-defense to own a gun.  But a lot of gun owners think that if you carry a gun while you're out and keep it in the safe at home, go to the range every once in a while and shoot at circles, and know the 4 safety rules, that's all you need.
> 
> The same applies to martial arts.  Some people think that just by being there you can learn it effectively.



The problem is there is no definite end point. 

If I learn self defense or carry a gun I may never have to use it. And for all those times krav maga or a water pistol will work as fine as anything else. 

It is only when I have to defend myself or shoot someone that these preventive methods become important.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete.


In Chinese wrestling, a new student has to promise 2 things:

- compete, and
- teach in the future.

The ancient rule had indicated that when you have the SC jacket on, you cannot turn down any challenge. But I can take my SC jacket off when you put on your SC jacket. Without SC jacket on, I can refuse your challenge. The most serious rule was if you kill me with SC jacket on me, my family members cannot suit you. The moment that I put on my SC jacket, I have put my life in my own hand. This is why the SC jacket is also called "hero skin".


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In Chinese wrestling, a new student has to promise 2 things:
> 
> - compete, and
> - teach in the future.



Seems fair. 

The thing with wrestling is competition won't kill you. It is not like you are getting kicked in the head.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> The thing with wrestling is competition won't kill you. It is not like you are getting kicked in the head.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> It mostly comes down to their level of commitment. There are a lot of folks who just don't want to train that hard and/or aren't interested in competition. _*They can still learn and improve, and will gain some % increase in their probability of defending.*_ Can't make people have more "want". This is the self-selection process I've discussed before.


Honestly, it's the highlighted part that is very concerning to me.  If the stakes were lower, sure, no big deal.  Knock yourself out (which you literally could do if you're not training with competent instruction).  There is simply zero evidence that a little self defense training will help a person become a little bit safer. 


gpseymour said:


> This is where you get really close to making the point I keep wishing you'd put effort into making so folks could listen. There is a problem with a lot of SD instructors who actually talk down about competition as something less. Guys who were taught by those folks often believe they have capacity that doesn't exist, because they believe their "secret sauce" moves would easily handle a middling MMAer, boxer, etc.
> 
> I think competition's a good idea. I don't think it's necessary for everyone to get into it, but I think it's good if at least some of the folks in a school are competing, using some of the skills they're being taught. I don't think it's strictly necessary, but man it seems like a good idea, and I'd have sorted out some stuff much earlier if I'd understood that back when I was training hard.


Errr....  okay. 

What is it about competition you think is good?  How do you think folks who don't compete compensate for that?

Let's back up.  What do you think are the minimum qualifications for someone to say they are a "self defense expert?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)
> 
> So some styles are a lot better at creating commitment while also having a better standard of application.
> 
> Now if you choose to set the bar. Then that is on you. Not your students.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're confounding your variables. Folks who don't want to compete don't go somepleace where they'll be required to. Selection bias looks a lot like an efffect of training.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> I think the problem goes both ways.  People who don't compete look down on competitions, but people who compete look down on those who don't.  A whole lot of judgement and not a lot of understanding in either group.


I don't have any problem with people who don't compete.  Competition is a great way to use your skills and get some genuine feedback on what you can and cannot do.  You can also get that on the job, as a cop, a bouncer, or whatever.  If you aren't getting that feedback, who knows what you're actually learning to do?   As long as you know that, and your instructor knows that, and you're not buying a product that doesn't function as designed, great.

The advantage that cardio-kickboxing has over a non-competitive self defense art is that it doesn't claim to teach self defense.  It's honest about it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

drop bear said:


> If you are a self defense school. I would think equipping people for self defense would be a minimum standard though.
> 
> Regardless what else people get out of training.


It's the same as if I went to a basketball camp as a kid. I learning some level of basketball. But the amount that I learn depends on the amount of work I put in to it. If I went to it to learn basketball, then I'll probably put in effort, and that means I'll get better at basketball. If I'm just there because my friend is there, I'll learn a bit, I'll have the basic rules down and probably know how to dribble and do a bounce pass or chest pass, I'll learn the fundamentals of how to shoot, but I probably won't be able to beat too many people in a one on one. If I'm there because my dad's making me go, and I'm resenting being there, then I probably won't even learn that much. I might not even learn the rules. And there's nothing in either situation that a coach can really do to change that, besides try to make me more interested in the game. He could be Lebron James, and invest all his time into teaching us, but that doesn't mean I'm going to work at it or get any better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This issue can be solved very easily. In the beginner of my class, I used sparring to warm up. I made 2 circles. The person in the inside circle had to spar against the person in the outside circle. After 1 minute, the inside circle rotate, everybody will get a new sparring partner. After 10 minutes (every student had sparred with 10 opponents), the regular class started.
> 
> The moment that a student came into my class, he only had 2 options, do whatever that I told him to do, or leave and never come back.


Drills like that don't really seem to change the level of intensity of folks. Some folks will put more into that 10-minute drill than others.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)



That goes against everything I've read from local schools and from people on BJJ forums.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're confounding your variables. Folks who don't want to compete don't go somepleace where they'll be required to. Selection bias looks a lot like an efffect of training.



So when someone says I train cops and get real world feedback that is also selection bias?


----------



## skribs

Buka said:


> Sounds like the Martial world in a nutshell, Skribs. Darn good sum up.



To quote the ape from the Mark Wahlberg reboot..."can't we all just...get along?"


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're confounding your variables. Folks who don't want to compete don't go somepleace where they'll be required to. Selection bias looks a lot like an efffect of training.


In BJJ, absent any significant physical or mental barriers, if you go 3 times per week every week, you will reliably develop solid skills regardless of your aptitude or native athletic ability.  In 2 years or less, you will be proficient enough to earn a blue belt.  That's reliable skill that you can demonstrate.  Does it mean you've learned all there is to learn?  No, but you will certainly be a more capable grappler than most.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> That goes against everything I've read from local schools and from people on BJJ forums.



Mabye they were all Ashton Kutcher.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> In BJJ, absent any significant physical or mental barriers, if you go 3 times per week every week, you will reliably develop solid skills regardless of your aptitude or native athletic ability.  In 2 years or less, you will be proficient enough to earn a blue belt.  That's reliable skill that you can demonstrate.  Does it mean you've learned all there is to learn?  No, but you will certainly be a more capable grappler than most.



Rokus aikido journey is a very good example of that. Same guy different systems different results.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Honestly, it's the highlighted part that is very concerning to me.  If the stakes were lower, sure, no big deal.  Knock yourself out (which you literally could do if you're not training with competent instruction).  There is simply zero evidence that a little self defense training will help a person become a little bit safer.


You've said yourself that confidence has an apparent effect in reducing vulnerability. And someone who can stop themselves from getting knocked down is in a better position, even if they can't knock the other person down yet. Someone who can fight reasonably well isn't in as good a position as someone who can fight very well, but better than someone who can't fight effectively. A little better is a little better. In some situations, that little bit won't help. In some situations, nothing will help.

But the point there is folks can only get out what they put in. If someone wants to enjoy the training without putting a lot in, I'm okay with that as long as they know it limits the results. 



> What is it about competition you think is good?  How do you think folks who don't compete compensate for that?


It gives exposure to more people (not just their everyday training partners) and more styles to deal with (excepting those styles that have style-specific competition - they don't get this second benefit from those specific competitions). And it's easy to see the relative (not absolute) levels of folks in those competitions, so you get a bit of a picture of where you stand compared to that peer group, for what that's worth. Of course, it also provides some good resistance from folks who likely don't want to lose and are using (within reason) their full toolbox. The only way I know to compensate for lack of formal competition is some informal work of a similar nature. So, if they get together with a good grappler and try to beat each other under a ruleset similar to NAGA, they get the same kind of benefit they'd get in competition (though it's harder to come by that way - you'd likely get a few in a day at a NAGA tournament).



> Let's back up.  What do you think are the minimum qualifications for someone to say they are a "self defense expert?"


Dunno. I've never met one. Seems an odd title to claim.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So when someone says I train cops and get real world feedback that is also selection bias?


That's not selection bias, but that feedback can have a selection bias. If you take only the input from cops, that input suffers selection bias, because you'll be much more likely to get certain answers (like, "I had to hancuff a guy yesterday") than with the general population.

But since it's clear you meant that to be snide and a swipe of some sort, it's apparent you don't understand what selection bias is and why it matters. Here's a definition from Wikipedia: "*Selection bias* is the *bias* introduced by the *selection* of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the *selection* effect."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> In BJJ, absent any significant physical or mental barriers, if you go 3 times per week every week, you will reliably develop solid skills regardless of your aptitude or native athletic ability.  In 2 years or less, you will be proficient enough to earn a blue belt.  That's reliable skill that you can demonstrate.  Does it mean you've learned all there is to learn?  No, but you will certainly be a more capable grappler than most.


I agree with that. What does that have to do with my statement you quoted?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> But the point there is folks can only get out what they put in. If someone wants to enjoy the training without putting a lot in, I'm okay



So the students that do put the work in and want the most out of training. 

How is their competition progress going?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You've said yourself that confidence has an apparent effect in reducing vulnerability.


Sure.  Real confidence that comes from actual ability and or fitness.  False confidence and an inflated ego is super dangerous for anyone to have.  Surely, this is another obvious point that we can all agree on. 


> And someone who can stop themselves from getting knocked down is in a better position, even if they can't knock the other person down yet. Someone who can fight reasonably well isn't in as good a position as someone who can fight very well, but better than someone who can't fight effectively. A little better is a little better. In some situations, that little bit won't help. In some situations, nothing will help.
> 
> But the point there is folks can only get out what they put in. If someone wants to enjoy the training without putting a lot in, I'm okay with that as long as they know it limits the results.


Sure, you have to do the hard work.  But you can't get more out of it than is there to get.  The framework for the instruction and the depth of expertise have to be there, too.  





> It gives exposure to more people (not just their everyday training partners) and more styles to deal with (excepting those styles that have style-specific competition - they don't get this second benefit from those specific competitions). And it's easy to see the relative (not absolute) levels of folks in those competitions, so you get a bit of a picture of where you stand compared to that peer group, for what that's worth. Of course, it also provides some good resistance from folks who likely don't want to lose and are using (within reason) their full toolbox. The only way I know to compensate for lack of formal competition is some informal work of a similar nature. So, if they get together with a good grappler and try to beat each other under a ruleset similar to NAGA, they get the same kind of benefit they'd get in competition (though it's harder to come by that way - you'd likely get a few in a day at a NAGA tournament).


I agree with this.  And when folks don't compensate, what happens?  See where this leads? 





> Dunno. I've never met one. Seems an odd title to claim.


We have several around here, man.  You really think it's an odd claim?  Come on.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I agree with that. What does that have to do with my statement you quoted?



You are suggesting that ability is natural selection not a product of training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So the students that do put the work in and want the most out of training.
> 
> How is their competition progress going?


Haven't had any students interested in competition in a while (not since back at my instructor's school). Remember I train very few people (no marketing to speak of), and mostly folks starting out in their 40's. I had one guy for almost 3 years who worked really hard every class, but had done his competition back in his 30's (he was 50-ish when he started with me).

I'd actually love to get a couple of folks who want to compete and get an answer to that question.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's not selection bias, but that feedback can have a selection bias. If you take only the input from cops, that input suffers selection bias, because you'll be much more likely to get certain answers (like, "I had to hancuff a guy yesterday") than with the general population.
> 
> But since it's clear you meant that to be snide and a swipe of some sort, it's apparent you don't understand what selection bias is and why it matters. Here's a definition from Wikipedia: "*Selection bias* is the *bias* introduced by the *selection* of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the *selection* effect."



Of course it is snide. When it benefits you anecdotes from industry guys are the feedback loop you use to justify your method. When it doesn't it is selection bias. 

It is obviously a load of garbage as used here. 

BJJ is open to every member of the public. Probably millions of people around the world compete from ages of about 5 to 70 which is a bigger more random sample than you will get anywhere.

And you are calling selection bias.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Haven't had any students interested in competition in a while (not since back at my instructor's school). Remember I train very few people (no marketing to speak of), and mostly folks starting out in their 40's. I had one guy for almost 3 years who worked really hard every class, but had done his competition back in his 30's (he was 50-ish when he started with me).
> 
> I'd actually love to get a couple of folks who want to compete and get an answer to that question.



And you think that is the students?

How about you go do a white belt BJJ  competition somewhere. And drag a bunch of students along to help you out.

If they see you do it. Then they will do it.

Hell guilt them into it. Don't let them let you do one on your own.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Sure.  Real confidence that comes from actual ability and or fitness.  False confidence and an inflated ego is super dangerous for anyone to have.  Surely, this is another obvious point that we can all agree on.


No. Confidence. Doesn't matter where it came from. Someone who has self-confidence. I'm not talking about confidence in their fighting ability, which is why I didn't use that term.


> Sure, you have to do the hard work.  But you can't get more out of it than is there to get.  The framework for the instruction and the depth of expertise have to be there, too.  I agree with this.  And when folks don't compensate, what happens?  See where this leads?


Yeah. I've railed against the lack of resistive training and interaction between styles because I've seen exactly what can happen if that's not there. It's why I now favor the idea of students competing (which is not the view of anyone I trained under in my primary art). Even competing in a ruleset that doesn't favor the training is useful.



> We have several around here, man.  You really think it's an odd claim?  Come on.


We have self-defense experts here? I haven't seen that title used.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are suggesting that ability is natural selection not a product of training.


No. I'm suggesting desire to compete is not a product of training. People choose training that suits their objectives. If they don't want to compete, they don't join a school that requires competition. Heck, if they don't want to compete, they are less likely to join a school that encourages competition if they know that in advance.

Which is far more in line with my post than what you said I suggested.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Of course it is snide. When it benefits you anecdotes from industry guys are the feedback loop you use to justify your method. When it doesn't it is selection bias.


Um, where was there input from an industry guy in your post I quoted and mentioned selection bias???



> It is obviously a load of garbage as used here.


You entirely misread that post, then. You've now misattributed two different things in reply to it.



> BJJ is open to every member of the public. Probably millions of people around the world compete from ages of about 5 to 70 which is a bigger more random sample than you will get anywhere.
> 
> And you are calling selection bias.


"Open to" isn't the full selection. People _*select*_ their place to train and the system they train in. That's where the selection bias is. Go look at the average age at an MMA gym, then compare it to the average age of folks training at traditional schools. If my not-random personal sample is any indicator, you'll find about a 10- to 20-year difference in the average age of the adults training between the two. And that's only age, not accounting for ambition, fear of injury (whether it's well founded or not is immaterial), competitive personality, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And you think that is the students?
> 
> How about you go do a white belt BJJ  competition somewhere. And drag a bunch of students along to help you out.
> 
> If they see you do it. Then they will do it.
> 
> Hell guilt them into it. Don't let them let you do one on your own.


Well, first I'd need "a bunch of students". 

Seriously, I've been trying to get into a NAGA tournament for a while. Not much I could find out my way, but I did find one that looked promising. My toe got worse, but I eventually decided to give it a shot and just try not to use that toe much. Then the toe needed surgery (bone spur broke off in the joint), which killed most of last year. Now the virus has shut stuff down.

I wish I'd competed when I was younger and training harder. I don't really get much chance to train at my level (can't really afford classes, and don't have good connections in my area), but getting stuffed by some Jitsers and probably some Judoka will still be fun and educational.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

gpseymour said:


> I wish I'd competed when I was younger and training harder.


Competition can be in many different format.

When I meet a

- boxer, I will ask him to punch at my head for 20 times.
- TKD guy, I will ask him to kick at my body for 20 times.
- wrestler (or Judo guy), I will ask him try to take me down for 2 minutes.
- ...

Most of the people that I have met, they didn't mind to have this kind of test on me (because it's safe for them).

I assume this is 100% SD approach - your opponent attacks, you only play defense.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)
> 
> So some styles are a lot better at creating commitment while also having a better standard of application.
> 
> Now if you choose to set the bar. Then that is on you. Not your students.


This makes me wonder why everyone the same things aren't happening in all styles. There is good and bad in all of them.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> The problem is there is no definite end point.
> 
> If I learn self defense or carry a gun I may never have to use it. And for all those times krav maga or a water pistol will work as fine as anything else.
> 
> It is only when I have to defend myself or shoot someone that these preventive methods become important.


Damn, that is well said.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> No. Confidence. Doesn't matter where it came from. Someone who has self-confidence. I'm not talking about confidence in their fighting ability, which is why I didn't use that term.


okay.  I think we got to the heart of it.  If we don’t agree on this, that explains everything.  I think false confidence is very dangerous.  If you don’t, everything you’ve said so far makes perfect sense.  I get it now.  Well, I guess suffice to say, I don’t think selling people false confidence is healthy or productive.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> In BJJ you pretty much can't grade if you don't compete. (Unless you are Ashton Kutcher)





skribs said:


> That goes against everything I've read from local schools and from people on BJJ forums.


This actually varies quite a bit from school to school. Some require tournament experience, some do not. Some require that you be winning or placing in those tournaments before you get promoted.

What they all require is that you spar/roll on a regular basis and demonstrate your ability that way. (That's why some BJJ-ers get snide about Ashton Kutcher - he's one of Rigan Machado's celebrity students who mostly just flow-rolls with his instructor and hasn't gone through the normal process of proving himself on the mats.)


----------



## Buka

My old BJJ school here didn't require you to compete. But a lot of us did because it's always fun.

The hardest part of competing is getting to where the competition is....and then waiting for your division to be called....forever.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Competition can be in many different format.
> 
> When I meet a
> 
> - boxer, I will ask him to punch at my head for 20 times.
> - TKD guy, I will ask him to kick at my body for 20 times.
> - wrestler (or Judo guy), I will ask him try to take me down for 2 minutes.
> - ...
> 
> Most of the people that I have met, they didn't mind to have this kind of test on me (because it's safe for them).
> 
> I assume this is 100% SD approach - your opponent attacks, you only play defense.


That's a different usage of the term than @Steve seems to use. I agree with you - it's a continuum, and anything on that continuum (if well constructed) can serve as feedback. When he speaks of competition, I have understood @Steve to mean formal competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> okay.  I think we got to the heart of it.  If we don’t agree on this, that explains everything.  I think false confidence is very dangerous.  If you don’t, everything you’ve said so far makes perfect sense.  I get it now.  Well, I guess suffice to say, I don’t think selling people false confidence is healthy or productive.


When you say "false confidence", you assume I'm talking about confidence in their fighting ability. People get more confident from playing sports, without it needing to affect their fighting ability. People gain confidence by developing public speaking skills. None of that is "false confidence". Nor is the general self-confidence that is gained from overcoming challenges, developing discipline, and learning the skills in a MA class, regardless of the orientation of the program.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tony Dismukes said:


> This actually varies quite a bit from school to school. Some require tournament experience, some do not. Some require that you be winning or placing in those tournaments before you get promoted.
> 
> What they all require is that you spar/roll on a regular basis and demonstrate your ability that way. (That's why some BJJ-ers get snide about Ashton Kutcher - he's one of Rigan Machado's celebrity students who mostly just flow-rolls with his instructor and hasn't gone through the normal process of proving himself on the mats.)


And this requirement of sparring/rolling is something I think every system can benefit from. I think I'd have learned and refined a lot more quickly in NGA if that had been more prominent in my training.


----------



## skribs

Tony Dismukes said:


> This actually varies quite a bit from school to school. Some require tournament experience, some do not. Some require that you be winning or placing in those tournaments before you get promoted.
> 
> What they all require is that you spar/roll on a regular basis and demonstrate your ability that way. (That's why some BJJ-ers get snide about Ashton Kutcher - he's one of Rigan Machado's celebrity students who mostly just flow-rolls with his instructor and hasn't gone through the normal process of proving himself on the mats.)



That's my point.  He made an ultimatum that you *can't* rank up without competing.  Which may be true at his gym, but isn't a universal truth in BJJ.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Um, where was there input from an industry guy in your post I quoted and mentioned selection bias???
> 
> 
> You entirely misread that post, then. You've now misattributed two different things in reply to it.
> 
> 
> "Open to" isn't the full selection. People _*select*_ their place to train and the system they train in. That's where the selection bias is. Go look at the average age at an MMA gym, then compare it to the average age of folks training at traditional schools. If my not-random personal sample is any indicator, you'll find about a 10- to 20-year difference in the average age of the adults training between the two. And that's only age, not accounting for ambition, fear of injury (whether it's well founded or not is immaterial), competitive personality, etc.



If you want to believe you are not just backfliping. Then you believe it. 

Otherwise  I said BJJ not MMA which more people do and more people compete in at a wider range of ages. Which is why I used it.

I don't think your age categories will be much different.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> This makes me wonder why everyone the same things aren't happening in all styles. There is good and bad in all of them.



Apparently it is the students. Some of them just are not capable or motivated.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> okay.  I think we got to the heart of it.  If we don’t agree on this, that explains everything.  I think false confidence is very dangerous.  If you don’t, everything you’ve said so far makes perfect sense.  I get it now.  Well, I guess suffice to say, I don’t think selling people false confidence is healthy or productive.



Mabye self competence is the better term.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you want to believe you are not just backfliping. Then you believe it.
> 
> Otherwise  I said BJJ not MMA which more people do and more people compete in at a wider range of ages. Which is why I used it.
> 
> I don't think your age categories will be much different.


To the age thing, as I said, it's a personal observation from a limited sample. Yes, people of all ages participate in MMA and BJJ. You see fewer young folks at many of the traditional schools, with the (possible) exception of those with a strong kids' program, where they may have a stream of folks graduation from the kids' program to the adult classes.

At my old school, there are few students under 40. In all my time teaching, I think I've only ever had 3 people under 30 even come in to check out classes. So the selection bias is there. It's certainly not the whole story, but it's a factor not worth ignoring.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Apparently it is the students. Some of them just are not capable or motivated.


There's your argument from the extreme again. You're just not capable of discussing factors without them being absolutes, are you?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Mabye self competence is the better term.


Can you clarify what that would mean? Competence at being onself?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Can you clarify what that would mean? Competence at being onself?



Sounds good enough.

I was thinking the difference between being comfortable in a confrontation because you have no clue what your situation is vs being comfortable because you do.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> To the age thing, as I said, it's a personal observation from a limited sample. Yes, people of all ages participate in MMA and BJJ. You see fewer young folks at many of the traditional schools, with the (possible) exception of those with a strong kids' program, where they may have a stream of folks graduation from the kids' program to the adult classes.
> 
> At my old school, there are few students under 40. In all my time teaching, I think I've only ever had 3 people under 30 even come in to check out classes. So the selection bias is there. It's certainly not the whole story, but it's a factor not worth ignoring.



There are so many oldies doing BJJ that they have a masters division.

BJJ Competitions: How Are Masters Different From Adult Divisions?

Is there enough people in your style for a masters division?

How many people competing here are under 30?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There's your argument from the extreme again. You're just not capable of discussing factors without them being absolutes, are you?



You are making excuses. And it is simple as that. 

factors would be. We have a lot of oldies in our gym and can't compete as well with the twenty year olds. And so don't do as well or pick less win or die style competitions.

Or I just don't want to be as good at this as I can be because I choose pizza and sleep ins over performance and development. 

It is not for some reason all my students lack motivation to succeed so therefore I have to vegie patch my entire system for everyone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Sounds good enough.
> 
> I was thinking the difference between being comfortable in a confrontation because you have no clue what your situation is vs being comfortable because you do.


That would be confidence in fighting skills, or confronation de-escalations skills, or whatnot. And that's important. And that should be based on actual ability to do those things.

But it's not the general self-confidence I'm talking about. In the last couple of posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There are so many oldies doing BJJ that they have a masters division.
> 
> BJJ Competitions: How Are Masters Different From Adult Divisions?
> 
> Is there enough people in your style for a masters division?
> 
> How many people competing here are under 30?


Proportionately, there are far more in that age group in NGA (as a portion of the total NGA population). Absolute numbers aren't really relevant when discussing selection bias, except insofar as they affect things like statistical significance.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are making excuses. And it is simple as that.
> 
> factors would be. We have a lot of oldies in our gym and can't compete as well with the twenty year olds. And so don't do as well or pick less win or die style competitions.
> 
> Or I just don't want to be as good at this as I can be because I choose pizza and sleep ins over performance and development.
> 
> It is not for some reason all my students lack motivation to succeed so therefore I have to vegie patch my entire system for everyone.


Okay, go ahead and put those words in my mouth. You've done precisely this before. It seems to calm you.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That would be confidence in fighting skills, or confronation de-escalations skills, or whatnot. And that's important. And that should be based on actual ability to do those things.
> 
> But it's not the general self-confidence I'm talking about. In the last couple of posts.



Correct it isn't what you are talking about.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Proportionately, there are far more in that age group in NGA (as a portion of the total NGA population). Absolute numbers aren't really relevant when discussing selection bias, except insofar as they affect things like statistical significance.



So there are quite probably  proportionately more old people who compete in the masters than train in NGA. 

And you are still trying to claim it is an old person thing?

I mean you are suggesting you have some sort of geared towards older people system. The masters is specifically a geared towards old people system. 

This is martial arts with the youth factor removed.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, go ahead and put those words in my mouth. You've done precisely this before. It seems to calm you.



You are an excuse machine. Everything is not your fault or it is too upsetting to deal with. 

It is a toxic mindset.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So there are quite probably  proportionately more old people who compete in the masters than train in NGA.
> 
> And you are still trying to claim it is an old person thing?
> 
> I mean you are suggesting you have some sort of geared towards older people system. The masters is specifically a geared towards old people system.
> 
> This is martial arts with the youth factor removed.


Yes, if you limit to one division that is specifically only for older folks. But that's pretty much just twisting the statistics to say whatever you want, now isn't it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are an excuse machine. Everything is not your fault or it is too upsetting to deal with.
> 
> It is a toxic mindset.


So, telling someone that's not what I said, and that they entirely misread it...that's an excuse? So.......not your fault??


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Proportionately, there are far more in that age group in NGA (as a portion of the total NGA population). Absolute numbers aren't really relevant when discussing selection bias, except insofar as they affect things like statistical significance.



Proportionately?

100% of people who compete in the masters are over 30.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes, if you limit to one division that is specifically only for older folks. But that's pretty much just twisting the statistics to say whatever you want, now isn't it?



No. It is one group dedicated to older martial artists. 

I can compare just the masters with all of NGA and still probably have more over 30s in the master than NGA. And all of them compete.

This is my point. The sample size is so large that your selective bias idea goes out the window.

It doesn't matter if it is 3% of the bjj population if the % of the total population of old people is bigger.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, telling someone that's not what I said, and that they entirely misread it...that's an excuse? So.......not your fault??



Making up an untrue statistic to place the responsibility of your gym culture on your students is making an excuse.

Now I know in your head you think you are doing something different. But that is also an excuse. 

I haven't misrepresented or misunderstood you.

I have disagreed with you. 

Which you take as some sort of personal attack which is an excuse. 

We have played the I didn't say that game from both ends And I just copied your responses. And you backfliped each time. And yet even though you are arguing with your own logic. Each time you claim to be the victim.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Proportionately?
> 
> 100% of people who compete in the masters are over 30.


And 100% of the people who train NGA are human. Both are meaningless statistics, and I'm pretty sure you're aware of that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. It is one group dedicated to older martial artists.
> 
> I can compare just the masters with all of NGA and still probably have more over 30s in the master than NGA. And all of them compete.
> 
> This is my point. The sample size is so large that your selective bias idea goes out the window.
> 
> It doesn't matter if it is 3% of the bjj population if the % of the total population of old people is bigger.


Um, no. You're comparing folks over 50 in a population to another population. That's cherry-picking, at the least.

It doesn't change the demographic, just because you select part of the total to compare to.

And, yeah, 100% of people who are in a competititon group compete. That's post-selection. You're smarter than this crap, man.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Making up an untrue statistic to place the responsibility of your gym culture on your students is making an excuse.
> 
> Now I know in your head you think you are doing something different. But that is also an excuse.
> 
> I haven't misrepresented or misunderstood you.
> 
> I have disagreed with you.
> 
> Which you take as some sort of personal attack which is an excuse.
> 
> We have played the I didn't say that game from both ends And I just copied your responses. And you backfliped each time. And yet even though you are arguing with your own logic. Each time you claim to be the victim.


No, you've either misunderstood, or misrepresented, or both. I tend to think the latter, because your bias againt the term "Aikido" makes it difficult for you to read anything containing that word with any objectivity, and your dishonest "debate" methods often include apparently deliberate twisting of things people say.

If you want to disagree with what I say, I'm fine with that. But when you rephrase something to make it something I didn't say, then disagree with that, it's just laughable.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That would be confidence in fighting skills, or confronation de-escalations skills, or whatnot. And that's important. And that should be based on actual ability to do those things.
> 
> But it's not the general self-confidence I'm talking about. In the last couple of posts.


Self confidence is a good thing, and false confidence is not.  I think what you're referring to is more like self-esteem, which I would say is a little different.  This is, more than anything, what bothers me about a lot of "self defense' training.  Confidence, in general, is a great way to build self esteem.  But when that confidence is tested, if you can do what you believe you can do, it will actually build your confidence and, consequently, strengthen your self esteem.  Conversely, if you cannot do what you think, that false confidence can be devastating.  Physically (in this case) because in a self defense situation, the skills you were relying on are not there.  And also emotionally, because you realize in a moment that you are not who you thought. 

Big picture, I don't have any problem with any training.  Do what you want, as long as you're having fun and doing no harm to others.  But when you call is self defense training, that's entering into an area where the stakes are raised.  Simply put, selling that you're having fun, horsing around, learning some stuff, trying things out, staying fit, building a sense of community, and being a part of a group... that's all wonderful.  And for most people, that's probably all they want or need.  But at the end of the day, if you say it's all of those things AND a self defense system, it needs to function as a self defense system.

In fact, I think NOT referring to or selling NGA as a self defense (i.e., fighting) system could actually make it MORE effective for self defense (i.e, making people safer).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yes, if you limit to one division that is specifically only for older folks. But that's pretty much just twisting the statistics to say whatever you want, now isn't it?



No that is proportionately more of the general older population than your sample.

So when I said BJJ is basically open to everyone. And you countered with this selection bias nonsense your argument was that NGA has more old people.

And it doesn't. Because BJJ is a bigger, better and more accurate sample of the general community.

I could find smaller more niche martial arts with a predominantly younger population who don't compete as well. But they would not be good examples.

And that would be because it is the culture of the organization to not compete. Not this genetic difference or whatever.

Definitely not because for some reason those smaller niche organizations just happens to have attracted people incapable of competition.

We can even look at program like the wimp to warrior that take random selections of people from most ages and makes them compete.

Your issue is specific to NGA. And it is a culture issue. Which you are using selection bias as an excuse.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, you've either misunderstood, or misrepresented, or both. I tend to think the latter, because your bias againt the term "Aikido" makes it difficult for you to read anything containing that word with any objectivity, and your dishonest "debate" methods often include apparently deliberate twisting of things people say.
> 
> If you want to disagree with what I say, I'm fine with that. But when you rephrase something to make it something I didn't say, then disagree with that, it's just laughable.



The last time you falsely accused me of this. I quoted where you said exactly what I said you said. 

So are we going to start your playbook again?

Fine so the "I never said that game"

Ok. You show me where I have misrepresented you.

"Oh noes it is too hards you just have to believe me."


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Um, no. You're comparing folks over 50 in a population to another population. That's cherry-picking, at the least.
> 
> It doesn't change the demographic, just because you select part of the total to compare to.
> 
> And, yeah, 100% of people who are in a competititon group compete. That's post-selection. You're smarter than this crap, man.



And a culture of martial arts that doesn't compete won't compete regardless of the desire of any of its members or instructors.

How old are the students at your average ninja school?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> And a culture of martial arts that doesn't compete won't compete regardless of the desire of any of its members or instructors.


Someone in another forum said, "I spar, but I don't compete."

I truly don't know the difference between

- spar/wrestle, 
- beat someone up, and
- compete.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone in another forum said, "I spar, but I don't compete."
> 
> I truly don't know the difference between
> 
> - spar/wrestle, and
> - compete.



Competition is definable.so you can very quickly go from "I compete in the local white belt division and I compete in the UFC" and get a gauge of what people are talking about. 

I spar could literally mean anything.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Competition is definable.so you can very quickly go from "I compete in the local white belt division and I compete in the UFC" and get a gauge of what people are talking about.
> 
> I spar could literally mean anything.


If you ask a stranger to spar/wrestle with you for 5 rounds, is that

- spar/wrestle, or
- compete?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you ask a stranger to spar with you for 5 rounds, is that
> 
> - spar, or
> - compete?



Depends how strange he is. I have done both.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Depends how strange he is. I have done both.


For example, I knock on your front door and spar with you 5 rounds in your living room.

One can have N number of tournament winning record (official record). But before that, he may have M number of spar/wrestle winning record (non-official record).

You can test your skill in tournament (official record). You can also test your skill in local MMA gym (non-official record).


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> For example, I knock on your front door and spar with you 5 rounds in your living room.
> 
> One can have N number of tournament winning record (official record). But before that, he may have M number of spar/wrestle winning record (non-official record).
> 
> You can test your skill in tournament (official record). You can also test your skill in local MMA gym (non-official record).



Yes but I can beat up a thousand chumps in a street fight And get handled by everyone in that gym. 

It depends what sort of fighting you are doing to get that record. Official or unofficial.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

drop bear said:


> Yes but I can beat up a thousand chumps in a street fight And get handled by everyone in that gym.
> 
> It depends what sort of fighting you are doing to get that record. Official or unofficial.


If you compete in a

- tournament, you will get 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, ... trophy for your official record.
- local MMA gym, what kind of official record will you get?


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you compete in a
> 
> - tournament, you will get 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, ... trophy for your official record.
> - local MMA gym, what kind of official record will you get?



You will get no record. Nobody will really be able to gauge how authentically you are sparring without a video.


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you compete in a
> 
> - tournament, you will get 1st place, 2nd place, 3rd place, ... trophy for your official record.
> - local MMA gym, what kind of official record will you get?



So say I went to Tiger muay thai and sparred. 





I would not do very well. 

Where if I went to Barry's krav maga I would probably do a lot better.

It is unlikely my ability is what changes these two outcomes.

But this is exactly what we are suggesting when we say " I spar" without qualifying that statement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

- Tournament has official record.
- Spar/wrestle has no official record.

Both are competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Self confidence is a good thing, and false confidence is not.  I think what you're referring to is more like self-esteem, which I would say is a little different.  This is, more than anything, what bothers me about a lot of "self defense' training.  Confidence, in general, is a great way to build self esteem.  But when that confidence is tested, if you can do what you believe you can do, it will actually build your confidence and, consequently, strengthen your self esteem.  Conversely, if you cannot do what you think, that false confidence can be devastating.  Physically (in this case) because in a self defense situation, the skills you were relying on are not there.  And also emotionally, because you realize in a moment that you are not who you thought.
> 
> Big picture, I don't have any problem with any training.  Do what you want, as long as you're having fun and doing no harm to others.  But when you call is self defense training, that's entering into an area where the stakes are raised.  Simply put, selling that you're having fun, horsing around, learning some stuff, trying things out, staying fit, building a sense of community, and being a part of a group... that's all wonderful.  And for most people, that's probably all they want or need.  But at the end of the day, if you say it's all of those things AND a self defense system, it needs to function as a self defense system.
> 
> In fact, I think NOT referring to or selling NGA as a self defense (i.e., fighting) system could actually make it MORE effective for self defense (i.e, making people safer).


I agree with the vast majority of what you say here. You and I mostly differ on what folks expect from self-defense-oriented training, and what that even is. NGA is a fighting system, and I teach it as such. The students have a responsibility for their decisions, and that is part of the training, as well. The more they want to get out, the more they need to "give" in those decisions.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No that is proportionately more of the general older population than your sample.
> 
> So when I said BJJ is basically open to everyone. And you countered with this selection bias nonsense your argument was that NGA has more old people.
> 
> And it doesn't. Because BJJ is a bigger, better and more accurate sample of the general community.
> 
> I could find smaller more niche martial arts with a predominantly younger population who don't compete as well. But they would not be good examples.
> 
> And that would be because it is the culture of the organization to not compete. Not this genetic difference or whatever.
> 
> Definitely not because for some reason those smaller niche organizations just happens to have attracted people incapable of competition.
> 
> We can even look at program like the wimp to warrior that take random selections of people from most ages and makes them compete.
> 
> Your issue is specific to NGA. And it is a culture issue. Which you are using selection bias as an excuse.


You are really, really bad at statistics. This explains some of your difficulties with evidence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The last time you falsely accused me of this. I quoted where you said exactly what I said you said.
> 
> So are we going to start your playbook again?
> 
> Fine so the "I never said that game"
> 
> Ok. You show me where I have misrepresented you.
> 
> "Oh noes it is too hards you just have to believe me."


You know, I started a very long reply to this. I'm going to keep it short. Look back at post #472. I just went back to a page in the past and looked for one - it was the first post I happened upon where you replied to me. Took me seconds. I could find more, but listing all of them from just this thread would, in fact, be more work than it's worth.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And a culture of martial arts that doesn't compete won't compete regardless of the desire of any of its members or instructors.
> 
> How old are the students at your average ninja school?


I agree. A culture that discourages competition will attract nobody who wishes to compete, and will dissuade those who might, but aren't really motivated that way. That's like the environment I came up under in NGA. I prefer an environment where competition is encouraged. 

What I do disagree with is the implication in your first sentence that someone who wishes to compete will not compete if they join that culture. More likely, they'll either not join it, or will leave it. That's the selection process I was talking about.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Someone in another forum said, "I spar, but I don't compete."
> 
> I truly don't know the difference between
> 
> - spar/wrestle,
> - beat someone up, and
> - compete.


I tend to agree with you. Sparring and formal competition (if both use similar rulesets) are versions of the same thing. There's likely to be (but not guaranteed to be) more intensity and a better talent pool at the formal competition, but they are similar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Competition is definable.so you can very quickly go from "I compete in the local white belt division and I compete in the UFC" and get a gauge of what people are talking about.
> 
> I spar could literally mean anything.


"I compete" needs definition, too. Two people rolling under IBJJ rules (I assume that's the right body) are doing something pretty similar to competing at a local IBJJ-ruleset competition. There are differences, but (as I said in my reply to KFW's post), those aren't guaranteed. If someone draws me in a BJJ tournament (a rusty non-BJJ'er with limited ground experience) they aren't getting nearly as good a test on the ground as if they are rolling at their gym, if that gym is somplace like where @Tony Dismukes teaches.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> "I compete" needs definition, too. Two people rolling under IBJJ rules (I assume that's the right body) are doing something pretty similar to competing at a local IBJJ-ruleset competition. There are differences, but (as I said in my reply to KFW's post), those aren't guaranteed. If someone draws me in a BJJ tournament (a rusty non-BJJ'er with limited ground experience) they aren't getting nearly as good a test on the ground as if they are rolling at their gym, if that gym is somplace like where @Tony Dismukes teaches.


Yeah, depends on where you choose to compete.  Doesn’t it?   I mean, are you going to enter as a white belt, blue belt, or higher?  I would presume white belt, at least to start.   So, if someone else is competing as a white belt, they wouldn’t expect you to be highly skilled.  At white belt, you have a huge range of aggressiveness and athleticism.  Some guys have some complimentary skills they carried over from wrestling, but no white belt has very good technique.   

I don’t know your relative skill level, so maybe you’d be competitive at blue belt... I’d guess you’d get murdered at purple belt.   But who knows?  And really, isn’t the the heart of the issue?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Yeah, depends on where you choose to compete.  Doesn’t it?   I mean, are you going to enter as a white belt, blue belt, or higher?  I would presume white belt, at least to start.   So, if someone else is competing as a white belt, they wouldn’t expect you to be highly skilled.  At white belt, you have a huge range of aggressiveness and athleticism.  Some guys have some complimentary skills they carried over from wrestling, but no white belt has very good technique.
> 
> I don’t know your relative skill level, so maybe you’d be competitive at blue belt... I’d guess you’d get murdered at purple belt.   But who knows?  And really, isn’t the the heart of the issue?


On my past experience, I'd say you're right. At one time, I could hold my defense pretty well against a purple belt, but I was personally training more then than I do now. I couldn't get many submissions, but I could prevent a lot of theirs. Now, while I'm probably better at conserving motion (and energy), I'm also likely to miss some of the cues and be late on counters. And I'm not a ground specialist, so I'd hope a BJJ purple belt would always have the upper hand on the ground.

How do I know this? Because I've rolled with folks, so know what my level was around them. It doesn't take a formal competition to find that out.

My point, though, was about the wide range of things that can be encountered in competition, including a wide range of skills. At an open competition, you may not run into the same level of skill you'd find at a consistently good gym/dojo.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> On my past experience, I'd say you're right. At one time, I could hold my defense pretty well against a purple belt, but I was personally training more then than I do now. I couldn't get many submissions, but I could prevent a lot of theirs. Now, while I'm probably better at conserving motion (and energy), I'm also likely to miss some of the cues and be late on counters. And I'm not a ground specialist, so I'd hope a BJJ purple belt would always have the upper hand on the ground.
> 
> How do I know this? Because I've rolled with folks, so know what my level was around them. It doesn't take a formal competition to find that out.
> 
> My point, though, was about the wide range of things that can be encountered in competition, including a wide range of skills. At an open competition, you may not run into the same level of skill you'd find at a consistently good gym/dojo.


I think you missed my point.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Competition is definable.so you can very quickly go from "I compete in the local white belt division and I compete in the UFC" and get a gauge of what people are talking about.
> 
> I spar could literally mean anything.


There are so many sets of rules for competition I find it very hard to grossly say competition is definable as you intend. You could get a good gauge on people within a competing body's label (boxing, wrestling, UFC, MMA, etc....) I would think.
If this is what you are already saying, I understand. But not knowing the scale (white to UFC) I did not recognize it.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> On my past experience, I'd say you're right. At one time, I could hold my defense pretty well against a purple belt, but I was personally training more then than I do now. I couldn't get many submissions, but I could prevent a lot of theirs. Now, while I'm probably better at conserving motion (and energy), I'm also likely to miss some of the cues and be late on counters. And I'm not a ground specialist, so I'd hope a BJJ purple belt would always have the upper hand on the ground.
> 
> How do I know this? Because I've rolled with folks, so know what my level was around them. It doesn't take a formal competition to find that out.
> 
> My point, though, was about the wide range of things that can be encountered in competition, including a wide range of skills. At an open competition, you may not run into the same level of skill you'd find at a consistently good gym/dojo.


Gerry, the point I was trying to make is that whether you are competing as a white belt in the Pan Ams in California or a local competition, because the system is robust, there is calibration.  Sure, it's impossible to know how well you, specifically, would perform, because you've never applied your skills outside of training.  That's the actual heart of the issue.  But that doesn't mean the competitive system lacks specificity. 

Regarding how well you did while rolling with people at one time, I urge you to be very cautious in your evaluation of your performance.  You have no idea what those purple belts were working on.  The goal of sparring isn't to tap the other person out as many times as you can.  It's to work on things.  So, purple belts are almost surely taking it very easy on you and working on their own stuff.  In contrast, the goal of competition is to win that competition.  You're not practicing your skills in a competition; you're testing them.

So, where does that leave us?  I think it further reinforces the value of applying skills outside of the training hall.  There is value, even if you do it once or twice, or entering a local competition vs a national one.  If you enter as a blue belt, you will find out very quickly if your skills are competitive at that level.  If you easily win every match in your blue belt division, great information for you to know.  If you get tooled, that's also great.  Tells you where you're at.  Not everyone needs to compete in order to measure their skills.  Cops, soldiers, bouncers, gang members, mafia enforcers... these people all test their skills in varying ways.  But if you're not in a position to apply your skills outside of training, you really don't know.  You could be on par with black belts, for all we know.  As unlikely as that may be, it's possible.

@Tony Dismukes spars with a lot of other folks.  When he does so, he is getting a lot of information from that experience, in the moment, and I'm guessing also in retrospection.  The value he gets out of these interactions, in my opinion, is as much about what he brings to them as what the other person does.  What I'm trying to say is that @Tony Dismukes is a black belt in BJJ who has trained in many other styles over the years and who continues to train in other styles, many of them calibrated through competition.  He HAS objective feedback regarding his skill level, and, in turn, that gives him the experience to evaluate his training.  Consider how much value Tony would get from training for a day with a rugby player who had no grappling experience.  I don't think it's very likely that Tony will misconstrue the lessons learned.  Now, how about that rugby player?  I think it's highly likely he will lack the experience to even understand what was going on, and because Tony is a nice guy, might even come out of it with an inflated opinion about his own performance.

To be clear, it doesn't matter to me how skilled you are.  It does matter, though.  It matters to you, as a martial artist, because you may need those skills someday, and you're functionally just crossing your fingers that you're as good as you think.  It matters to your students, because they trust you as an expert, and when you tell them that you're teaching them skills that they will be able to apply in the context of self defense, that's a big deal to me. 

In summary, the idea here isn't to say that you (as in you, @gpseymour) are or are not a skilled grappler.  The point is that we don't know, or more importantly, YOU don't really know.  And, if "self defense orientation" is your primary goal for training, then it seems like you'd want to have some idea of how well you can apply your skills outside of training BEFORE you test your skills in an actual self defense situation.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Steve said:


> Regarding how well you did while rolling with people at one time, I urge you to be very cautious in your evaluation of your performance. You have no idea what those purple belts were working on. The goal of sparring isn't to tap the other person out as many times as you can. It's to work on things. So, purple belts are almost surely taking it very easy on you and working on their own stuff. In contrast, the goal of competition is to win that competition. You're not practicing your skills in a competition; you're testing them.


Steve raises an important point here regarding sparring in the gym.

Sometimes when you're sparring, your partner is bringing their A game - all their skills, all their physical attributes - in an effort to crush you as efficiently as possible. These session are pretty much indistinguishable from a competition match. (Occasionally it can be almost indistinguishable from a real fight.)

Sometimes they're using all their skills, but holding back on use of their physical attributes. This can be because they're holding back to keep things fair if they are physically superior. It might be so they can focus more on technique. It might be because they plan on spending the next hour sparring and they don't want to burn out early.

Sometimes they're working on a specific set of techniques or tactics that they want to develop. Instead of their A game, they're bringing their B, C, D, or even F game.

Sometimes they're just messing around to have fun. 

Sometimes they're holding back because they're with a junior partner that they don't want to overwhelm or discourage.

Sometimes they're having an exceptionally good or exceptionally bad day and are substantially over- or under-performing compared to their normal performance.

If you do enough sparring with enough people, eventually you get a decent sense for what's happening in a given session. If you only do it occasionally then you may (as Steve points out) get the wrong impression.

Something to note is that there can be substantial variation based on the individual school or gym. Some gyms expect that every sparring match should be a full, balls-to-the-wall fight, while other gyms encourage more technical sparring with a focus on learning safely. This can lead to misunderstandings sometimes. (There are also gyms where you will find the full range of possibilities based on who you are partnered with and what they are working on that day.)


----------



## drop bear

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Tournament has official record.
> - Spar/wrestle has no official record.
> 
> Both are competition.



Tournament has a standard spar wrestling has no standard.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I agree. A culture that discourages competition will attract nobody who wishes to compete, and will dissuade those who might, but aren't really motivated that way. That's like the environment I came up under in NGA. I prefer an environment where competition is encouraged.
> 
> What I do disagree with is the implication in your first sentence that someone who wishes to compete will not compete if they join that culture. More likely, they'll either not join it, or will leave it. That's the selection process I was talking about.



And you are wrong.

If you prefer an environment where competition is encouraged. Then encourage it.

If you don't encourage it then people are not very likely to compete. 

If you have said something like. "I encourage competition" and just walk away doing nothing else. And you turn around and for some selection bias reason nobody is competing. 

It is not them. I am sorry to say.


----------



## Buka

Tony Dismukes said:


> Steve raises an important point here regarding sparring in the gym.
> 
> Sometimes when you're sparring, your partner is bringing their A game - all their skills, all their physical attributes - in an effort to crush you as efficiently as possible. These session are pretty much indistinguishable from a competition match. (Occasionally it can be almost indistinguishable from a real fight.)
> 
> Sometimes they're using all their skills, but holding back on use of their physical attributes. This can be because they're holding back to keep things fair if they are physically superior. It might be so they can focus more on technique. It might be because they plan on spending the next hour sparring and they don't want to burn out early.
> 
> Sometimes they're working on a specific set of techniques or tactics that they want to develop. Instead of their A game, they're bringing their B, C, D, or even F game.
> 
> Sometimes they're just messing around to have fun.
> 
> Sometimes they're holding back because they're with a junior partner that they don't want to overwhelm or discourage.
> 
> Sometimes they're having an exceptionally good or exceptionally bad day and are substantially over- or under-performing compared to their normal performance.
> 
> If you do enough sparring with enough people, eventually you get a decent sense for what's happening in a given session. If you only do it occasionally then you may (as Steve points out) get the wrong impression.
> 
> Something to note is that there can be substantial variation based on the individual school or gym. Some gyms expect that every sparring match should be a full, balls-to-the-wall fight, while other gyms encourage more technical sparring with a focus on learning safely. This can lead to misunderstandings sometimes. (There are also gyms where you will find the full range of possibilities based on who you are partnered with and what they are working on that day.)



I wholeheartedly agree. All the purple belts I rolled with back in the day we're allowing me to roll, allowing me to work. Heck, I competed in a Jits tournament once where they had a division open to everyone. I don't know if that's a thing any more. After my white belt division I drew a purple belt in the open division.

Even HE was letting me roll, and I knew it, and it was much appreciated. Whole lot of fun, too.

The other thing I like and agree with about @Tony's post....that goes one hundred percent for the striking game, too.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> "I compete" needs definition, too. Two people rolling under IBJJ rules (I assume that's the right body) are doing something pretty similar to competing at a local IBJJ-ruleset competition. There are differences, but (as I said in my reply to KFW's post), those aren't guaranteed. If someone draws me in a BJJ tournament (a rusty non-BJJ'er with limited ground experience) they aren't getting nearly as good a test on the ground as if they are rolling at their gym, if that gym is somplace like where @Tony Dismukes teaches.



Yes but competition has definition as part of its nature.

I mean I could say. "I win competitions" but absolutely nobody is going to fall for that. Because the next question will be which competition?

Of course here it would be ten pages of someone then arguing that they don't have to tell you. And just because as soon as someone asks for any details of this "competition" the discussion drops off a cliff doesn't mean the "competition" wasn't a legitimate one. Does it?


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Steve raises an important point here regarding sparring in the gym.
> 
> Sometimes when you're sparring, your partner is bringing their A game - all their skills, all their physical attributes - in an effort to crush you as efficiently as possible. These session are pretty much indistinguishable from a competition match. (Occasionally it can be almost indistinguishable from a real fight.)
> 
> Sometimes they're using all their skills, but holding back on use of their physical attributes. This can be because they're holding back to keep things fair if they are physically superior. It might be so they can focus more on technique. It might be because they plan on spending the next hour sparring and they don't want to burn out early.
> 
> Sometimes they're working on a specific set of techniques or tactics that they want to develop. Instead of their A game, they're bringing their B, C, D, or even F game.
> 
> Sometimes they're just messing around to have fun.
> 
> Sometimes they're holding back because they're with a junior partner that they don't want to overwhelm or discourage.
> 
> Sometimes they're having an exceptionally good or exceptionally bad day and are substantially over- or under-performing compared to their normal performance.
> 
> If you do enough sparring with enough people, eventually you get a decent sense for what's happening in a given session. If you only do it occasionally then you may (as Steve points out) get the wrong impression.
> 
> Something to note is that there can be substantial variation based on the individual school or gym. Some gyms expect that every sparring match should be a full, balls-to-the-wall fight, while other gyms encourage more technical sparring with a focus on learning safely. This can lead to misunderstandings sometimes. (There are also gyms where you will find the full range of possibilities based on who you are partnered with and what they are working on that day.)



I have I think submitted my purple belt coach twice in ten years. And I am still never allowed to mention that in the gym. 

If I wrist lock him he has threatened to throw elbows.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And you are wrong.
> 
> If you prefer an environment where competition is encouraged. Then encourage it.
> 
> If you don't encourage it then people are not very likely to compete.
> 
> If you have said something like. "I encourage competition" and just walk away doing nothing else. And you turn around and for some selection bias reason nobody is competing.
> 
> It is not them. I am sorry to say.


You keep trying to make this a blame game. That’s a waste.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I wholeheartedly agree. All the purple belts I rolled with back in the day we're allowing me to roll, allowing me to work. Heck, I competed in a Jits tournament once where they had a division open to everyone. I don't know if that's a thing any more. After my white belt division I drew a purple belt in the open division.
> 
> Even HE was letting me roll, and I knew it, and it was much appreciated. Whole lot of fun, too.
> 
> The other thing I like and agree with about @Tony's post....that goes one hundred percent for the striking game, too.


Yeah, those were great points, Tony.  This forum is funny, sometimes.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You keep trying to make this a blame game. That’s a waste.



Because the excuse machine won't make anyone any better. 

Fine nobody is to blame and I guess there is nothing you can do. The magic of the universe just happened to send you weak insipid students and you are the hero doing the best you can.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> There are so many sets of rules for competition I find it very hard to grossly say competition is definable as you intend. You could get a good gauge on people within a competing body's label (boxing, wrestling, UFC, MMA, etc....) I would think.
> If this is what you are already saying, I understand. But not knowing the scale (white to UFC) I did not recognize it.



Which competition can't you define?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because the excuse machine won't make anyone any better.
> 
> Fine nobody is to blame and I guess there is nothing you can do. The magic of the universe just happened to send you weak insipid students and you are the hero doing the best you can.


There's a difference between excuses and understanding. But go ahead and go for blame. It's a waste of time, but go ahead and waste it.

Oh, and go ahead and turn some reasonable comments into base insults. That's helpful, too.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes but competition has definition as part of its nature.
> 
> I mean I could say. "I win competitions" but absolutely nobody is going to fall for that. Because the next question will be which competition?
> 
> Of course here it would be ten pages of someone then arguing that they don't have to tell you. And just because as soon as someone asks for any details of this "competition" the discussion drops off a cliff doesn't mean the "competition" wasn't a legitimate one. Does it?


I agree some folks get caught up trying to make more of an argument about competition than is useful. My point was just that "competition" is not much more defined (though somewhat so) than "sparring". Fortunately, "competition" can be more easily clarified in a lot of cases - just add "IBJJ" to it, and a lot of folks know a good bit about the competition then, for instance (again, assuming I'm using the right governing body for that).

You seem to be trying really hard to argue with me on this, as you've done a LOT of lately. I was really just pointing out a bit of nuance worth noting, because ignoring it weakens the argument. You have a good point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Gerry, the point I was trying to make is that whether you are competing as a white belt in the Pan Ams in California or a local competition, because the system is robust, there is calibration.  Sure, it's impossible to know how well you, specifically, would perform, because you've never applied your skills outside of training.  That's the actual heart of the issue.  But that doesn't mean the competitive system lacks specificity.
> 
> Regarding how well you did while rolling with people at one time, I urge you to be very cautious in your evaluation of your performance.  You have no idea what those purple belts were working on.  The goal of sparring isn't to tap the other person out as many times as you can.  It's to work on things.  So, purple belts are almost surely taking it very easy on you and working on their own stuff.  In contrast, the goal of competition is to win that competition.  You're not practicing your skills in a competition; you're testing them.
> 
> So, where does that leave us?  I think it further reinforces the value of applying skills outside of the training hall.  There is value, even if you do it once or twice, or entering a local competition vs a national one.  If you enter as a blue belt, you will find out very quickly if your skills are competitive at that level.  If you easily win every match in your blue belt division, great information for you to know.  If you get tooled, that's also great.  Tells you where you're at.  Not everyone needs to compete in order to measure their skills.  Cops, soldiers, bouncers, gang members, mafia enforcers... these people all test their skills in varying ways.  But if you're not in a position to apply your skills outside of training, you really don't know.  You could be on par with black belts, for all we know.  As unlikely as that may be, it's possible.
> 
> @Tony Dismukes spars with a lot of other folks.  When he does so, he is getting a lot of information from that experience, in the moment, and I'm guessing also in retrospection.  The value he gets out of these interactions, in my opinion, is as much about what he brings to them as what the other person does.  What I'm trying to say is that @Tony Dismukes is a black belt in BJJ who has trained in many other styles over the years and who continues to train in other styles, many of them calibrated through competition.  He HAS objective feedback regarding his skill level, and, in turn, that gives him the experience to evaluate his training.  Consider how much value Tony would get from training for a day with a rugby player who had no grappling experience.  I don't think it's very likely that Tony will misconstrue the lessons learned.  Now, how about that rugby player?  I think it's highly likely he will lack the experience to even understand what was going on, and because Tony is a nice guy, might even come out of it with an inflated opinion about his own performance.
> 
> To be clear, it doesn't matter to me how skilled you are.  It does matter, though.  It matters to you, as a martial artist, because you may need those skills someday, and you're functionally just crossing your fingers that you're as good as you think.  It matters to your students, because they trust you as an expert, and when you tell them that you're teaching them skills that they will be able to apply in the context of self defense, that's a big deal to me.
> 
> In summary, the idea here isn't to say that you (as in you, @gpseymour) are or are not a skilled grappler.  The point is that we don't know, or more importantly, YOU don't really know.  And, if "self defense orientation" is your primary goal for training, then it seems like you'd want to have some idea of how well you can apply your skills outside of training BEFORE you test your skills in an actual self defense situation.


As was said earlier, if you play with other folks enough, you get some feel. When folks go hard, you can pretty much tell if they're going hard, and what they're holding back. Tony has almost certainly sparred with more folks than me, and I presume with more styles than me. But it's not something that I've skimped on nearly as much as you imply here. Not something I've done much of lately - more back when I was training hard and going to seminars more often. But it's something I've done.

And you still seem to be stuck on application being an all-or-nothing _____. There's a continuum, instead. I've visited a large portion of that continuum, and much more of it in ground technique (though more often against folks who weren't ground specialists, when we were all trying out what we "knew" to see how it actually worked).

You seem to assume I've simply taken what I've been taught at face value. I've done some work beyond that, including testing the toolbox (though not specific techniques, as such) with folks from different backgrounds, and getting feedback from folks with similar training who have used the principles in their work (and some who had to use those principles only occasionally).

Again, I get that you don't think I've done my work and haven't ever actually applied what I've learned. I simply disagree with you. If you just keep restating that over and over, it's not going to get us much of anywhere.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which competition can't you define?


I think he's saying the general term "competition", rather than a specific competition.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> As was said earlier, if you play with other folks enough, you get some feel. When folks go hard, you can pretty much tell if they're going hard, and what they're holding back. Tony has almost certainly sparred with more folks than me, and I presume with more styles than me. But it's not something that I've skimped on nearly as much as you imply here. Not something I've done much of lately - more back when I was training hard and going to seminars more often. But it's something I've done.


Okay man.  I'm going to try again.  If you don't have experience applying the skills outside of training, it is difficult to evaluate your actual skill level.  This very same lack of experience makes it very easy to overestimate your own performance in training, and misunderstand the performance of your training partners.  





> And you still seem to be stuck on application being an all-or-nothing _____. There's a continuum, instead. I've visited a large portion of that continuum, and much more of it in ground technique (though more often against folks who weren't ground specialists, when we were all trying out what we "knew" to see how it actually worked).


Not at all.  I just don't think you understand what that continuum entails, or that training experience is just that, and represents the bottom of the spectrum, regardless of the quality of that training.  If you were to create a skills inventory for self defense, and scored peoples' abilities based on demonstrated proficiency, a person who has only ever trained would be very difficult to score. 

The point isn't whether or not you are a skilled grappler.  I've said as much several times, but you keep steering it back in that direction.  The point, instead, is whether or not you can actually use your skills under pressure, when you aren't "playing with other folks" or sparring, or taking a seminar (hoo-boy, the idea you're learning skill in a seminar... come on).  Is sparring useful?  Of course, and the more diverse your experience, the better.  Are seminars useful?  Well, maybe, but the more experience and practical skill you bring into the seminar, the more you'll get out of it.  Is playing with other folks enough?  No.  It's not.  It's something.  Which, I guess, is better than nothing on the continuum.  


> You seem to assume I've simply taken what I've been taught at face value. I've done some work beyond that, including testing the toolbox (though not specific techniques, as such) with folks from different backgrounds, and getting feedback from folks with similar training who have used the principles in their work (and some who had to use those principles only occasionally).


I don't have any idea what you're taking at face value, beyond what you have said here.  I only know that whenever we talk about your experience with self defense, you talk about testing your abilities in training. 

But reread the post you quoted above, and in particular my comments on the hazards of misunderstanding your performance in a snapshot encounter with other people, and then read Tony's subsequent post on the same subject.  Then tell me how that helps you or anyone evaluate relative performance.  How good are you?  Who knows.  But you know what?  If you entered a BJJ tournament as a blue belt, you'd know right away.  If you entered a judo tournament, you'd know right away.  Or, even better, if you have the time and inclination, you could go and actually train for a length of time in a bjj or judo school.  It wouldn't be as quick, but within a year or so, you'd have a good idea of where you stand, even if you don't compete, because at most schools, you'll be training with people who compete all the time. So, over a year or so, you'd have a lot of opportunity to get feedback (verbal and physical) from them in a setting that is calibrated.  





> Again, I get that you don't think I've done my work and haven't ever actually applied what I've learned. I simply disagree with you. If you just keep restating that over and over, it's not going to get us much of anywhere.


Hey, I'm using the term application the way you guys do, now.  It was clearly confusing the issue.  So, no, I think you've applied your skills a lot... in a very specific system of training.  

Let's go back to our ninja.  A ninja trains for 20 years in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.  He's a 10th degree black belt and is a bona fide expert in Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu.  Can he fight?  If all we know about him is that he's a well qualified, bona fide expert in Budo Taijutsu, then...  unknown.  Even if he sparred from time to time with other people.  At best, the answer is, "too little information to say."  What if you knew that he competed at an IBJJ event as a brown belt in a bracket with 3 other guys and got a silver medal?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think he's saying the general term "competition", rather than a specific competition.



Yeah. But sparring will be a general term. Competition will always be a certain competition or the term becomes meaningless.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There's a difference between excuses and understanding. But go ahead and go for blame. It's a waste of time, but go ahead and waste it.
> 
> Oh, and go ahead and turn some reasonable comments into base insults. That's helpful, too.



It is not about blame it is about personal accountability. It is how winning is done.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You seem to be trying really hard to argue with me on this, as you've done a LOT of lately. I was really just pointing out a bit of nuance worth noting, because ignoring it weakens the argument. You have a good point.



It is a nuance that is deception. Sparring is as undefined as competition (provided nobody ever mentions the very freely available information regarding the sort of competition engaged in)

And fat people weigh as much as skinny people. (Provided we weigh them on the moon)

You are leaving important elements out that alter the nature of the statement.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You keep trying to make this a blame game. That’s a waste.


We're not going to play the blame game here.  But if we were....  if we were...  I'd blame @Buka.  

Did I win?


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> There are so many sets of rules for competition I find it very hard to grossly say competition is definable as you intend. You could get a good gauge on people within a competing body's label (boxing, wrestling, UFC, MMA, etc....) I would think.
> If this is what you are already saying, I understand. But not knowing the scale (white to UFC) I did not recognize it.


This is no different than understanding any other context.  People casually throw out things like, "I am/was a cop for 10 years."  That MIGHT be very relevant to a discussion about self defense training, but you'd need to ask a few more questions.  "I am/was in the military."  Okay.  It doesn't change the intrinsic value.

But how would you react to someone who said, "I attended training at the police academy for 10 years, and now I'm going to open my own police academy?"


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> This is no different than understanding any other context.  People casually throw out things like, "I am/was a cop for 10 years."  That MIGHT be very relevant to a discussion about self defense training, but you'd need to ask a few more questions.  "I am/was in the military."  Okay.  It doesn't change the intrinsic value.
> 
> But how would you react to someone who said, "I attended training at the police academy for 10 years, and now I'm going to open my own police academy?"



I don't think that analogy exactly fits.  Someone who trains martial arts will train for 10 years regardless of whether they're competing or not.  It is not the norm for police officers to be at the academy for 10 years.  Now we're kind of getting into the line from Tommy Boy:
Tommy: "Lots of people go to college for 8 years."
Richard: "Yeah.  They're called doctors."

That said, if there was someone who trained for 10 years at the academy, chances are they know a thing or two that the street cop doesn't.  They might have a better understanding of fitness and fitness training.  They may have much better marksmanship and knowledge of the firearms than a cop who goes to the range once a year to qualify.  They might have better understanding of teaching and learning than someone with more practical experience.  They might be better equipped to teach the book knowledge to a new cadet.

Someone who spent 10 years studying and training is going to have different skills than someone who is out on the job.  They're going to be able to bring different things to the table.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> I don't think that analogy exactly fits.  Someone who trains martial arts will train for 10 years regardless of whether they're competing or not.  It is not the norm for police officers to be at the academy for 10 years.  Now we're kind of getting into the line from Tommy Boy:
> Tommy: "Lots of people go to college for 8 years."
> Richard: "Yeah.  They're called doctors."


I disagree.  I think the analogy fits perfectly, and what you're reacting to is how obviously absurd the martial arts training model is when you apply it to literally any other skill set.





> That said, if there was someone who trained for 10 years at the academy, chances are they know a thing or two that the street cop doesn't.  They might have a better understanding of fitness and fitness training.  They may have much better marksmanship and knowledge of the firearms than a cop who goes to the range once a year to qualify.  They might have better understanding of teaching and learning than someone with more practical experience.  They might be better equipped to teach the book knowledge to a new cadet.
> 
> Someone who spent 10 years studying and training is going to have different skills than someone who is out on the job.  They're going to be able to bring different things to the table.


I completely agree.  What are those "different things?"  And what are they not?

They might be the things you mention.  What they are not is experience working as a cop.  

Here's a question, and I have no idea what the answer is.  Do all of the instructors at a police academy have experience working as cops?  Or, said the other way, are there any instructors at a typical police academy who have never applied the skills they're teaching professionally?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> This is no different than understanding any other context.  People casually throw out things like, "I am/was a cop for 10 years."  That MIGHT be very relevant to a discussion about self defense training, but you'd need to ask a few more questions.  "I am/was in the military."  Okay.  It doesn't change the intrinsic value.
> 
> But how would you react to someone who said, "I attended training at the police academy for 10 years, and now I'm going to open my own police academy?"



Ignoring the totally illogical and unrealistic parts of the question, your same answer would apply. We have no idea what else the person has been doing for the last 10 years. They may have been very active within the LE world and be a business genius who is the best fit to start a police academy. 
If just said unsolicited in casual conversation, "I attended the police academy for 10 years" would be one of your red herrings, largely because it is so illogical. 
The short answer is what a person says is less important than what they have done.

If you met me in person you would realize I am not one for casual conversation. I am blunt and sift through the BS quickly and want to move on. Put me in a room of engineers with a problem to solve and I am totally comfortable. 
So all the analogies you have put up are much the same to me. I am not clear as to why you keep beating the horse. I sincerely hope everyone got your point with the first analogy. 
We can "what if" this thing all day long but I think the point has been made and the proof found.


----------



## Steve

Took a quick look, and found a job posting for a Police Academy Instructor in Wyoming.  Below is what they're looking for... a pretty exhaustive list.  The question here is, does anyone think someone who has attended a police academy training for 5, 10, 20, or any other number of years, would be qualified for this position?  I am skeptical.  

Qualifications

PREFERENCES:
Preference may be given to applicants who are Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy certified Custody & Control Instructors.
Preference may be given to candidates with a degree in police science/criminal justice plus six years as a law enforcement officer, including four years with responsibility for classroom training or on-the-job instruction.
Preference may be given to applicants who are currently POST Instructor certified.
Preference may be given to applicants who are Peace and/or Detention Officer certifiable.

KNOWLEDGE:
Knowledge of Federal and Wyoming statutes applicable to law enforcement training methods, techniques, and practices
Knowledge of effective techniques of instruction in adult learning principles
Knowledge of division's mission, goals, and policies, and procedures.
Subject matter expert in one or more law enforcement topics
Knowledge of the agency budget process
Skill in instructional techniques, research, and development
Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position.
Skill in oral and written communication
Skill in training, lesson plans, and visual aid preparation.
Skill in interpersonal communications
Skill in organization, planning, and time management
Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction
Skill in effectively passing on knowledge and skills which are required.
Skill in performing consistently and effectively under pressure
Skill in working with students who have varying abilities and experiences.
Skill in organizing and managing time and resources
Skill in consistently and accurately evaluating programs and personnel/student
Skill in working with common office technology, computers, and communications systems
Skill in the use and understanding of Custody & Control

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
Education:
Bachelor's Degree (typically in Education)


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> Here's a question, and I have no idea what the answer is. Do all of the instructors at a police academy have experience working as cops? Or, said the other way, are there any instructors at a typical police academy who have never applied the skills they're teaching professionally?



I'm guessing they do, because as I said in my post, you don't have police officers who just hang out at the academy for 10 years and never go on to become a cop.

Let me put this another way.  One of my favorite classes in college was History of the Vietnam War.  Not because of the class itself, but the professor who taught it was amazing, and that was his passion.  I told one of my coworkers a long time ago that I really liked that class, and he was really elitist about it.  "Was he a Vietnam Veteran?"  He wasn't.  "Then how can he teach it if he wasn't there?"

My coworker was downright offended that this person, who wasn't a Vietnam veteran, was teaching a class about the Vietnam war.  If he wasn't there, how does he know what it was like?  He was really upset by this and gave me a long, angry rant about it.

Now, someone who had their boots on the ground certainly has a unique perspective on the war that no historian will.  But at the same time, they lack the perspective of all of the others with boots on the ground.  I'm sure that people stationed in different places had different experiences.  The snipers had different experiences from the grunts, from the artillery men, from the helicopter and jet pilots.  The officers in charge had different experiences as well.  Most of the soldiers on the ground probably didn't have anything to do with logistics, didn't have the understanding of the overall flow of the war.  A lot of stuff was compiled and learned after the fact by strategists and historians; things we may not have known then, but we've learned over time.

Going back further, how could anyone teach American Civil War History or American Revolutionary War History today?  If you had to be there to be qualified to teach it, then nobody is left to teach them.  Few people nowadays even knew someone who knew someone who was in the Civil War.  

There are a lot of things that you can teach about without having any practical experience in it.  Academics are a perfect example of this.  A lot of professors have experience.  A lot of others only have the education.  But they've done enough research through the course of their education to have a thorough understanding of it.  And we can go back to arts like HEMA, which have been dissected by historians and martial artists to create the art we have today.  None of them have actual experience in medieval warfare.

Someone teaching martial arts without practical experience may be kidding themselves.  They may not be able to teach everything someone with that experience can.  But they may also have done their research and paid attention.  I have a few years of wrestling, a few years of Hapkido, and a lot of years in Taekwondo.  I'm quickly approaching the Master degree in Taekwondo, should be only another couple of years.  I've never physically taken a boxing class or participated in a boxing match.  However, I've done some research on boxing.  I'm able to use my understanding of footwork from Taekwondo, and apply it to the rules I see taught for boxing.  I'm able to watch the do's and don'ts of boxing punches, and use the meticulous attention to detail in honing my technique that I've learned in Taekwondo, and apply it to boxing.  Does this mean I could be a boxing coach?  Probably not.  Does this mean I'd be as effective at teaching punches as a boxer?  No, but the difference isn't going to be as great as you might think, until you get to the upper level.  

I am perfectly capable of teaching the techniques and footwork.  I'm perfectly capable of teaching the basic combinations, and bad habits to avoid.  I'm perfectly comfortable with leading the strength and conditioning routines that a boxer would go through.  I am confident in this, because I have good attention to detail, and I've paid attention in my research.  Would I claim to get someone ready for a boxing match?  No.  But I would claim to be able to teach the punches a boxer would know, and how to apply them.  I don't think I'd be lying to myself or to my students when I teach them.  I may even be better at teaching them than some boxers, not because I claim to know more than the boxers, but because sometimes people are skilled at something but aren't very good teachers.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> Took a quick look, and found a job posting for a Police Academy Instructor in Wyoming.  Below is what they're looking for... a pretty exhaustive list.  The question here is, does anyone think someone who has attended a police academy training for 5, 10, 20, or any other number of years, would be qualified for this position?  I am skeptical.
> 
> Qualifications
> 
> PREFERENCES:
> Preference may be given to applicants who are Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy certified Custody & Control Instructors.
> Preference may be given to candidates with a degree in police science/criminal justice plus six years as a law enforcement officer, including four years with responsibility for classroom training or on-the-job instruction.
> Preference may be given to applicants who are currently POST Instructor certified.
> Preference may be given to applicants who are Peace and/or Detention Officer certifiable.
> 
> KNOWLEDGE:
> Knowledge of Federal and Wyoming statutes applicable to law enforcement training methods, techniques, and practices
> Knowledge of effective techniques of instruction in adult learning principles
> Knowledge of division's mission, goals, and policies, and procedures.
> Subject matter expert in one or more law enforcement topics
> Knowledge of the agency budget process
> Skill in instructional techniques, research, and development
> Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position.
> Skill in oral and written communication
> Skill in training, lesson plans, and visual aid preparation.
> Skill in interpersonal communications
> Skill in organization, planning, and time management
> Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction
> Skill in effectively passing on knowledge and skills which are required.
> Skill in performing consistently and effectively under pressure
> Skill in working with students who have varying abilities and experiences.
> Skill in organizing and managing time and resources
> Skill in consistently and accurately evaluating programs and personnel/student
> Skill in working with common office technology, computers, and communications systems
> Skill in the use and understanding of Custody & Control
> 
> MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
> Education:
> Bachelor's Degree (typically in Education)



In the quote, I colored in Red anything that doesn't require you to be a police officer.  Knowledge in statutes, teaching skills, etc.  The vast majority of those qualifications have nothing at all to do with being a police officer.  In fact, someone with a degree in education, but no experience is *far closer *to meeting the requirements than someone who has experience, but no degree or teaching skills.

As to what's left, we have:

*Preference to candidates with a degree in police science + 6 years as LEO*.  This is just a preference, and half of that preference is a degree in police science.  Just having the experience as a police officer isn't enough.
*Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position*.  This is something that would be evaluated if you continue to train at the academy.
*Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction.  *This is also something you would be evaluated on if you continue to train at the academy.  Some of these (such as firearm instruction and fitness instruction) are separate skills from being a police officer.  In fact, most of the conversations I've had on gun forums regarding police officers is that most of them treat the gun as an extra tool on the belt, and they only use it once a year at a very easy range qualification.

*Skill in the use and understanding of Custody and Control*.  Again, if it's being taught at the academy, they probably qualify at the academy.  I'm not 100% sure what this means (whether it's custody of a suspect, custody of minors, custody of evidence, custody of your equipment).
Essentially, it boils down to:

80% of the skills required are educational skills, not police skills.
Of those that remain, all of the skills required are things that could be taught, trained, and evaluated at the academy.
The only preference for LEO includes additional requirements, that someone who was just a LEO wouldn't get.  This is also a preference, not a requirement.
So basically you're proving my point.  Someone with the academic training would qualify for that position.


----------



## Steve

I think there's a lot of value in knowing ABOUT things.  Academic expertise is expertise.  The food critic has a well trained palate, but may or may not also be a chef.  One doesn't need to be a samurai to know a lot about them.

But knowing ABOUT things is not the same as being able to DO things.  The professor might could very well be an expert on the vietnam war, and be able to speak with authority on that subject, but completely incompetent to carry a rifle as an infantryman.

As long as that is clear, all is well.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> In the quote, I colored in Red anything that doesn't require you to be a police officer.  Knowledge in statutes, teaching skills, etc.  The vast majority of those qualifications have nothing at all to do with being a police officer.  In fact, someone with a degree in education, but no experience is *far closer *to meeting the requirements than someone who has experience, but no degree or teaching skills.
> 
> As to what's left, we have:
> 
> *Preference to candidates with a degree in police science + 6 years as LEO*.  This is just a preference, and half of that preference is a degree in police science.  Just having the experience as a police officer isn't enough.
> *Skill in the use of law enforcement equipment necessary to perform the functions of the position*.  This is something that would be evaluated if you continue to train at the academy.
> *Skill in police procedures and tactics, to include the use of motor vehicles and physical motor skills to demonstrate and actively participate in physical skills such as fitness, custody control, and firearms instruction.  *This is also something you would be evaluated on if you continue to train at the academy.  Some of these (such as firearm instruction and fitness instruction) are separate skills from being a police officer.  In fact, most of the conversations I've had on gun forums regarding police officers is that most of them treat the gun as an extra tool on the belt, and they only use it once a year at a very easy range qualification.
> 
> *Skill in the use and understanding of Custody and Control*.  Again, if it's being taught at the academy, they probably qualify at the academy.  I'm not 100% sure what this means (whether it's custody of a suspect, custody of minors, custody of evidence, custody of your equipment).
> Essentially, it boils down to:
> 
> 80% of the skills required are educational skills, not police skills.
> Of those that remain, all of the skills required are things that could be taught, trained, and evaluated at the academy.
> The only preference for LEO includes additional requirements, that someone who was just a LEO wouldn't get.  This is also a preference, not a requirement.
> So basically you're proving my point.  Someone with the academic training would qualify for that position.


I'm happy to fill in the gaps, but will just say for now that there is a meaningful difference in postings like this between being technically qualified (which might mean being referred by the HR folks to the selecting official) and being actually qualified.  Being actually qualified is all of the criteria used by the selecting offiical to winnow down the list to a few highly qualified candidates, and then eventually select someone for the position.  That process, in any government position, has to be very concrete and objective.  As such, the preferences aren't just preferences.  That's all insight into how the selecting official is going to justify their selection if they end up being sued (e.g., an eeo suit).  

So, if you have two candidates who are both "qualified" and the selection starts to get squishy, you will be able to say, I chose this person over that person for these reasons.  And they can't say they were passed over because they are a member of a protected base.

That might be more than you ever wanted to know, but I think it's important to know that "preferences" aren't as subjective as the term implies.  It's actually quite the opposite.  So, to sum up, being technically qualified might mean making a referral list.  But it doesn't mean you have any chance of being selected, or that you are considered to be qualified in a practical sense.

Sorry if posting that confused the issue.  I realize now that I interpret those in a way that others may not, having a lot of experience being on both sides of those types of vacancies.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> That process, in any government position, has to be very concrete and objective.



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

I could go on, but you get the idea.  I've been a government contractor for over a decade, and the thought that there is any objective hiring policy is truly laughable.  Saying to go for a government job because of their superb hiring policies would be like saying go to a car wash to get a prescription filled.

Saying the government has good hiring policies?  Thanks, man.  I really needed a laugh today.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
> 
> I could go on, but you get the idea.  I've been a government contractor for over a decade, and the thought that there is any objective hiring policy is truly laughable.  Saying to go for a government job because of their superb hiring policies would be like saying go to a car wash to get a prescription filled.
> 
> Saying the government has good hiring policies?  Thanks, man.  I really needed a laugh today.


Hiring is inherently subjective.  But you have to have an objective process.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I disagree. I think the analogy fits perfectly, and what you're reacting to is how obviously absurd the martial arts training model is when you apply it to literally an



It aligns with things like faith healing pretty accurately.

I don't have to be a medical professional to understand the healing properties of crystals. And what does a doctor understand about crystals anyway.

And by the way. You can do a course.

Certificate in Crystal Healing Therapy  - Nature Care College - Sydney


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> Hiring is inherently subjective.  But you have to have an objective process.



Point is, the person with certifications and degrees is just as likely to be hired (if not more so) than someone with actual LEO experience.  You're trying to make the point that the LEO experience is important, but it isn't.  By the requirements *you posted*, it isn't.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> Point is, the person with certifications and degrees is just as likely to be hired (if not more so) than someone with actual LEO experience.  You're trying to make the point that the LEO experience is important, but it isn't.  By the requirements *you posted*, it isn't.


That's actually not the point.  A person with degrees and certs may be technically qualified but is not actually qualified.  That's my point, at least.  Look, I get that you're a contractor.  But have you ever hired someone?  Government or not?


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> That's actually not the point.  A person with degrees and certs may be technically qualified but is not actually qualified.  That's my point, at least.  Look, I get that you're a contractor.  But have you ever hired someone?  Government or not?



Have I hired someone?  No.
Have I seen plenty of people who were hired, who were qualified on paper, but who had no idea how to actually do the job?  Plenty of times.

Your question was "The question here is, does anyone think someone who has attended a police academy training for 5, 10, 20, or any other number of years, would be qualified for this position?"

Yes.  He would be qualified.  You posted the qualifications.  Someone who has attended police academy, and has the requisite teaching credentials, but no LEO experience, would be completely qualified based on the qualifications you posted.  

And if they have the paper qualifications, my experience is that the government would hire them.  Based on other people I've seen hired.  In fact, they'd be better than the people I've seen hired, because at least they'd have the teaching skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But sparring will be a general term. Competition will always be a certain competition or the term becomes meaningless.


That's pretty much what I was getting at.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is not about blame it is about personal accountability. It is how winning is done.


Yeah, except that you want to blame someone for folks simply not being interested in something. Not everyone has your (or my) priorities. That's not the fault of the instructor, not the instructor's responsibility. These are adults.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is a nuance that is deception. Sparring is as undefined as competition (provided nobody ever mentions the very freely available information regarding the sort of competition engaged in)
> 
> And fat people weigh as much as skinny people. (Provided we weigh them on the moon)
> 
> You are leaving important elements out that alter the nature of the statement.


Again, you're trying really hard to argue on this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> We're not going to play the blame game here.  But if we were....  if we were...  I'd blame @Buka.
> 
> Did I win?


Yes. Yes, you did.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, except that you want to blame someone for folks simply not being interested in something. Not everyone has your (or my) priorities. That's not the fault of the instructor, not the instructor's responsibility. These are adults.



It's the students fault?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Again, you're trying really hard to argue on this.



Not that hard. It was pretty obvious.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's pretty much what I was getting at.



No we are saying different things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It's the students fault?


Again with the fault? Is it also their “fault” they don’t want to study more advanced mathematics in college? Or drive a given brand of car?

Not everyone wants what you want.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No we are saying different things.


Not sure where you get that. Your last post was pretty much my point.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Hiring is inherently subjective.  But you have to have an objective process.


Something that is quite hard to do when there is human intervention involved. I did read several areas that could easily be lost to subjectivity. Some even sounded like to 'open' process was not.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I'm happy to fill in the gaps, but will just say for now that there is a meaningful difference in postings like this between being technically qualified (which might mean being referred by the HR folks to the selecting official) and being actually qualified.  Being actually qualified is all of the criteria used by the selecting offiical to winnow down the list to a few highly qualified candidates, and then eventually select someone for the position.  That process, in any government position, has to be very concrete and objective.  As such, the preferences aren't just preferences.  That's all insight into how the selecting official is going to justify their selection if they end up being sued (e.g., an eeo suit).
> 
> So, if you have two candidates who are both "qualified" and the selection starts to get squishy, you will be able to say, I chose this person over that person for these reasons.  And they can't say they were passed over because they are a member of a protected base.
> 
> That might be more than you ever wanted to know, but I think it's important to know that "preferences" aren't as subjective as the term implies.  It's actually quite the opposite.  So, to sum up, being technically qualified might mean making a referral list.  But it doesn't mean you have any chance of being selected, or that you are considered to be qualified in a practical sense.
> 
> Sorry if posting that confused the issue.  I realize now that I interpret those in a way that others may not, having a lot of experience being on both sides of those types of vacancies.



You do not know this but my wife is an attorney dealing mainly in state government matters and my sister is an attorney who retired from the IRS and now works for a large law firm in contract law. I have hired 100's of engineers and techs over the years. Both my wife and sister has helped me write and understand language for several reasons including hiring/firing. 
The job listed in your post is laced with legalese. It is written in 'plain' speak but the purpose is the same. Which speaks to part of what you are saying. There are 'outs' written into every official document. 
What you are calling technically qualified vs. actually qualified is clearly stated on the document. To a large degree 'actually qualified' in your example is part of the subjectivity. 
There has to be a vehicle to thin out the applicants. The first several lines of the job description does that very clearly. 
HR is not a black and white entity. There is a Lot of psychological process that goes into hiring especially at the salaried level, not so much at the hourly level. 
So the job description screens out several people by a simple set of yes/no demands. Obvious quirks, business fit, and background are screened out at the HR level. No matter what the job description says there is subjectivity on both sides of the official interviewing process. There is no telling how many engineers I passed on who were more than capable of doing the work but I felt did not fit our culture for various reasons. So there is a good chance I missed on some people who would have turned out to be great employees and I have hired some people who ended up not fitting at all. 
There is no crystal ball and hiring someone is not a legally binding document in Will to Hire states.
I have never had a hiring/firing or employment claim. I strongly believe it has a Ton to do with being open, honest, and up front throughout all processes, screening, interview, hiring and firing. I have never fired someone who did not know it was coming for specific reasons and from several specific explanations of deficiency including attempts to correct the issue(s). I have never hired someone from just the listed requirements on a job description. We have a fun hiring process that tests both the applicants technical skills and gauges their mental/emotional capacity and general personality. If ran concurrent (which never happens) it is a 3-4 partial days process.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> It's the students fault?


A large % of it is on the student, yes.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Again with the fault? Is it also their “fault” they don’t want to study more advanced mathematics in college? Or drive a given brand of car?
> 
> Not everyone wants what you want.


just so I'm clear, if you're in an algebra class learning algebra from someone competent to teach algebra, all is well.  If you're in a geometry class learning algebra from someone who is telling you it’s also calculus, there is a problem.  Particularly if the instructor doesn’t know it’s not calculus.  


dvcochran said:


> You do not know this but my wife is an attorney dealing mainly in state government matters and my sister is an attorney who retired from the IRS and now works for a large law firm in contract law. I have hired 100's of engineers and techs over the years. Both my wife and sister has helped me write and understand language for several reasons including hiring/firing.
> The job listed in your post is laced with legalese. It is written in 'plain' speak but the purpose is the same. Which speaks to part of what you are saying. There are 'outs' written into every official document.
> What you are calling technically qualified vs. actually qualified is clearly stated on the document. To a large degree 'actually qualified' in your example is part of the subjectivity.
> There has to be a vehicle to thin out the applicants. The first several lines of the job description does that very clearly.
> HR is not a black and white entity. There is a Lot of psychological process that goes into hiring especially at the salaried level, not so much at the hourly level.
> So the job description screens out several people by a simple set of yes/no demands. Obvious quirks, business fit, and background are screened out at the HR level. No matter what the job description says there is subjectivity on both sides of the official interviewing process. There is no telling how many engineers I passed on who were more than capable of doing the work but I felt did not fit our culture for various reasons. So there is a good chance I missed on some people who would have turned out to be great employees and I have hired some people who ended up not fitting at all.
> There is no crystal ball and hiring someone is not a legally binding document in Will to Hire states.
> I have never had a hiring/firing or employment claim. I strongly believe it has a Ton to do with being open, honest, and up front throughout all processes, screening, interview, hiring and firing. I have never fired someone who did not know it was coming for specific reasons and from several specific explanations of deficiency including attempts to correct the issue(s). I have never hired someone from just the listed requirements on a job description. We have a fun hiring process that tests both the applicants technical skills and gauges their mental/emotional capacity and general personality. If ran concurrent (which never happens) it is a 3-4 partial days process.


Agree with all of this, but I honestly can’t tell if you intend to agree with me or not from this post.   

You make a lot of great points on the hiring process.   I regret derailing the thread with It.  It’s an interesting topic, but I think it’s spinning us off track.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> A large % of it is on the student, yes.


If the student thinks he or she is learning self defense skills from someone who has no experience, that’s the student’s fault?  If the student isn’t interested in self defense, great.  Say you buy a house, and the guy says it has a basketball hoop in the driveway.  The basketball hoop may not be a priority to you, and probably isn’t the reason you bought the house.  But there should be a hoop in the driveway.  And if there isn’t, that’s not on the consumer.  

Martial arts is a business transaction.   You’re selling a service.   If you sign up for 30/10 Weight Loss, do everything you’re asked, and gain weight, that’s not on you.  And if no one loses weight, that’s a real problem.  

Similarly, If you sign up for self defense classes and learn something else, the business is at fault.  If no one is really developing self defense skills, that’s a real problem.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Here's a question, and I have no idea what the answer is.  Do all of the instructors at a police academy have experience working as cops?  Or, said the other way, are there any instructors at a typical police academy who have never applied the skills they're teaching professionally?



I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
> but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.


Yeah, that is unfortunate.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Yeah, that is unfortunate.



I could tell you horror stories.

And a couple that were rather funny.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Not sure where you get that. Your last post was pretty much my point.



Yes but it doesn't include the bit that makes it a different point. 

That is why I did the whole thing with the brackets.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Again with the fault? Is it also their “fault” they don’t want to study more advanced mathematics in college? Or drive a given brand of car?
> 
> Not everyone wants what you want.



It is what you want though. Which is the difference. If you have decided that a certain method is important for your students development you really should make a push for that. 

If you remember that rob grufridda interview he comes up with this idea that learning a skill requires effort or adversity. Especially learning a fighting skill like self defense.

Otherwise they are not learning that skill. 

I put it to you that there was no competition for your students to compete in. 

There was no foreseeable pathway that would have led them to this competition. 

There are many steps you could have taken before you threw your hands up in the air and said it was the students.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> A large % of it is on the student, yes.



This percentage is 100% though.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
> but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.






Buka said:


> I could tell you horror stories.
> 
> And a couple that were rather funny.



Yeah security is the same.

It is very messy.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> If the student thinks he or she is learning self defense skills from someone who has no experience, that’s the student’s fault?  If the student isn’t interested in self defense, great.  Say you buy a house, and the guy says it has a basketball hoop in the driveway.  The basketball hoop may not be a priority to you, and probably isn’t the reason you bought the house.  But there should be a hoop in the driveway.  And if there isn’t, that’s not on the consumer.
> 
> Martial arts is a business transaction.   You’re selling a service.   If you sign up for 30/10 Weight Loss, do everything you’re asked, and gain weight, that’s not on you.  And if no one loses weight, that’s a real problem.
> 
> Similarly, If you sign up for self defense classes and learn something else, the business is at fault.  If no one is really developing self defense skills, that’s a real problem.


So it is the businesses responsibility to inform the student, Before they ever go to a class, what/how/when/why the class is about? It is the student/persons job to be informed and know to a reasonable degree what they are buying. Otherwise they are just being gullible and foolish. It is not unusual for a person to have to try a class/product for a time to learn whether it is what they were looking for.


----------



## dvcochran

Buka said:


> I can't speak for everywhere, and I'm not sure what "typical" is as academies can be quite different,
> but, unfortunately, I've seen people that fall into that category, yes.


I remember my PT instructor when I went through the academy. He was one bad axx. Ex marine who got out after 18 years and did a brief stint as a LEO. He taught an ethics class straight out of the book. As far as the physical part of the academy I don't think you could have found any better. I don't think there was any one instructor who could have effectively taught you everything well, especially considering there were about 200 officers per class.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yes but it doesn't include the bit that makes it a different point.
> 
> That is why I did the whole thing with the brackets.


Ok, I guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is what you want though. Which is the difference. If you have decided that a certain method is important for your students development you really should make a push for that.
> 
> If you remember that rob grufridda interview he comes up with this idea that learning a skill requires effort or adversity. Especially learning a fighting skill like self defense.
> 
> Otherwise they are not learning that skill.
> 
> I put it to you that there was no competition for your students to compete in.
> 
> There was no foreseeable pathway that would have led them to this competition.
> 
> There are many steps you could have taken before you threw your hands up in the air and said it was the students.


You’re making quite a few assumptions about both my attitude and my actions. Without really bothering to inquire about either.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> So it is the businesses responsibility to inform the student, Before they ever go to a class, what/how/when/why the class is about? It is the student/persons job to be informed and know to a reasonable degree what they are buying. Otherwise they are just being gullible and foolish. It is not unusual for a person to have to try a class/product for a time to learn whether it is what they were looking for.


Come on, man.  You often find yourself on the same side of an argument as con artists? Give me a break.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Come on, man.  You often find yourself on the same side of an argument as con artists? Give me a break.


How you get con artist out of expecting people to be informed says a lot about you. Apparently in your world it is everyone else's responsibility except yours. Based on many of your posts I don't find that surprising at all.
Really, really not sure where your moral compass points.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> How you get con artist out of expecting people to be informed says a lot about you. Apparently in your world it is everyone else's responsibility except yours. Based on many of your posts I don't find that surprising at all.
> Really, really not sure where your moral compass points.


You're the dude who thinks selling deceptive products is on the consumer.  Lol.  You're being ridiculous.

you said:  





dvcochran said:


> So it is the businesses responsibility to inform the student, Before they ever go to a class, what/how/when/why the class is about?


the answer is, yes.  Absolutely.  It’s astounding you think otherwise.  And I’m the guy with a questionable moral compass?  Yeah, okay.





> It is the student/persons job to be informed and know to a reasonable degree what they are buying.


and how, pray tell, does one do this if the business is being cagey or otherwise misrepresenting itself?  





> Otherwise they are just being gullible and foolish. It is not unusual for a person to have to try a class/product for a time to learn whether it is what they were looking for.


what?  Come on.  If I hire an electrician, I guess it’s on me if they misrepresent themselves.  Or if I enroll in a pottery class and they don’t actually teach how to make pottery.  Or that weight loss program.   I guess it’s buyer beware.  Am i right?

and at the end of the day, as usual, all you have is snark and personal insults. Pretty lame.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> You're the dude who thinks selling deceptive products is on the consumer.  Lol.  You're being ridiculous.
> 
> you said:  the answer is, yes.  Absolutely.  It’s astounding you think otherwise.  And I’m the guy with a questionable moral compass?  Yeah, okay.and how, pray tell, does one do this if the business is being cagey or otherwise misrepresenting itself?  what?  Come on.  If I hire an electrician, I guess it’s on me if they misrepresent themselves.  Or if I enroll in a pottery class and they don’t actually teach how to make pottery.  Or that weight loss program.   I guess it’s buyer beware.  Am i right?
> 
> and at the end of the day, as usual, all you have is snark and personal insults. Pretty lame.



Again, you just don't hear yourself and endlessly try to put the blame/excuse on someone else. You seem to have no concept of personal accountability. 

There is this incredible thing called the internet. It is a fountain of information that consumers can use to become more informed about virtually anything. It is a powerful tool, assuming you are competent enough to use it.  
The average person has a pier group, coworkers, or are at least involved enough in their community to know the good/better businesses from the bad/worse in any genre. Use the resources in front of you. 

Yes, it is buyer beware in the context that it is the buyers job to be as informed as possible. You fall into and seem to even want to be the prey in the "There is a sucker born every minute" quote.

So to answer your question with a question; there are five pottery classes in your neighborhood. How do you choose which one to use? What methodology do you take to decide?
It sounds like you take the Pollyanna approach whereas you just show up at the first one fully knowing you are getting the best, most elite service out there. How wise or realistic is that? 
Of course it is natural to do at least cursory research. 
Plan the plan.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Again, you just don't hear yourself and endlessly try to put the blame/excuse on someone else. You seem to have no concept of personal accountability.
> 
> There is this incredible thing called the internet. It is a fountain of information that consumers can use to become more informed about virtually anything. It is a powerful tool, assuming you are competent enough to use it.
> The average person has a pier group, coworkers, or are at least involved enough in their community to know the good/better businesses from the bad/worse in any genre. Use the resources in front of you.
> 
> Yes, it is buyer beware in the context that it is the buyers job to be as informed as possible. You fall into and seem to even want to be the prey in the "There is a sucker born every minute" quote.
> 
> So to answer your question with a question; there are five pottery classes in your neighborhood. How do you choose which one to use? What methodology do you take to decide?
> It sounds like you take the Pollyanna approach whereas you just show up at the first one fully knowing you are getting the best, most elite service out there. How wise or realistic is that?
> Of course it is natural to do at least cursory research.
> Plan the plan.


Ugh.  You're kind of a one trick pony.  Insult.  Miss the point.  Say something ridiculous.  Insult.

Mr. moral compass' answer to the question of whether a business should deliver what they say they will deliver is Yelp.  If you're looking for good pho, sure.  That might help.  But that doesn't excuse the business

For a guy who alleges to be all about accountability, I don't get why the business owner need not be accountable at all.   Fortunately, consumers have some legal protections.  You sound like a real fan of going back to the era of snake oil salesmen. 

Speaking of listening to oneself, please reread your posts.  You put all accountability on the lay person, and zero on the "expert ". This is exactly how con artists work.  If that's really the side you're on, please don't preach to me about moral compass.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You’re making quite a few assumptions about both my attitude and my actions. Without really bothering to inquire about either.



He says on page 35 of this thread.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Again, you just don't hear yourself and endlessly try to put the blame/excuse on someone else. You seem to have no concept of personal accountability.
> 
> There is this incredible thing called the internet. It is a fountain of information that consumers can use to become more informed about virtually anything. It is a powerful tool, assuming you are competent enough to use it.
> The average person has a pier group, coworkers, or are at least involved enough in their community to know the good/better businesses from the bad/worse in any genre. Use the resources in front of you.
> 
> Yes, it is buyer beware in the context that it is the buyers job to be as informed as possible. You fall into and seem to even want to be the prey in the "There is a sucker born every minute" quote.
> 
> So to answer your question with a question; there are five pottery classes in your neighborhood. How do you choose which one to use? What methodology do you take to decide?
> It sounds like you take the Pollyanna approach whereas you just show up at the first one fully knowing you are getting the best, most elite service out there. How wise or realistic is that?
> Of course it is natural to do at least cursory research.
> Plan the plan.



This is precisely why I post about methods on how determine truth from fiction. And faith based martial arts from evidence based martial arts.

It arms the martial artist with the tools to critical think through an industry that is set up to promote con artists and spout misinformation. 

This is why asking for evidence, asking to see sparring, asking for real proof techniques work is so important. 

And the ultimate reason hiding these things from people is so suspicious. 

There are martial arts that are open and accountable and there are martial arts that are not. 

The ones that are not will always sound better because fantasy is much more appealing than fact. 

It is up to us to recognize that.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> This is precisely why I post about methods on how determine truth from fiction. And faith based martial arts from evidence based martial arts.
> 
> It arms the martial artist with the tools to critical think through an industry that is set up to promote con artists and spout misinformation.
> 
> This is why asking for evidence, asking to see sparring, asking for real proof techniques work is so important.
> 
> And the ultimate reason hiding these things from people is so suspicious.
> 
> There are martial arts that are open and accountable and there are martial arts that are not.
> 
> The ones that are not will always sound better because fantasy is much more appealing than fact.
> 
> It is up to us to recognize that.


Agree. I find it hard to believe that most of the 'con arts' have not been debunked by now. As with everything there will be bad product in every industry. I feel the majority of it is instructor/school instead issues instead of style related. 
That said, we have never been a hard line TKD organization and I have actively had exposure to many styles so I suppose my experience is different from many in the TKD vein.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Ugh.  You're kind of a one trick pony.  Insult.  Miss the point.  Say something ridiculous.  Insult.
> 
> Mr. moral compass' answer to the question of whether a business should deliver what they say they will deliver is Yelp.  If you're looking for good pho, sure.  That might help.  But that doesn't excuse the business
> 
> For a guy who alleges to be all about accountability, I don't get why the business owner need not be accountable at all.   Fortunately, consumers have some legal protections.  You sound like a real fan of going back to the era of snake oil salesmen.
> 
> Speaking of listening to oneself, please reread your posts.  You put all accountability on the lay person, and zero on the "expert ". This is exactly how con artists work.  If that's really the side you're on, please don't preach to me about moral compass.


What are you 12 years old? If the truth is an insult to you then so be it, that is on you. 
Who ever said the business had no accountability? Of course they do, it is their product. You are just way too busy looking for everything to be someone else's fault to see there is two sides to the coin. Again, you are trying to build a false truth that was never there to start. 
One sign of immaturity in a person is when they continuously say something that is incorrect over and over, thinking if they say it enough it will become truth. Just childish.

I enjoy debate when there is something of substance but dude, you are bringing nothing to the table.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> What are you 12 years old? If the truth is an insult to you then so be it, that is on you.
> Who ever said the business had no accountability? Of course they do, it is their product. You are just way too busy looking for everything to be someone else's fault to see there is two sides to the coin. Again, you are trying to build a false truth that was never there to start.
> One sign of immaturity in a person is when they continuously say something that is incorrect over and over, thinking if they say it enough it will become truth. Just childish.
> 
> I enjoy debate when there is something of substance but dude, you are bringing nothing to the table.


I think there's something broken in you man.  I hate to put anyone on ignore, but you just don't add anything of value.  You seem compelled to personally attack rather than discuss the issues.    I really hope you figure it out.  Get some therapy or whatever you need.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> He says on page 35 of this thread.


He repeats, you mean. You do this kind of a lot.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> He repeats, you mean. You do this kind of a lot.



No by thirty five pages you don't think pretty much all the questions have been asked and either answered or avoided?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No by thirty five pages you don't think pretty much all the questions have been asked and either answered or avoided?


No. Most of your work has been making assumptions and avoiding actual discussion by accusing people of actively concealing things because they haven't provided them to you upon demand.

You've long made assumptions about my training and attitudes. You've clung to a couple of comments I made, and presumed them to be central to my entire training and teaching approach. You don't really care to know what it is I do. You just don't like some words, and that gets you all lathered.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No. Most of your work has been making assumptions and avoiding actual discussion by accusing people of actively concealing things because they haven't provided them to you upon demand.
> 
> You've long made assumptions about my training and attitudes. You've clung to a couple of comments I made, and presumed them to be central to my entire training and teaching approach. You don't really care to know what it is I do. You just don't like some words, and that gets you all lathered.



Ok. How many of your students compete?

How many competitions is your club involved in in any way?

If a student wants to compete what does your club do to facilitate that?

Feel free to actively conceal that information by not providing it or just being really vague about it.

And then blame me for misrepresenting you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. How many of your students compete?
> 
> How many competitions is your club involved in in any way?
> 
> If a student wants to compete what does your club do to facilitate that?
> 
> Feel free to actively conceal that information by not providing it or just being really vague about it.
> 
> And then blame me for misrepresenting you.


This is what I was saying. You're really focused on a single point, and not considering anything surrounding it.

So, let me provide some information that puts your question in perspective. In the time since I started at the new school, I've had a total of 4 students. All were parents and had other things they spend time on (training in other styles, mostly). None were interested in competing in early training. Only one continued long-term (now just over a year) - the others moved shortly after starting training.

And I teach once a week, so I'd say it'd take at least 6 months for folks to be ready to compete if they chose to do so.

So, out of one student who stayed any duration, none compete, and all train in multiple arts. Can't really make much of a case on that. You're trying to compare my program to how things work in a gym/school with more students.

---

Now let's take a look at the larger statistics. Of the students I've taught in the last several years (since starting my own program), none trained more than 2 days a week, even when I offered 3. Most trained 1 day a week. Although most stayed for 2-3 years, you can see the priority level they chose.

People's decisions are theirs to make. Because my program is very part-time, I tend to attract folks who aren't looking to train a ton. If they wanted to train a ton, why would they go somewhere they can take a max of 3 classes?


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> I think there's something broken in you man.  I hate to put anyone on ignore, but you just don't add anything of value.  You seem compelled to personally attack rather than discuss the issues.    I really hope you figure it out.  Get some therapy or whatever you need.



I try to add content of value when there is something of value to add to, and try to do it without it without derailing the topic. Which you make a point to do. It is silly how much you deflect about personal attacks but consistently do just that. Then get defensive when things are thrown back you way. 
So let me make sure I have this right; telling someone (repeatedly) to get therapy is not a personal attack? You cannot say one thing is inappropriate and then turn around and say the very same thing and it be okay. Double standard much? C'mon on man. 

This is a MA forum. Can you please add something of value to the conversation? I get that some of you are home and bored but, dang.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> So let me make sure I have this right; telling someone (repeatedly) to get therapy is not a personal attack? You cannot say one thing is inappropriate and then turn around and say the very same thing and it be okay. Double standard much? C'mon on man.
> 
> This is a MA forum. Can you please add something of value to the conversation? I get that some of you are home and bored but, dang.


For what it's worth, I don't think therapy is an insult.  If you had a lump on your back, I'd suggest you get that checked out, too.  Would you consider that an insult?   Most people wouldn't. 

In contrast, you have so far called me immature, immoral, and stupid.  Multiple times.   Oh, and that I am not personally accountable.  You also vacillate between saying I'm stating obvious truths to saying I'm always wrong.

While the current moderation philosophy seems to be a light touch, your posts are, in my opinion, aggressive and unfriendly, to the point where I can't tell whether you think you agree with me or not in a response.  

Like I said, I hate to put anyone on an ignore list, but I just don't think you add much.  At some point, if you'd like to discuss an issue, I'm open to it.  But so far, that doesn't seem to be your style.  

So, feel free to respond or not.  I won't see it, so you can have the last word if you like.  I'll go back to discussing the topic at hand.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> This is what I was saying. You're really focused on a single point, and not considering anything surrounding it.
> 
> So, let me provide some information that puts your question in perspective. In the time since I started at the new school, I've had a total of 4 students. All were parents and had other things they spend time on (training in other styles, mostly). None were interested in competing in early training. Only one continued long-term (now just over a year) - the others moved shortly after starting training.
> 
> And I teach once a week, so I'd say it'd take at least 6 months for folks to be ready to compete if they chose to do so.
> 
> So, out of one student who stayed any duration, none compete, and all train in multiple arts. Can't really make much of a case on that. You're trying to compare my program to how things work in a gym/school with more students.
> 
> ---
> 
> Now let's take a look at the larger statistics. Of the students I've taught in the last several years (since starting my own program), none trained more than 2 days a week, even when I offered 3. Most trained 1 day a week. Although most stayed for 2-3 years, you can see the priority level they chose.
> 
> People's decisions are theirs to make. Because my program is very part-time, I tend to attract folks who aren't looking to train a ton. If they wanted to train a ton, why would they go somewhere they can take a max of 3 classes?



Reading @drop bear 's post that you responded to, it seems to me a big difference is general training vs. specific training. 

It seems consistent that people with only exposure to MMA and such are a hard to sell to argue the ancillary benefits of more general, traditional training (regardless of style). Not everyone wants to just roll , or straight box, or out fight, or learn just self defense. 

Not many people want to see martial arts get mashed up into one single style, which is a big push for MMA. It is a stated marketing agenda to dissolve other styles to improve their presence and perceived value. Marketing 101. You hear it from people who practice MMA. "All other style are crap" is drilled into them so much it is a conditioned response. And God forbid you try to reason with them that MMA is relatively new and a product of many other styles. So, it is a pointless argument that will eventually subsided as the wave of popularity ebbs. 

Bear, I coached nearly a hundred people in AAU competition in the 80's. Dozens of medals; sixteen gold. Several to the Pan-Am games. I am certain there is a lot of video on VHS that was shot by parents. There may even be a lot out there on Youtube that I am not aware of. Hell in terms of how much I did in competing, I have very little video. It just was not a priority. Doing it was the importance; not 'getting it on video'. You would probably be shocked how much it cost to get smart phone quality video of live action back in the 80's. 
My point is that for many people visual confirmation is not the only confirmation. An 'art' that is being lost. And this is coming from an engineer who is obsessed with finding the 5 W's. 
We know what we have accomplished and what it took to get there and that is good enough. I never have felt a need to do something and then share it from my smart phone. Don't mix that message with how great of a tool a smart phone is. And no, that has zero to do with the 'ancient Chinese secret' crap that some may jump to. It more rings of Nike's slogan, "Just do it".  

There are so many ways people can be tested. More outside the ring than inside. Using just one measurement and thinking video proof is some magic wand that has all the answers I just do not get.  

I have not walked in your shoes and vice/versa so who are we to judge?


----------



## skribs

dvcochran said:


> Reading @drop bear 's post that you responded to, it seems to me a big difference is general training vs. specific training.
> 
> It seems consistent that people with only exposure to MMA and such are a hard to sell to argue the ancillary benefits of more general, traditional training (regardless of style). Not everyone wants to just roll , or straight box, or out fight, or learn just self defense.
> 
> Not many people want to see martial arts get mashed up into one single style, which is a big push for MMA. It is a stated marketing agenda to dissolve other styles to improve their presence and perceived value. Marketing 101. You hear it from people who practice MMA. "All other style are crap" is drilled into them so much it is a conditioned response. And God forbid you try to reason with them that MMA is relatively new and a product of many other styles. So, it is a pointless argument that will eventually subsided as the wave of popularity ebbs.
> 
> Bear, I coached nearly a hundred people in AAU competition in the 80's. Dozens of medals; sixteen gold. Several to the Pan-Am games. I am certain there is a lot of video on VHS that was shot by parents. There may even be a lot out there on Youtube that I am not aware of. Hell in terms of how much I did in competing, I have very little video. It just was not a priority. Doing it was the importance; not 'getting it on video'. You would probably be shocked how much it cost to get smart phone quality video of live action back in the 80's.
> My point is that for many people visual confirmation is not the only confirmation. An 'art' that is being lost. And this is coming from an engineer who is obsessed with finding the 5 W's.
> We know what we have accomplished and what it took to get there and that is good enough. I never have felt a need to do something and then share it from my smart phone. Don't mix that message with how great of a tool a smart phone is. And no, that has zero to do with the 'ancient Chinese secret' crap that some may jump to. It more rings of Nike's slogan, "Just do it".
> 
> There are so many ways people can be tested. More outside the ring than inside. Using just one measurement and thinking video proof is some magic wand that has all the answers I just do not get.
> 
> I have not walked in your shoes and vice/versa so who are we to judge?



Even in a day like today.  When I go a tournament, I'm busy from early in the morning until late at night.  It could easily be a 10 hour day while I'm there, not to mention the couple of hours to travel there.  I'm finding my students and making sure they're in the right place at the right time.  I'm going back and forth to coach them, bring them water, find something they forgot.  I'm making sure the other coaches are in their right spot and know who they're supposed to be coaching.

My parents, if they're there, are coaching as well.  They're not just sitting in the stands ready to record.  My parents are black belts as well, and when we go to a tournament, they put in the work, too.

We have so much more important things to do than to worry about who got a match on video.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> For what it's worth, I don't think therapy is an insult.  If you had a lump on your back, I'd suggest you get that checked out, too.  Would you consider that an insult?   Most people wouldn't.
> 
> In contrast, you have so far called me immature, immoral, and stupid.  Multiple times.   Oh, and that I am not personally accountable.  You also vacillate between saying I'm stating obvious truths to saying I'm always wrong.
> 
> While the current moderation philosophy seems to be a light touch, your posts are, in my opinion, aggressive and unfriendly, to the point where I can't tell whether you think you agree with me or not in a response.
> 
> Like I said, I hate to put anyone on an ignore list, but I just don't think you add much.  At some point, if you'd like to discuss an issue, I'm open to it.  But so far, that doesn't seem to be your style.
> 
> So, feel free to respond or not.  I won't see it, so you can have the last word if you like.  I'll go back to discussing the topic at hand.



I suppose semantics could be a play to a limited degree. I have said many times before I am blunt and to the point, I do not apologize for that. I call BS what it is. I get that it rubs some people the wrong way but I also expect them to understand that what they do/say rubs people like me the wrong way. It is really that simple. 
Yes, in my world/culture telling me I need therapy is a slur. Telling me I am not being accountable about something is informative and not offensive. 
I am certain I am being consistent and not vacillating in any way about what I am saying. You do take obvious truths and try to use them like they are something new. Maybe this is for your own benefit? I have no idea. And I call everybody out if I think they are wrong and expect them to do the same to me. I do not at all understand how anyone can perceive that as bad.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Reading @drop bear 's post that you responded to, it seems to me a big difference is general training vs. specific training.
> 
> It seems consistent that people with only exposure to MMA and such are a hard to sell to argue the ancillary benefits of more general, traditional training (regardless of style). Not everyone wants to just roll , or straight box, or out fight, or learn just self defense.
> 
> Not many people want to see martial arts get mashed up into one single style, which is a big push for MMA. It is a stated marketing agenda to dissolve other styles to improve their presence and perceived value. Marketing 101. You hear it from people who practice MMA. "All other style are crap" is drilled into them so much it is a conditioned response. And God forbid you try to reason with them that MMA is relatively new and a product of many other styles. So, it is a pointless argument that will eventually subsided as the wave of popularity ebbs.
> 
> Bear, I coached nearly a hundred people in AAU competition in the 80's. Dozens of medals; sixteen gold. Several to the Pan-Am games. I am certain there is a lot of video on VHS that was shot by parents. There may even be a lot out there on Youtube that I am not aware of. Hell in terms of how much I did in competing, I have very little video. It just was not a priority. Doing it was the importance; not 'getting it on video'. You would probably be shocked how much it cost to get smart phone quality video of live action back in the 80's.
> My point is that for many people visual confirmation is not the only confirmation. An 'art' that is being lost. And this is coming from an engineer who is obsessed with finding the 5 W's.
> We know what we have accomplished and what it took to get there and that is good enough. I never have felt a need to do something and then share it from my smart phone. Don't mix that message with how great of a tool a smart phone is. And no, that has zero to do with the 'ancient Chinese secret' crap that some may jump to. It more rings of Nike's slogan, "Just do it".
> 
> There are so many ways people can be tested. More outside the ring than inside. Using just one measurement and thinking video proof is some magic wand that has all the answers I just do not get.
> 
> I have not walked in your shoes and vice/versa so who are we to judge?



Without the tools to determine truth from fiction we allow schools that do not do what they claim, to deceive us.

Marital arts schools have no real accountability unless they choose to. I favor martial arts that choose to hold themselves accountable.

Judging saves me a lot of time and money buying someone's product and working out later that product has no worth. Especially in an area where the onus is absolutely on me to work that out. 

Because martial arts has no accountability.


----------



## Buka

I hope everyone is well on this fine pandemic Monday. I actually care that you're all safe. I do, honest.

Know what I don't care about? I don't really care about anybody else's methods of training Martial Arts. About their style, their gym, their dojo, their method, their interpretation of the the Arts, and especially what any one of them/you-all might, or might not, think about somebody else's Art, gym, dojo, methods yadda yadda.

Kind of reminds me of growing up in Boston, going to a Catholic church....at least occasionally. Because the churches I went to....again, occasionally, were different churches. Yes, I was a church hopper. Shame.

They were all the _one true church_.  The _one true religion_.The _one true God_. But this was Boston. And I'm sure we all know what those particular churches were into back then.....the young parishioners.

I find Martial Arts teachings almost identical to religious teaching. Because we are the _One true Art_, the _One true style_, the _One true method_.
Hosanna in the the F'ing highest! Now, please pass the collection plate. And, damn, if that doesn't sound like a lot of the Arts, I don't know what does.

I do not give one ship about how any of you do anything. I just hope it means something to you. I hope it helps you, gives you as much skill and enjoyment as what I do has given me.
But I guess some love to be thy brother's keeper. So be it, I guess. I ain't any of yours, or anybody else's for that matter, so I really have no experience with any of that.
With that said, I shall carry on. May you all do the same.
Enjoy the day.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Without the tools to determine truth from fiction we allow schools that do not do what they claim, to deceive us.
> 
> Marital arts schools have no real accountability unless they choose to. I favor martial arts that choose to hold themselves accountable.
> 
> Judging saves me a lot of time and money buying someone's product and working out later that product has no worth. Especially in an area where the onus is absolutely on me to work that out.
> 
> Because martial arts has no accountability.


Fully agree. Few businesses have accountability unless they choose to. 
I make the assumption that on a martial arts forum most of us are informed and need less input to make a decision on where and with who we workout. This is a good thing and should pull us together, not push us apart.
I live by a code that says everything I do requires accountability. This is a choice I consciously make. I hope there is as much accountability in martial arts as there is in any gym, college or pro sports program. Is there crap schools out there? Yes, in every style including MMA. That is the nature of the business beast. I do not condone it but I certainly believe it is real and living large.

I am really grey on what tools you are referring to. Video? C'mon. Experience, general knowledge, wisdom gained from being burned in one venture or another? Sure, this applies to all aspects of life. Why you/some choose to single out martial arts/sports I am unclear. Do you exclude MMA as a martial art/sport? It is certainly martial and I do not know what else to call it other than a sport. Does using the term 'art' rub you the wrong way? I get it; it is kind of cheesy but government deemed a Long time ago that it falls under the same guidelines as contact sports, wrestling, gyms, gymnast, ballet, and other kinds of dance. It is just a term that began a long, long time ago. Because it isn't new and maybe not as relevant as adding the term 'mixed' to the front of it to you doesn't make it anything less.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Fully agree. Few businesses have accountability unless they choose to.
> I make the assumption that on a martial arts forum most of us are informed and need less input to make a decision on where and with who we workout. This is a good thing and should pull us together, not push us apart.



"So it is the businesses responsibility to inform the student, Before they ever go to a class, what/how/when/why the class is about? It is the student/persons job to be informed and know to a reasonable degree what they are buying. Otherwise they are just being gullible and foolish. It is not unusual for a person to have to try a class/product for a time to learn whether it is what they were looking for."

When you pass responsibility of accountability on to the students you can't blame students for demanding proof before purchase. 

Well you can. But it is a deceptive marketing ploy. 

And so I will hold martial arts that hold themselves accountable as a better martial art than ones that use these gimmicks to suck in students.

MMA has that accountability with no gimmicks. It is a very good example of a martial art that you can see the results before you invest. 

It is these tools that allow people to tell fact from fantasy.

I mean we are literally describing the difference between 

"show me MMA works."

And you get video, anecdotes, competition statistics, references and open mat sparring. 

"show me krav maga works."

And we get line after line of excuses as to why phones cameras don't work, they can't do competitions, they can't spar can't show resisted training and so on. 

The bias argument is incorrect. This all arts are equal is designed for arts that are not very good to try to appear better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> Even in a day like today.  When I go a tournament, I'm busy from early in the morning until late at night.  It could easily be a 10 hour day while I'm there, not to mention the couple of hours to travel there.  I'm finding my students and making sure they're in the right place at the right time.  I'm going back and forth to coach them, bring them water, find something they forgot.  I'm making sure the other coaches are in their right spot and know who they're supposed to be coaching.
> 
> My parents, if they're there, are coaching as well.  They're not just sitting in the stands ready to record.  My parents are black belts as well, and when we go to a tournament, they put in the work, too.
> 
> We have so much more important things to do than to worry about who got a match on video.


I’ve meant to capture video of several training drills for years. Some would be good marketing, others for analysis, others for future students. I’ve rarely gotten around to any of it - my focus is on teaching. What I have captured turns out not to be much use for any of those purposes. And I never have a spare student to ask to film. 

Priorities, I guess.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I hope everyone is well on this fine pandemic Monday. I actually care that you're all safe. I do, honest.
> 
> Know what I don't care about? I don't really care about anybody else's methods of training Martial Arts. About their style, their gym, their dojo, their method, their interpretation of the the Arts, and especially what any one of them/you-all might, or might not, think about somebody else's Art, gym, dojo, methods yadda yadda.
> 
> Kind of reminds me of growing up in Boston, going to a Catholic church....at least occasionally. Because the churches I went to....again, occasionally, were different churches. Yes, I was a church hopper. Shame.
> 
> They were all the _one true church_.  The _one true religion_.The _one true God_. But this was Boston. And I'm sure we all know what those particular churches were into back then.....the young parishioners.
> 
> I find Martial Arts teachings almost identical to religious teaching. Because we are the _One true Art_, the _One true style_, the _One true method_.
> Hosanna in the the F'ing highest! Now, please pass the collection plate. And, damn, if that doesn't sound like a lot of the Arts, I don't know what does.
> 
> I do not give one ship about how any of you do anything. I just hope it means something to you. I hope it helps you, gives you as much skill and enjoyment as what I do has given me.
> But I guess some love to be thy brother's keeper. So be it, I guess. I ain't any of yours, or anybody else's for that matter, so I really have no experience with any of that.
> With that said, I shall carry on. May you all do the same.
> Enjoy the day.


Well said, brother.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I hope everyone is well on this fine pandemic Monday. I actually care that you're all safe. I do, honest.
> 
> Know what I don't care about? I don't really care about anybody else's methods of training Martial Arts. About their style, their gym, their dojo, their method, their interpretation of the the Arts, and especially what any one of them/you-all might, or might not, think about somebody else's Art, gym, dojo, methods yadda yadda.
> 
> Kind of reminds me of growing up in Boston, going to a Catholic church....at least occasionally. Because the churches I went to....again, occasionally, were different churches. Yes, I was a church hopper. Shame.
> 
> They were all the _one true church_.  The _one true religion_.The _one true God_. But this was Boston. And I'm sure we all know what those particular churches were into back then.....the young parishioners.
> 
> I find Martial Arts teachings almost identical to religious teaching. Because we are the _One true Art_, the _One true style_, the _One true method_.
> Hosanna in the the F'ing highest! Now, please pass the collection plate. And, damn, if that doesn't sound like a lot of the Arts, I don't know what does.
> 
> I do not give one ship about how any of you do anything. I just hope it means something to you. I hope it helps you, gives you as much skill and enjoyment as what I do has given me.
> But I guess some love to be thy brother's keeper. So be it, I guess. I ain't any of yours, or anybody else's for that matter, so I really have no experience with any of that.
> With that said, I shall carry on. May you all do the same.
> Enjoy the day.


It's a great sentiment.  Personally, I don't care what people do with their free time.  On an individual level, go knock yourself out (literally or figuratively).  But in a discussion on the topic of how people train, people are going to share their opinions about how people train.  If that sort of thing isn't your bag, @Buka , I would stay out of the Wing Chun forum.  Hoo boy do those guys get deep into training specifics.

And the issue of how people train is a totally different conversation than about how people sell training.  When you introduce business of any kind into the mix, the game is altered.  So, while we can all get on board with a live and let live, kumbayah mentality for training, I think folks need to be accountable for what they're teaching or not teaching.  Particularly if money is exchanging hands.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I’ve meant to capture video of several training drills for years. Some would be good marketing, others for analysis, others for future students. I’ve rarely gotten around to any of it - my focus is on teaching. What I have captured turns out not to be much use for any of those purposes. And I never have a spare student to ask to film.
> 
> Priorities, I guess.


In a culture where performance of some kind is the intended outcome, evidence of performance is very easy to produce.  People who train MMA, BJJ, Boxing, Judo, Sambo, catch wrestling, freestyle wrestling, savate, TKD, kyokushin karate, or even sumo.  It's very easy to see examples of these skills being used.  With the ubiquitous nature of smart phones now, it's also ridiculously easy to see videos of cops, bouncers, and other professionals using their skills. 

Put it this way.  I've seen evidence that a school teacher can use recognizable elements of BJJ to win a BJJ competition as a black belt.  In fact, there is a lot of evidence that white collar workers can learn and apply the skills they've been taught.  From artists to math professors to doctors and lawyers, I've seen folks from all walks of life perform at high levels.  I've never seen evidence that a white collar worker can apply any recognizable aikido techniques outside of the school in which they train. 

I've seen examples of IT/network support engineers applying skills at an elite level in the UFC.  I've never seen an example of an IT/Network support engineer applying budo taijutsu techniques anywhere.  And, at the risk of stereotyping a little, I expect that network engineers are well represented within the ninja community.

So, all of that to say, the very fact that it's entirely on you to produce any kind of evidence speaks to a larger issue.


----------



## skribs

Buka said:


> I don't really care about anybody else's methods of training Martial Arts. About their style, their gym, their dojo, their method, their interpretation of the the Arts,



I have to disagree.  I love hearing about the different ways people train.



> and especially what any one of them/you-all might, or might not, think about somebody else's Art, gym, dojo, methods yadda yadda.



This is where I 100% agree.  People have their reasons for picking their style, and it's almost like they're offended when someone else picks a different style.  They're so quick to defend their choice, but all they're doing is putting everyone else down for no good reason.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> In a culture where performance of some kind is the intended outcome, evidence of performance is very easy to produce.  People who train MMA, BJJ, Boxing, Judo, Sambo, catch wrestling, freestyle wrestling, savate, TKD, kyokushin karate, or even sumo.  It's very easy to see examples of these skills being used.  With the ubiquitous nature of smart phones now, it's also ridiculously easy to see videos of cops, bouncers, and other professionals using their skills.
> 
> Put it this way.  I've seen evidence that a school teacher can use recognizable elements of BJJ to win a BJJ competition as a black belt.  In fact, there is a lot of evidence that white collar workers can learn and apply the skills they've been taught.  From artists to math professors to doctors and lawyers, I've seen folks from all walks of life perform at high levels.  I've never seen evidence that a white collar worker can apply any recognizable aikido techniques outside of the school in which they train.
> 
> I've seen examples of IT/network support engineers applying skills at an elite level in the UFC.  I've never seen an example of an IT/Network support engineer applying budo taijutsu techniques anywhere.  And, at the risk of stereotyping a little, I expect that network engineers are well represented within the ninja community.
> 
> So, all of that to say, the very fact that it's entirely on you to produce any kind of evidence speaks to a larger issue.



The difference is that all of those things on your list are sports.  Sports have spectators.  Sports post rankings and records.  Sports are an entertainment business where stuff is going to be posted.  Someone who isn't focused on the sport or entertainment isn't going to be making and posting videos.

I have seen news articles of Aikido students disarming gunmen.  It wasn't a white collar worker, it was an entry-level guy at a convenience store (or similar).  I'm having trouble finding the article now, but I guarantee you that pretty much every martial art has been successfully used in self-defense.

If I did ever have to use my techniques in self-defense, there may or may not be an article about it.  There almost definitely won't be a video about it.  What am I going to do, tell the guy "hold on, let me get a friend to record this so I can post me kicking your butt on insta"?  No.  Getting it on video is the last thing that would be on my mind.

One last thing is that you might not recognize a fighting style if you see it in action.  I train Taekwondo.  We do hip chambers in our forms.  We also keep our guard up when we drill punches.  So if you saw me throwing punches, "Taekwondo" might not be on your mind.  You might think I'm a kickboxer.  So you wouldn't attribute any of my skills to Taekwondo.  I've seen that happen numerous times, where people puff their chest about MMA and put down other arts, but the MMA fighter they're talking about is a traditional martial artist.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> The difference is that all of those things on your list are sports.  Sports have spectators.  Sports post rankings and records.  Sports are an entertainment business where stuff is going to be posted.  Someone who isn't focused on the sport or entertainment isn't going to be making and posting videos.
> 
> I have seen news articles of Aikido students disarming gunmen.  It wasn't a white collar worker, it was an entry-level guy at a convenience store (or similar).  I'm having trouble finding the article now, but I guarantee you that pretty much every martial art has been successfully used in self-defense.
> 
> If I did ever have to use my techniques in self-defense, there may or may not be an article about it.  There almost definitely won't be a video about it.  What am I going to do, tell the guy "hold on, let me get a friend to record this so I can post me kicking your butt on insta"?  No.  Getting it on video is the last thing that would be on my mind.
> 
> One last thing is that you might not recognize a fighting style if you see it in action.  I train Taekwondo.  We do hip chambers in our forms.  We also keep our guard up when we drill punches.  So if you saw me throwing punches, "Taekwondo" might not be on your mind.  You might think I'm a kickboxer.  So you wouldn't attribute any of my skills to Taekwondo.  I've seen that happen numerous times, where people puff their chest about MMA and put down other arts, but the MMA fighter they're talking about is a traditional martial artist.


Good point.  I could find some evidence of a cop using aikido techniques, and bouncers using aikido techniques.  I've never seen any evidence of any kind that a school teacher or a bus driver used recognizable aikido techniques. 

My hypothesis is that aikido benefits a school teacher no more or less than no training at all.  if you guys want to offer me a grant to fund my study, we could settle this once and for all.  We could even set up a school where students are encouraged to compete, to see how that affects skill development.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> Good point.  I could find some evidence of a cop using aikido techniques, and bouncers using aikido techniques.  I've never seen any evidence of any kind that a school teacher or a bus driver used recognizable aikido techniques.
> 
> My hypothesis is that aikido benefits a school teacher no more or less than no training at all.  if you guys want to offer me a grant to fund my study, we could settle this once and for all.  We could even set up a school where students are encouraged to compete, to see how that affects skill development.



Those are some strange goalposts you have, even before they start moving.

Why does the occupation matter?  Should we start screening students?  "Oh, you're a teacher, you need to take BJJ.  You're a bouncer?  Aikido.  You're an Instagram Influencer?  Go take Krav Maga."  That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for assessing whether a martial art is effective.

If you start a competition, training will start moving in the direction of what works in that competition.  For example, if I were to create a competition rule set for Hapkido, it would be 1-on-1, which would mean some of our training choices would be less applicable.  Compared to other grappling arts like wrestling and BJJ, we prefer to stay standing when we take an opponent down, in case one of their friends steps in to help.  We don't want to be tangled up with them and have their friend just kick us in the head while we're on the ground.

So you'd have to reconcile the competitive Hapkido (which may lean more toward strikes, or may start to learn groundfighting) with the practical Hapkido (which would feature more throws and control).  Are schools going to try and teach both, or lean one way or the other?  Now you've got one school that's doing "old-school" Hapkido, and another school that's doing "competitive" Hapkido, and if they both compete against each other, the competitive Hapkido school is going to do better.  That's not because it *is* better, it's going to be better designed for the competition.  There are reasons that the "old-school" school teaches the way they do, and those reasons might be lost on a "competitive" school.


----------



## skribs

skribs said:


> So you'd have to reconcile the competitive Hapkido (which may lean more toward strikes, or may start to learn groundfighting) with the practical Hapkido (which would feature more throws and control). Are schools going to try and teach both, or lean one way or the other? Now you've got one school that's doing "old-school" Hapkido, and another school that's doing "competitive" Hapkido, and if they both compete against each other, the competitive Hapkido school is going to do better. That's not because it *is* better, it's going to be better designed for the competition. There are reasons that the "old-school" school teaches the way they do, and those reasons might be lost on a "competitive" school.



A better comparison may be in IDPA vs. self-defense training.  An IDPA competition, you are limited to 10 rounds per magazine.  You may have 5 targets, and have to put 2 bullets on each target for maximum points.  In that context, the double-tap is the most important skill.

In a real self-defense situation, you don't have a 10 round limit.  You have as many bullets as your gun can legally hold (which in some states is 10 rounds).  You also pull the trigger until the attack stops, or you run out of ammo (whichever comes first).  

The IDPA shooter (or sport shooter) will probably have mastered the double-tap better than the self-defense shooter.  But that IDPA shooter would be foolish to criticize the self-defense shooter for practice rapid fire shots.  

Competition and real life are different situations.  A lot of the skills translate, but competition isn't an exact science, and isn't the only way to train.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> Those are some strange goalposts you have, even before they start moving.
> 
> Why does the occupation matter?  Should we start screening students?  "Oh, you're a teacher, you need to take BJJ.  You're a bouncer?  Aikido.  You're an Instagram Influencer?  Go take Krav Maga."  That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for assessing whether a martial art is effective.


  I can see that.  What I'm suggesting is that wherever people are actually performing, there is evidence.  A significant amount of evidence.





> If you start a competition, training will start moving in the direction of what works in that competition.  For example, if I were to create a competition rule set for Hapkido, it would be 1-on-1, which would mean some of our training choices would be less applicable.  Compared to other grappling arts like wrestling and BJJ, we prefer to stay standing when we take an opponent down, in case one of their friends steps in to help.  We don't want to be tangled up with them and have their friend just kick us in the head while we're on the ground.


For sure.  That's exactly what would happen.  You'd definitely need to take some care to either create a ruleset that reflects your goals, or encourage a variety of different competitive rulesets.  BJJ practitioners, for example, test their skills in IBJJF tournaments, submission only tournaments, gi and no gi, and also sometimes in Judo tournements, and MMA.  Many also use their skills professionally.  It's about being as expansive and creative as possible.  No reason to limit things.  





> So you'd have to reconcile the competitive Hapkido (which may lean more toward strikes, or may start to learn groundfighting) with the practical Hapkido (which would feature more throws and control).  Are schools going to try and teach both, or lean one way or the other?  Now you've got one school that's doing "old-school" Hapkido, and another school that's doing "competitive" Hapkido, and if they both compete against each other, the competitive Hapkido school is going to do better.  That's not because it *is* better, it's going to be better designed for the competition.  There are reasons that the "old-school" school teaches the way they do, and those reasons might be lost on a "competitive" school.


Could be. I don't know enough about hapkido (any version).  But I would agree that the guys who train for and compete in a version of hapkido would be better at applying the skills they use in that competition.  That said, I wonder if you could develop a ruleset that rewards control and throws.  I remember watching San Shou fights with Cung Le.  He was amazing.  Punches and then, fwoop.  His opponent was on the mat.  San Shou isn't MMA, so no ground fighting of any kind.  The guy goes down, is allowed to stand back up.  Encourages a very high level of proficiency with trips and throws, but doesn't do much for ground fighting. And this is exactly what we saw when he moved into MMA.  

As another, more extreme version, look at the trapping competitions encouraged within some kinds of Wing Chun.  I've seen formal and informal chi sau being done competitively.  I will freely admit that I don't understand enough about it to know the "rules."  But if it works for them and develops the skill they're looking for, more power to them. 

To be clear, this is independent of the topic of compatible or complimentary skillsets.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> As another, more extreme version, look at the trapping competitions encouraged within some kinds of Wing Chun. I've seen formal and informal chi sau being done competitively. I will freely admit that I don't understand enough about it to know the "rules." But if it works for them and develops the skill they're looking for, more power to them.



Then you have the problem that schools that focus exclusively on Chi Sau lose out on all of the other training that Wing Chun offers.  So you're basically making my point.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Good point.  I could find some evidence of a cop using aikido techniques, and bouncers using aikido techniques.  I've never seen any evidence of any kind that a school teacher or a bus driver used recognizable aikido techniques.
> 
> My hypothesis is that aikido benefits a school teacher no more or less than no training at all.  if you guys want to offer me a grant to fund my study, we could settle this once and for all.  We could even set up a school where students are encouraged to compete, to see how that affects skill development.



Selection bias.


He he.....


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> I have seen news articles of Aikido students disarming gunmen. It wasn't a white collar worker, it was an entry-level guy at a convenience store (or similar). I'm having trouble finding the article now, but I guarantee you that pretty much every martial art has been successfully used in self-defense.



This one.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> I guarantee you that pretty much every martial art has been successfully used in self-defense.



This is the important part. There have also been people with no martial arts who have been successful in self defense.  

One of the Beatles defended a home invasion.

So how do we conclude martial art is doing anything at all?


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> This is the important part. There have also been people with no martial arts who have been successful in self defense.
> 
> One of the Beatles defended a home invasion.
> 
> So how do we conclude martial art is doing anything at all?


Right.  There was also a news story about a person training to compete in American Ninja Warrior who successfully defended herself from an attempted rapist.  Guy had a knife to her throat, and she fought him off.  No martial arts training at all, but she could run up a 14' warped wall.


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> This one.


I think it's an interesting example, but when he said, "I'm looking forward to taking my next class, because apparently I've learned a lot," I literally laughed out loud.  You sure have, Gabe.  You sure have.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> It's a great sentiment.  Personally, I don't care what people do with their free time.  On an individual level, go knock yourself out (literally or figuratively).  But in a discussion on the topic of how people train, people are going to share their opinions about how people train.  If that sort of thing isn't your bag, @Buka , I would stay out of the Wing Chun forum.  Hoo boy do those guys get deep into training specifics.
> 
> And the issue of how people train is a totally different conversation than about how people sell training.  When you introduce business of any kind into the mix, the game is altered.  So, while we can all get on board with a live and let live, kumbayah mentality for training, I think folks need to be accountable for what they're teaching or not teaching.  Particularly if money is exchanging hands.



It's not a Kumbaya mentality, really, it's a not give a F mentality. Or as they say out here - "Me no care."

When you say "folks" need to be accountable for what they're teaching or not teaching, you're referring to Martial Arts schools, at least in particular.

To that I say, "Steve, what color is the sky in your world, brother?" Since when have the majority of Martial Arts schools even known what accountability meant? And some of them, honestly don't know, they do what they learned and go on to teach it and honestly think it's great.

But to me....it only makes good schools shine all the brighter.

But I'm not one of those Martial Police dicks who thinks it's his/her duty to enlighten the world. If somebody wants to that do that, fine, go ahead and open a bunch of dojos near every one you think teaches crap. 

The first dojo I opened was in 76. We were considered to be "not right". Because, as people said, "My God, they're hitting each other!"

Ten years later I was doing fighting seminars in those very schools that thought ill of us previously. Proud to say I helped change them for the better.

So, to all the Martial Police out there....put up or shut the F up. Pussies.


----------



## skribs

Buka said:


> We were considered to be "not right".



To be fair, I've sometimes wondered that about you myself


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> It's not a Kumbaya mentality, really, it's a not give a F mentality. Or as they say out here - "Me no care."
> 
> When you say "folks" need to be accountable for what they're teaching or not teaching, you're referring to Martial Arts schools, at least in particular.
> 
> To that I say, "Steve, what color is the sky in your world, brother?" Since when have the majority of Martial Arts schools even known what accountability meant? And some of them, honestly don't know, they do what they learned and go on to teach it and honestly think it's great.
> 
> But to me....it only makes good schools shine all the brighter.
> 
> But I'm not one of those Martial Police dicks who thinks it's his/her duty to enlighten the world. If somebody wants to that do that, fine, go ahead and open a bunch of dojos near every one you think teaches crap.
> 
> The first dojo I opened was in 76. We were considered to be "not right". Because, as people said, "My God, they're hitting each other!"
> 
> Ten years later I was doing fighting seminars in those very schools that thought ill of us previously. Proud to say I helped change them for the better.
> 
> So, to all the Martial Police out there....put up or shut the F up. Pussies.



It doesn't make good schools shine. Reality can't compete with fantasy if people can't tell the difference.

The best I can hope for is I wind up being able to towel up most martial artists out there and they never figure out why.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> It doesn't male good schools shine. Reality can't compete with fantasy if people can't tell the difference.
> 
> The best I can hope for is I wind up being able to towel up most martial artists out there and they never figure out why.



Welcome to the club, brother.

But in my opinion, it really does make good schools shine.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Welcome to the club, brother.
> 
> But in my opinion, it really does make good schools shine.



https://www.raw-combat.com/events

Someone out there is paying $400 for three days of this.

Bearing in mind Rob trains out of the sunny coast. And doesn't charge anything near that much.







Because people can't tell quality from crap they will literally believe anything.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> https://www.raw-combat.com/events
> 
> Someone out there is paying $400 for three days of this.
> 
> Bearing in mind Rob trains out of the sunny coast. And doesn't charge anything near that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because people can't tell quality from crap they will literally believe anything.



I disagree, I think people CAN tell quality from crap. Most people, anyway.

DB, I love MMA. Not just watching, either. I've read all your posts, watched the vids from the guys you train with, and I'm quite sure I'd love training at your school, no doubt in my mind. Because of our age differences, and what's been available to me, I'm also pretty sure I trained MMA, in a cage, quite some time before you ever had the opportunity. I really like MMA. 

Heck, Jorge Rivera tried to talk me into taking an MMA fight on a card he was putting on in Puerto Rico the following month. I was fifty three at the time, the guy I was supposed to fight was 23. I really wanted to take the fight, but I had to ask my wife first. She said no, threatened to both castrate and leave me, so I had to call Jorge and decline. (In hindsight, I should have taken that damn fight.) 
Jorge knew I wouldn't go crazy on the kid and wreck both him and his confidence. And I wouldn't have.




 
My nephew Dennis, who's been out of college for years now, Jorge and I. We used to train Dennis. The kid was like a sponge, just sucked up everything you threw at him and then some.

Anyway...if your gym was located in an area where there were other kinds of Martial Arts dojos, and prospective students were looking to learn Martial Arts, _if they visited all the available dojos and watched the training_ don't you think they would want to train with you guys? I think the other places would make you guys absolutely shine. And I don't believe any school instructor could BS anybody into how terrific their school was - not if people actually watched the training. And if they DID watch and picked some place else, who the hell would want them for a student anyway?

My wife and I were also MMA judges for the state. I remember judging young Kenny Florian and Joe Louzan's first fights. 

We also used to run clinics for the state on how to judge MMA. We would bring in fighters, and some Gracie guys we knew, and have them go at it. We would bring the people who were training to be judges right onto the mat, right up close, explain what they were seeing - and then put them in that position so they could feel it. (heh, heh, heh)

I really do love MMA. Some people don't. But I don't care if they don't. Their loss. I pretty much love most things about Martial Arts. I mean I still LOVE boxing....but don't want to be anywhere around it any more. Way too much BS and crookedness. I have no idea how it's survived this long. The fighters themselves, I love them - but every other aspect of boxing - F that and F them.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I disagree, I think people CAN tell quality from crap. Most people, anyway.


Some people.  A few people?   Okay.  One guy.  His name is Frank DeLaurentis, and he lives in Philadelphia. 

Seriously, it really depends, but where a product is preying on insecurity and fear, cognitive dissonance is a real thing, @Buka.  And regardless of how they get  there, once folks get into a social group, it's amazing how many things they can rationalize or ignore if they have an incentive to do so. Of course, some people who train to be modern day ninja are having a blast and don't take it seriously.  A lot of them do, however, and think they're learning real life self defense.  Substitute any other "style" or "system" or whatever you want to call it, where there is no independent evaluation of the training, and you will have some folks who don't know that's a red flag or are unwilling to believe it.

Another study I'd love to see (and if you guys want to fund me, I'll make it happen), is a personality/psych study about the kinds of people who gravitate toward self defense training vs martial arts for other reasons (sport, fitness, competition, culture, etc).  I would hypothesize that those who specifically gravitate to "self defense oriented" styles are doing so because they are insecure, stressed out, idealistic and naive, and are looking to impose some control over their lives.  These are the same kinds of traits that make someone very susceptible to a sales pitch of any kind.  And for self defense, the sales pitch is tailor made for these folks.  It's the equivalent of, "Lose 100 lbs without changing your diet or exercising!  You can do it by taking a single pill every morning."

This is where accountability really comes into play.  Are people accountable?  Sure.  But that presumes that the consumer has reasonable access to objective, independent information.  Where the entire industry is in on it, it's easy for folks to get sucked in.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> But that presumes that the consumer has reasonable access to objective, independent information.



There is no such thing.  For example, I live in America.  I have American friends who only read foreign news, because that news is objective.  For example, they'll read BBC or Al Jazeera instead of CNN, MSNBC, or Fox, because the foreign news is objective.  But the foreign news have their own biases.  They have their own opinions, their own politics that they see us through.  It's not objective.

Then you come to the other question of who is considered correct in assessing these places?  Some people believe all fighting competitions are just sporting events, and only real world proof matters.  Others believe that fighting competitions are the only way to effectively test your skills, and all real world uses are just anecdotes; useless data because we couldn't control any variables.

So who do we listen to?  Who do we appoint as the arbiter of martial arts?  There are a lot of opinions.  A lot of them work, even though they conflict with each other.  And how do you enforce it, even if you can come to a consensus?


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I disagree, I think people CAN tell quality from crap. Most people, anyway.
> 
> DB, I love MMA. Not just watching, either. I've read all your posts, watched the vids from the guys you train with, and I'm quite sure I'd love training at your school, no doubt in my mind. Because of our age differences, and what's been available to me, I'm also pretty sure I trained MMA, in a cage, quite some time before you ever had the opportunity. I really like MMA.
> 
> Heck, Jorge Rivera tried to talk me into taking an MMA fight on a card he was putting on in Puerto Rico the following month. I was fifty three at the time, the guy I was supposed to fight was 23. I really wanted to take the fight, but I had to ask my wife first. She said no, threatened to both castrate and leave me, so I had to call Jorge and decline. (In hindsight, I should have taken that damn fight.)
> Jorge knew I wouldn't go crazy on the kid and wreck both him and his confidence. And I wouldn't have.
> 
> View attachment 22841
> My nephew Dennis, who's been out of college for years now, Jorge and I. We used to train Dennis. The kid was like a sponge, just sucked up everything you threw at him and then some.
> 
> Anyway...if your gym was located in an area where there were other kinds of Martial Arts dojos, and prospective students were looking to learn Martial Arts, _if they visited all the available dojos and watched the training_ don't you think they would want to train with you guys? I think the other places would make you guys absolutely shine. And I don't believe any school instructor could BS anybody into how terrific their school was - not if people actually watched the training. And if they DID watch and picked some place else, who the hell would want them for a student anyway?
> 
> My wife and I were also MMA judges for the state. I remember judging young Kenny Florian and Joe Louzan's first fights.
> 
> We also used to run clinics for the state on how to judge MMA. We would bring in fighters, and some Gracie guys we knew, and have them go at it. We would bring the people who were training to be judges right onto the mat, right up close, explain what they were seeing - and then put them in that position so they could feel it. (heh, heh, heh)
> 
> I really do love MMA. Some people don't. But I don't care if they don't. Their loss. I pretty much love most things about Martial Arts. I mean I still LOVE boxing....but don't want to be anywhere around it any more. Way too much BS and crookedness. I have no idea how it's survived this long. The fighters themselves, I love them - but every other aspect of boxing - F that and F them.



It ultimately has nothing to do with MMA.

I could make the same argument against healing crystals or water divination.

Healing crystals don't make cancer medications shine. Professionalism of the medical profession and peer reviewed research make cancer medications shine. 

And even with that process there are enough people to support healing crystals as an industry. 

Martial artists mostly don't stand a chance.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> It ultimately has nothing to do with MMA.
> 
> I could make the same argument against healing crystals or water divination.
> 
> Healing crystals don't make cancer medications shine. Professionalism of the medical profession and peer reviewed research make cancer medications shine.
> 
> And even with that process there are enough people to support healing crystals as an industry.
> 
> Martial artists mostly don't stand a chance.



Isn't it largely a matter of opinion? For example, I know people who believe cancer medication is one of the biggest rip-offs in the medical industry. But if someone truly believes a (safe) product works for them isn't that is a good thing? It doesn't mean it has to work for you or me. 
Like @skribs said; who sets the standard for the martial arts industry? That does not imply it is a bad product. Else there would be no quack doctors because they are all certified and 'held' to a standard? Yea, right.

More to the point, there are quacks in the medical profession just like there are lousy MA instructors. That is a consistency in every industry out there. That does not mean the same opinion should be cast over everyone in a given industry. So railing that martials arts instructor automatically means a crap product or a bad person does not hunt. 

I do completely believe there is a Lot of power (healing and otherwise) in believing something is going to work. I have never heard of a healing crystal so cannot speak to them. Divining rods? In their day it was the best thing people had so that has to mean something. It was good enough for people to start exploiting. We can use science to prove most anything does not work if we so choose to. I think we can all make a list of things that are not "medically approved" that have medicinal purposes. 

Or you can take the approach of the old saying "There is a sucker born every minute and two to take them". Which I think is Always true Some of the time. 

So, person A is an athlete and very knowledgeable about sports in general. They have done their research and have a good idea of what they are looking for. Person B is an out of shape office worker with zero exercise/sports experience. They both join a MA class and really enjoy every aspect of it. How is this selling someone short or a bad product? 

Martial arts schools/practice is a 'one size fits all' product in the aspect that there is something for every level of athlete or non-athlete in a good program. Every program? No. That is where the onus in on the person at some point in the process more than the product.  
In all of my MA travels I have never been in a dojo/dojang that just works on one thing or even a subset of things. I have to believe in this day and age people are way too informed. It is just too easy to do. Are there some gullible people out there? Sure. 

I really, really, really like how @Buka laid it down. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what anyone else perceives as a good class/product as long as it works for me and my goals/ideas.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> In a culture where performance of some kind is the intended outcome, evidence of performance is very easy to produce.  People who train MMA, BJJ, Boxing, Judo, Sambo, catch wrestling, freestyle wrestling, savate, TKD, kyokushin karate, or even sumo.  It's very easy to see examples of these skills being used.  With the ubiquitous nature of smart phones now, it's also ridiculously easy to see videos of cops, bouncers, and other professionals using their skills.
> 
> Put it this way.  I've seen evidence that a school teacher can use recognizable elements of BJJ to win a BJJ competition as a black belt.  In fact, there is a lot of evidence that white collar workers can learn and apply the skills they've been taught.  From artists to math professors to doctors and lawyers, I've seen folks from all walks of life perform at high levels.  I've never seen evidence that a white collar worker can apply any recognizable aikido techniques outside of the school in which they train.
> 
> I've seen examples of IT/network support engineers applying skills at an elite level in the UFC.  I've never seen an example of an IT/Network support engineer applying budo taijutsu techniques anywhere.  And, at the risk of stereotyping a little, I expect that network engineers are well represented within the ninja community.
> 
> So, all of that to say, the very fact that it's entirely on you to produce any kind of evidence speaks to a larger issue.


Nothing I said had anything to do with evidence, Steve. You're replaying the same song again.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Good point.  I could find some evidence of a cop using aikido techniques, and bouncers using aikido techniques.  I've never seen any evidence of any kind that a school teacher or a bus driver used recognizable aikido techniques.
> 
> My hypothesis is that aikido benefits a school teacher no more or less than no training at all.  if you guys want to offer me a grant to fund my study, we could settle this once and for all.  We could even set up a school where students are encouraged to compete, to see how that affects skill development.


As with most things, it likely would depend how the Aikido is trained and tested, and how much that school teacher puts into it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Selection bias.
> 
> 
> He he.....


So close....


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Nothing I said had anything to do with evidence, Steve. You're replaying the same song again.


my point is that it shouldn't be entirely on you.  If it is, that in itself is to telling.  In other words, the idea that there is no evidence if you don't prioritize it yourself is exactly the point.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> As with most things, it likely would depend how the Aikido is trained and tested, and how much that school teacher puts into it.


so close....


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> my point is that it shouldn't be entirely on you.  If it is, that in itself is to telling.  In other words, the idea that there is no evidence if you don't prioritize it yourself is exactly the point.



And what is that point?  Are you in the camp of "lack of proof is proof of lack"?

How does someone go about getting that evidence?  Especially if they're not training for competition, they're going to have to change their training to meet the competition.  Unless they're supposed to get real-world evidence, which would mean they'd have to betray their morals and purposefully get into a street fight.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> And what is that point?  Are you in the camp of "lack of proof is proof of lack"?
> 
> How does someone go about getting that evidence?  Especially if they're not training for competition, they're going to have to change their training to meet the competition.  Unless they're supposed to get real-world evidence, which would mean they'd have to betray their morals and purposefully get into a street fight.


I'm saying that it's easy to find evidence of things that exist.  If you are the one person who could provide evidence of something, and just don't prioritize it, that sounds fishy to me.  Buka brought up religion and the analogy is apropos.   Because where evidence doesn't exist, one must have faith. Ergo, ninjutsu is a faith based art.  Aikido is a faith based art. 

Edit:. Just to be clear, whether faith is involved or not is outside of whether it exists. God may exist.  There just happens to be no evidence.  Only faith.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Isn't it largely a matter of opinion? For example, I know people who believe cancer medication is one of the biggest rip-offs in the medical industry. But if someone truly believes a (safe) product works for them isn't that is a good thing? It doesn't mean it has to work for you or me.



No.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> I do completely believe there is a Lot of power (healing and otherwise) in believing something is going to work. I have never heard of a healing crystal so cannot speak to them. Divining rods? In their day it was the best thing people had so that has to mean something. It was good enough for people to start exploiting. We can use science to prove most anything does not work if we so choose to. I think we can all make a list of things that are not "medically approved" that have medicinal purposes.



Also no.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I'm saying that it's easy to find evidence of things that exist.  If you are the one person who could provide evidence of something, and just don't prioritize it, that sounds fishy to me.  Buka brought up religion and the analogy is apropos.   Because where evidence doesn't exist, one must have faith. Ergo, ninjutsu is a faith based art.  Aikido is a faith based art.
> 
> Edit:. Just to be clear, whether faith is involved or not is outside of whether it exists. God may exist.  There just happens to be no evidence.  Only faith.


what evidence do you think people should have ?

much of our tech world is based entirely on faith, there may be evidence, but most people haven't seen it and wouldn't understand it if they did.

some authority figure tells them its so and they believe with out evidence, if you had to see evidence for every last thing before you believed it was so, then you would never do anything

most folk have very little idea and no evidence that latent heat exchange is a thing, but they all seems to use refrigerators with little problem, this very morning i got out of bed based entirely on faith that the floor wouldn't collapse under my feet, the only evidence i had is that it didn't collapse yesterday and so would probably wouldn't do today, someone who insisted on evidence before getting out of bed would quite possibly be deemed to have mental health issues

so what evidence should people have before they establish a belief that something is so ?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> what evidence do you think people should have ?
> 
> much of our tech world is based entirely on faith, there may be evidence, but most people haven't seen it and wouldn't understand it if they did.
> 
> some authority figure tells them its so and they believe with out evidence, if you had to see evidence for every last thing before you believed it was so, then you would never do anything
> 
> most folk have very little idea and no evidence that latent heat exchange is a thing, but they all seems to use refrigerators with little problem, this very morning i got out of bed based entirely on faith that the floor wouldn't collapse under my feet, the only evidence i had is that it didn't collapse yesterday and so would probably wouldn't do today, someone who insisted on evidence before getting out of bed would quite possibly be deemed to have mental health issues
> 
> so what evidence should people have before they establish a belief that something is so ?



How about something as simple as proving the fridge keep something cold?

And this is fundamentally the issue we are having.

You are all about having to know how a fridge works. Before you can decide if it does.

But you just put something in there come back an hour later and check on it.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> How about something as simple as proving the fridge keep something cold?
> 
> And this is fundamentally the issue we are having.
> 
> You are all about having to know how a fridge works. Before you can decide if it does.
> 
> But you just put something in there come back an hour later and check on it.


 but your fridge keeps something cold is no evidence that mine will/does ? and that it keeps things cold today is no evidence it will tomorrow

but this it '' works for me'' evidence is the very evidence your taking issue with


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but your fridge keeps something cold is no evidence that mine will/does ? and that it keeps things cold today is no evidence it will tomorrow
> 
> but this it '' works for me'' evidence is the very evidence your taking issue with



No. It isn't anecdotal or opinion. I could video my fridge. I could get an independent witness. I could even video my fridge keeping  things cold for the next year. There are thousands of the same brand of fridge behaving I  the same way for the same reason.

It is the opposite of "it works for me"


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> No. It isn't anecdotal or opinion. I could video my fridge. I could get an independent witness. I could even video my fridge keeping  things cold for the next year. There are thousands of the same brand of fridge behaving I  the same way for the same reason.
> 
> It is the opposite of "it works for me"


thats sound like an interesting challenge, go on prove ''your fridge works'' ?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> thats sound like an interesting challenge, go on prove ''your fridge works'' ?



It is required by law to work. 
Warranty Information for Fisher & Paykel Appliances Australia


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> It is required by law to work.
> Warranty Information for Fisher & Paykel Appliances Australia


so no evidence then, nothing zilch, ?

it was you that said it was easy to prove !


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> so close....


Did you have a point? Or were you just defending drop bear?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> my point is that it shouldn't be entirely on you.  If it is, that in itself is to telling.  In other words, the idea that there is no evidence if you don't prioritize it yourself is exactly the point.


There are plenty of other videos out there about NGA and the other sources I've derived from. That post was entirely about me not having video of my teaching approach. Videos of other folks would patently NOT be evidence of my teaching approach, now would they?


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> so no evidence then, nothing zilch, ?
> 
> it was you that said it was easy to prove !



Yeah. There is a legally binding guarantee  that my fridge keeps things cold. How is that not evidence that my fridge keeps things cold?

If it doesn't keep things cold I get a new fridge. If that doesn't keep things cold I continue to get a new fridge untill it does keep things cold.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. There is a legally binding guarantee  that my fridge keeps things cold. How is that not evidence that my fridge keeps things cold?
> 
> If it doesn't keep things cold I get a new fridge. If that doesn't keep things cold I continue to get a new fridge untill it does keep things cold.


So, if there were a legal requirement that martial arts were effective, that would be proof all MA work? A requirement isn't evidence - it's an attempt at legal protection.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> There are plenty of other videos out there about NGA and the other sources I've derived from. That post was entirely about me not having video of my teaching approach. Videos of other folks would patently NOT be evidence of my teaching approach, now would they?



They would be evidence that at least any teaching approach exists.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, if there were a legal requirement that martial arts were effective, that would be proof all MA work? A requirement isn't evidence - it's an attempt at legal protection.



A guarantee would guarantee martial arts works. 

It is kind of in the description.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah. There is a legally binding guarantee  that my fridge keeps things cold. How is that not evidence that my fridge keeps things cold?
> 
> If it doesn't keep things cold I get a new fridge. If that doesn't keep things cold I continue to get a new fridge untill it does keep things cold.


 coz it could have broke this morning and you've an outstanding warranty claim, but first you need to actually prove you own that fridge, in fact that you own any fridge

then you need to do as you promised, provided independent testimony and a video diary of it working for the next year


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> coz it could have broke this morning and you've an outstanding warranty claim, but first you need to actually prove you own that fridge, in fact that you own any fridge
> 
> then you need to do as you promised, provided independent testimony and a video diary of it working for the next year



I only need to video it working now to show it hasn't broken this morning.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> A guarantee would guarantee martial arts works.
> 
> It is kind of in the description.


they dont guarantee that a fridge will work, they guarantee they will replace it with another one if it doesn't, that must be obvious, appliances under warrantee break down all the time


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> I only need to video it working now to show it hasn't broken this morning.


 no you need to provide the evidence that you said was easy to provided, you appear to be welching on your claim, 

your big on insisting on very specific evidence from others, but no so hot if its you


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> If you are the one person who could provide evidence of something, and just don't prioritize it, that sounds fishy to me.



I'd rather someone not have evidence, than when you say "show me the proof" they go out and beat someone up.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Did you have a point? Or were you just defending drop bear?


yeah.  I do.  And you almost got there.   Clearly, trying to discuss things isn't working.  I figure I'll just try and adopt your tactics.  Is that a problem?


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Also no.


I anticipated such a response. 
I am an engineer with two Masters degrees and multi business owner (I know, la-di-da). Pretty much a full on nerd in the aspects of discovery. I have to use SM in my work all the time. I am probably the most obsessed person you will meet when it comes to finding 'concrete' evidence. Although I imagine you would give me a good race. 

History has countless examples of things/methods/products that had been 'proven' to be the best for a given purpose, only to find it was full of flaws. Mercury, radiation, tobacco, cocaine are just a few that come to mind. For a time, they were all miracle cures.

Granted, not as much in this day and age but some choices are made because of a lack of choices. Just real world stuff. I would say more often a choice is made based on the aggregate of circumstances. I will try to make up a scenario: You are on a job digging a shallow well several miles away from any resources. Your main tool breaks close to finishing the job. You have other tools that can finish the job but will require a lot of extra work. What do you do? Delay a day or two to get the correct tool or add labor cost and time to the job? And these kinds of 'what ifs' go much deeper and go on and on in the real world.

On paper we can all set back and look at problem, scenario, or product in the best case and say "this is what I would do" but that is so far from practical. 
So, in regards to MA's I don't know how any of us can arbitrarily call a school/instructor/teacher/style bad without spending some time with it/them.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> they dont guarantee that a fridge will work, they guarantee they will replace it with another one if it doesn't, that must be obvious, appliances under warrantee break down all the time


This is stupid.  You can open a fridge and feel the cold air.  You can put meat in the fridge and leave meat out of the fridge and see that the meat inside the fridge stays good for longer.  You don't need to know how a fridge works to know that a fridge works.  But what if someone tries to sell you something called a fludge?  They say it works just like a fridge, but doesn't use any energy and doesn't need to keep food cold.  Oh and you can't put any food in it.  But if you did, it would stay fresh, just like a fridge.  Trust us.

That's self defense training.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> No. It isn't anecdotal or opinion. I could video my fridge. I could get an independent witness. I could even video my fridge keeping  things cold for the next year. There are thousands of the same brand of fridge behaving I  the same way for the same reason.
> 
> It is the opposite of "it works for me"


True enough and I totally agree with the logic. But there is always a few that fail in short order. So the logic is not flawless, just the best we have.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> No.


Why?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> This is stupid.  You can open a fridge and feel the cold air.  You can put meat in the fridge and leave meat out of the fridge and see that the meat inside the fridge stays good for longer.  You don't need to know how a fridge works to know that a fridge works.  But what if someone tries to sell you something called a fludge?  They say it works just like a fridge, but doesn't use any energy and doesn't need to keep food cold.  Oh and you can't out any food in it.  But if you did, it would stay fresh, just like a fridge.


so its simply evidence by demonstration, it works because ive seen it work ?

so then my MA works as ive seen it work, just like my fridge works today, nether may work next week !

nb you can easily build a fluge that keeps thinks cool with out using any energy, other than free energy from the sun, thats how they made icecream before the invention of electricity, a i build one to keep my beer cool whilst camping, it does however require that you are aware of latent heat exchange

and of course cellars have much the same temp as a fridge, hence people keep wine in them and food in the old days. someone selling you either as an energy free cooling device isnt lying


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> so its simply evidence by demonstration, it works because ive seen it work ?
> 
> so then my MA works as ive seen it work, just like my fridge works today, nether may work next week !
> 
> nb you can easily build a fluge that keeps thinks cool with out using any energy, other than free energy from the sun, thats how they made icecream before the invention of electricity, i build one to keep my beer cool whilst camping
> 
> and of course cellars have much the same temp as a fridge, hence people keep wine in them


Kind of the opposite.  It's about being repeatable, and about the context.  I can see plenty of evidence that fridges work.  I can also see that my fridge works.  I can also make my fridge work by using my fridge.  And through daily use, I can honestly say that I'm an expert at using my fridge.  I know how to keep the veggies fresh and the fruit fresh, and how to make my cilantro last a good week, if needed.  But I couldn't buy a fridge in Europe and plug it into my wall outlet in America, because even though fridges work in general, and European fridges work in Europe, and even this specific unit I have would work for someone else, it doesn't work for me here.  Self defense training is kind of like being that person, sold a 220 v fridge in a 110v environment.  The salesman just says, "Hey, it's a good fridge. A great fridge.  Keep it, and when you need it, plug it in and it will work.  I promise.  Look.  Here's an adapter that makes the plug look just like those other ones."


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Kind of the opposite.  It's about being repeatable, and about the context.  I can see plenty of evidence that fridges work.  I can also see that my fridge works.  I can also make my fridge work by using my fridge.  And through daily use, I can honestly say that I'm an expert at using my fridge.  I know how to keep the veggies fresh and the fruit fresh, and how to make my cilantro last a good week, if needed.  But I couldn't buy a fridge in Europe and plug it into my wall outlet in America, because even though fridges work in general, and European fridges work in Europe, and even this specific unit I have would work for someone else, it doesn't work for me here.  Self defense training is kind of like being that person, sold a 220 v fridge in a 110v environment.  The salesman just says, "Hey, it's a good fridge. A great fridge.  Keep it, and when you need it, plug it in and it will work.  I promise.  Look.  Here's an adapter that makes the plug look just like those other ones."


so then the question i asked above which you ignored, what evidence do you require that my MA works for self defence.

the physics of it works, just like the physics of a fridge work, both may break down.

i know it works as ive seen it work, just like youve seen your fridge work, how do i prove that to you, if we shared a town i could pop round and do some friendly sparing and have a cold beer from your fridge, easy demonstrated, but we are a few thousand miles apart and lets be equal about this how are you going to prove your ma is better ?


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> Kind of the opposite. It's about being repeatable, and about the context. I can see plenty of evidence that fridges work. I can also see that my fridge works. I can also make my fridge work by using my fridge. And through daily use, I can honestly say that I'm an expert at using my fridge. I know how to keep the veggies fresh and the fruit fresh, and how to make my cilantro last a good week, if needed. But I couldn't buy a fridge in Europe and plug it into my wall outlet in America, because even though fridges work in general, and European fridges work in Europe, and even this specific unit I have would work for someone else, it doesn't work for me here. Self defense training is kind of like being that person, sold a 220 v fridge in a 110v environment. The salesman just says, "Hey, it's a good fridge. A great fridge. Keep it, and when you need it, plug it in and it will work. I promise. Look. Here's an adapter that makes the plug look just like those other ones."



That's...generally how buying appliances works.  I don't think an appliance shop can afford to keep stock on the floor for a few weeks while you test the equipment to make sure it works.


----------



## isshinryuronin

These kinds of discussions are not practical.  Too many variables.  What if this fridge will keep dairy cold, but not veggies?  This is a more realistic scenario..  One's self-defense may work against one fighting style, but not another.  Once I beat a top champion.  Was I more skilled than him?  No way.  But I just happen to have the right key for his particular lock, at least on that day.

Along the same lines, from actual experience:  I had an extreme chronic cramp in my right thigh, almost to the point of crippling me.  This torture continued for several weeks.  I went to an orthopedic doctor, another guy who was a specialist in something, some other doctor, a chiropractor, got an Xray and had some other very expensive tests.  Nobody could find anything or help me in any way.  But at least I found out what I didn't have.  I finally got to a physical therapist and after 10 minutes she diagnosed the problem.  Getting an elbow digging in just above my butt, in 20 minutes I was cured!!!  Weeks of pain - gone. Now, was this PT more educated, more skilled, had better resources than the others I saw?  Overall, no.  But this particular therapist had the answer to my specific problem (plus, she was very attractive.)

Going back to the original topic, some SD courses are commercial crap.  At the best, they can teach some basic technique and strategy/tactics and even give some self confidence (which may not be backed up by actual skill, but the way one carries themselves can sometimes forestall an attack.)  Of course it's up to the individual to put all this in play.  Not everyone has the desire or will to devote years to train in MA.  So, I don't condemn all short term SD programs.  All it takes is one good eye poke.  But, _caveat emptor._




​


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Why?



Why are healing crystals and cancer medication both a matter of personal opinion?

Kind of similar to the fridge conversation if we added a unicorn and then tried to compare their ability to keep things cold.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> True enough and I totally agree with the logic. But there is always a few that fail in short order. So the logic is not flawless, just the best we have.



It doesn't have to be flawless. That is this weird argument people make that lets say you use a fridge and it does break down. That doesn't endorse every thing else. 

I don't know does not equal God.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> That's...generally how buying appliances works.  I don't think an appliance shop can afford to keep stock on the floor for a few weeks while you test the equipment to make sure it works.



Martial artists can sell a product for years without ever testing it. They can sell a product train a guy with it who can sell a product without ever testing it.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Martial artists can sell a product for years without ever testing it. They can sell a product train a guy with it who can sell a product without ever testing it.


its not a product its a service


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> its not a product its a service



Semantics.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Semantics.


no not at all, thats like saying elephants and horses are different is semantics 

this may be at the bottom of your confusion,, fridge ,,,product, MA instruction,,, service


----------



## Gweilo

Jeez, get a room, we are all individuals, what works for me, does not work for everyone else, we can all quote facts and figures that support our own veiws, DB with his sport derivived data from 150,000 ring sport derived facts, to an Akidoist JP, with 1/2 century of students, to a jack the lad, and his own experiences in a rough area, truth be told, if you, have not used your skill to diffuse, control, or destroy an opponent or situation, you have no proof, if you have, or have on many occasion, then you do have proof, some, or most train in blind faith, others know.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> no not at all, thats like saying elephants and horses are different is semantics
> 
> this may be at the bottom of your confusion,, fridge ,,,product, MA instruction,,, service



Not if you are describing common atributes.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Not if you are describing common atributes.


and which common attributes does a fridge and ma instruction have ?


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Martial artists can sell a product for years without ever testing it. They can sell a product train a guy with it who can sell a product without ever testing it.


Again with the broad brush stroke. That just is not true for All martial arts. Some? Sure but not all.
 I would argue that not all MMA matches are valid. Some have absolutely zero value. And this is Much more true for videos.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Self defense training is kind of like being that person, sold a 220 v fridge in a 110v environment. The salesman just says, "Hey, it's a good fridge. A great fridge. Keep it, and when you need it, plug it in and it will work. I promise. Look. Here's an adapter that makes the plug look just like those other ones."


That is a ridiculous assertion and a high percentage of what you describe is on the person/buyer. 
Why are you so obsessed with thinking people cannot be informed and intelligent about a purchase or product? Why in the world would I buy a European fridge for my home in America? Why in the world would you not discover all you can about a product? This comes largely through experience and wisdom, sometimes in the form of learning from out mistakes.  
It rings of the old saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> They would be evidence that at least any teaching approach exists.


Someone else's. Which wouldn't really say anything about my approach. No matter how good or bad those other examples are (and, yeah, other examples do exist), they wouldn't reflect either positively or negatively on my own approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> A guarantee would guarantee martial arts works.
> 
> It is kind of in the description.


Um, that's not really how a guarantee works. It guarantees some compensation if the conditions aren't met. A guarantee on a fridge doesn't actually mean the fridge will 100% work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> yeah.  I do.  And you almost got there.   Clearly, trying to discuss things isn't working.  I figure I'll just try and adopt your tactics.  Is that a problem?


Only when it is apropos of nothing. My comment was a continuation of an ongoing discussion. Yours was just random words stuck in to try to be clever.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> This is stupid.  You can open a fridge and feel the cold air.  You can put meat in the fridge and leave meat out of the fridge and see that the meat inside the fridge stays good for longer.  You don't need to know how a fridge works to know that a fridge works.  But what if someone tries to sell you something called a fludge?  They say it works just like a fridge, but doesn't use any energy and doesn't need to keep food cold.  Oh and you can't put any food in it.  But if you did, it would stay fresh, just like a fridge.  Trust us.
> 
> That's self defense training.


That's an interesting analogy. So, your claim is that folks teaching with a self-defense orientation are universally making some extraordinary claim that their training doesn't require something that sport-oriented training requires? What is that "something" you're alleging we all - every one of us, apparently, by the post I'm quoting - claim is necessary for sport training, but not for self-defense-oriented training?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Kind of the opposite.  It's about being repeatable, and about the context.  I can see plenty of evidence that fridges work.  I can also see that my fridge works.  I can also make my fridge work by using my fridge.  And through daily use, I can honestly say that I'm an expert at using my fridge.  I know how to keep the veggies fresh and the fruit fresh, and how to make my cilantro last a good week, if needed.  But I couldn't buy a fridge in Europe and plug it into my wall outlet in America, because even though fridges work in general, and European fridges work in Europe, and even this specific unit I have would work for someone else, it doesn't work for me here.  Self defense training is kind of like being that person, sold a 220 v fridge in a 110v environment.  The salesman just says, "Hey, it's a good fridge. A great fridge.  Keep it, and when you need it, plug it in and it will work.  I promise.  Look.  Here's an adapter that makes the plug look just like those other ones."


But if you've never used it professionally, did you ever really use that fridge?


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> That is a ridiculous assertion and a high percentage of what you describe is on the person/buyer.
> Why are you so obsessed with thinking people cannot be informed and intelligent about a purchase or product? Why in the world would I buy a European fridge for my home in America? Why in the world would you not discover all you can about a product? This comes largely through experience and wisdom, sometimes in the form of learning from out mistakes.
> It rings of the old saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".


of course it's ridiculous. And yet, that's self defense training.  Once again, it seems obvious until cognitive dissonance sets in and you apply the same standard to self defense training.  Then you just sort of lash out.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's an interesting analogy. So, your claim is that folks teaching with a self-defense orientation are universally making some extraordinary claim that their training doesn't require something that sport-oriented training requires? What is that "something" you're alleging we all - every one of us, apparently, by the post I'm quoting - claim is necessary for sport training, but not for self-defense-oriented training?


Not all of them, Gerry.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> But if you've never used it professionally, did you ever really use that fridge?


professionally is one way.  Amateur is another.  And both are different from never.  Now, if I were you, this is where I would accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting my point.  Isn't that your go to play when someone responds as you do above?

As a percentage, most things people do are not professional.  But they do them.  Self defense is the single exception.  Unless....  Are you going to share another example?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Um, that's not really how a guarantee works. It guarantees some compensation if the conditions aren't met. A guarantee on a fridge doesn't actually mean the fridge will 100% work.


I'm sorry you were raped.  Would you like your tuition for April refunded to your card?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's an interesting analogy. So, your claim is that folks teaching with a self-defense orientation are universally making some extraordinary claim that their training doesn't require something that sport-oriented training requires? What is that "something" you're alleging we all - every one of us, apparently, by the post I'm quoting - claim is necessary for sport training, but not for self-defense-oriented training?



Results I think is the "something" you are looking for.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Um, that's not really how a guarantee works. It guarantees some compensation if the conditions aren't met. A guarantee on a fridge doesn't actually mean the fridge will 100% work.



No but it puts ownus on the fridge maker to produce a product that will probably work.

Self defense never has to work.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Someone else's. Which wouldn't really say anything about my approach. No matter how good or bad those other examples are (and, yeah, other examples do exist), they wouldn't reflect either positively or negatively on my own approach.



People are really paying for a mystery box of mystery when the sign up tho be trained then.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not all of them, Gerry.


Okay, that clarifies a bit. Your post sounded like you meant it to apply to all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> professionally is one way.  Amateur is another.  And both are different from never.  Now, if I were you, this is where I would accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting my point.  Isn't that your go to play when someone responds as you do above?
> 
> As a percentage, most things people do are not professional.  But they do them.  Self defense is the single exception.  Unless....  Are you going to share another example?


 You're still drawing a distinction between self-defense fighting skill and fighting skill. They're not that different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> I'm sorry you were raped.  Would you like your tuition for April refunded to your card?


What the actual hell was that, Steve?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Results I think is the "something" you are looking for.


No, I don't think I've ever heard a self-defense-oriented place claim they don't have to produce results. Some probably don't, but I've never heard that claim made by them. I think your analogy is backwards if that was your point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> People are really paying for a mystery box of mystery when the sign up tho be trained then.


Mostly, they watch classes or attend a few to see if it's what they want. They get to see (and experience, if they choose) my teaching approach that way. It's much more informative than a few videos would ever be. Most also have training in other arts, so are well equipped to make that decision. Mostly, folks from Australia seem to have a hard time finding information on my training approach, but they rarely come by to watch classes and quite literally never sign up for training, so it seems a non-issue.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> of course it's ridiculous. And yet, that's self defense training.  Once again, it seems obvious until cognitive dissonance sets in and you apply the same standard to self defense training.  Then you just sort of lash out.


I assure you I am not lashing out. Trying to counter your instant negativity? Yes.
I am trying to understand you atypical attitude toward all things business/product related. In your context, it is as though all consumers (aka everyone) are doomed. Whether it is joining a martial arts program or buying a refrigerator. No one can follow your logic and live a happy life.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> professionally is one way.  Amateur is another.  And both are different from never.  Now, if I were you, this is where I would accuse you of intentionally misrepresenting my point.  Isn't that your go to play when someone responds as you do above?
> 
> As a percentage, most things people do are not professional.  But they do them.  Self defense is the single exception.  Unless....  Are you going to share another example?



This is where your argument(s) get so broad and circular it is obvious you just want to argue ad nauseum.
I will ask you again; define self defense and it's training. Define amateur and professional. Define your idea of a self defense scenario and how/what you use as defense. Define how MA training, any training does not or would not help. Do not be stereotypical, be real. 
@Gweilo made a very good point about using self defense in the real world. What category does this fall in? 

Some time ago I argued the value of mandated standards for martial arts schools/instructors (it would be in my content history). It was quickly rebuffed and you could understand how massive an undertaking and damaging it could be to the industry. Just too much variety to tightly lump into one regulated body. 
Fortunately for people who are interested, it is an industry with a very broad and diverse offering. As I said previously, a 'one size fits all' due to this broadness. 
How/who would regulate? I will use my local environment as an example. There is only two commercial schools, both different variants of TKD and a few at home classes of different styles. Forty miles to our west there are over 50 commercial schools. How do you organize and maintain a governing body? 
I still maintain it is a intriguing idea to me but it is not high on my priority list.   
I also learned that most countries have certification and some licensing for mostly health/sanitization requirements within the physical space. Gyms and exercise facilities fall into this category so MA school's would be included. After a little inquiring I found that most of the 'policing' is done reactive in the event of a reported violation and/or annual fee triggers. 

So, cut to the chase. What are you arguing for/about. What exactly is it that you want?


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> Mostly, they watch classes or attend a few to see if it's what they want. They get to see (and experience, if they choose) my teaching approach that way. It's much more informative than a few videos would ever be. Most also have training in other arts, so are well equipped to make that decision. Mostly, folks from Australia seem to have a hard time finding information on my training approach, but they rarely come by to watch classes and quite literally never sign up for training, so it seems a non-issue.


I would have clicked 'like' and 'agree' with this post it possible.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> No but it puts ownus on the fridge maker to produce a product that will probably work.
> 
> Self defense never has to work.


This gets into the heart of the differences in producing a product and offering a service. 

The product will always be more repeatable because it is possible to control the variables. That is the manufacturers goal. But variables and unexpected results do exist. In the refrigerator analogy, typically several of the parts that go into the unit are manufactured somewhere else and shipped to the build/assembly facility. In the best quality controlled processes 'sheet happens' and a minor flaw in one part becomes a major flaw for the whole product. The percentage of error would be directly proportional to the QC throughout the supply chain (aka unit cost). There is very little ambiguity in the entire process. One of the main goals in manufacturing is to reduce or eliminate human error.

In a Service their are dependencies that are so broad and varying they are near impossible to track and control. The product Users are as diverse as can be imagined thus things like 'results' can be very hard to measure and specific to the user. Most services are dynamic so there are very many markers that would have to be measured. And even the markers would have to be scalar since the users are also scalar.   
So, what I see in large is that most MMA service users measure value through competition and video(?) evidence. Most of the common martial arts users measure value using a broader set of rules. Effectiveness is measured in similar ways however. Resistance training and sparring and/or competition is used in every style I have experience with. Video proof, not so much.

I do expect that to change, largely because of the ease of making video and the effects of the pandemic and the way it is forcing people to change how they train. Video and distance training will be more prevalent, at least for a time.

I expect this will not be considered evidence to you however. Is the only way you see your product working is winning a match?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> What the actual hell was that, Steve?


What other kind of guarantee could there be?  Of course, that's hyperbolic.  The real response would be, "I'm sorry.  If only you had attended that anti-rape seminar."  We all know that a martial arts school is never going to refund a month's tuition because someone failed to defend him or herself.

Look.  Don't get me wrong, guys.  I think you have this impression that I go out and picket self defense schools or something.  Certainly not the case.  I just think that "self defense" in a martial arts school is like the "wellness" tab on GOOP.  Most people just intuitively understand that it's all placebo, pseudo science, hope, and faith.  Most people are naturally skeptical that a jade or quartz vaginal egg won't balance hormones, regulate menstrual cycles, prevent uterine prolapse, and increase bladder control. Or that a blend of essential oils meant to be taken orally or added to bathwater, could help prevent depression.

Now, like self defense training, most of what GOOP sells is largely benign.  But also like self defense training, every once in awhile, it skirts up against things that will hurt people.  The difference is that consumers have no real recourse for self defense training.  GOOP gets into trouble when they overstep and actually make claims like the ones above.  Self defense schools have perfected the con.  If you train in self defense, you are either proof that it works (if you survive) or unlucky (if you don't).  If you do not train in self defense, you are either lucky (if you survive) or should train in self defense (if you don't).

Now, I don't go out and picket GOOP HQ or anything.  But I don't think my opinions about GOOP are unreasonable.  In fact, I think my opinions about GOOP are considered common knowledge... even obvious to most people.  My opinions about self defense are virtually the same as for GOOP, for the same reasons.  The difference is that here, it's like talking to a group of folks, some of whom are huge advocates of the vaginal egg, and some who even work for GOOP.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I assure you I am not lashing out. Trying to counter your instant negativity? Yes.
> I am trying to understand you atypical attitude toward all things business/product related. In your context, it is as though all consumers (aka everyone) are doomed. Whether it is joining a martial arts program or buying a refrigerator. No one can follow your logic and live a happy life.


You're doomed.  DOOOOMED!  As I said above, there are snake oil salesmen all over the place.  What do you guys think about all of the fraudulent coronavirus products out there now?  

Fraudulent COVID-19 Products

49 products being sold.  Is it unreasonable to view these companies as shady?  Is it doomy and gloomy to recognize that they are selling things like quicksilver serum (whatever that really is) as a cure for covid-19?  I don't think so.  In fact, I think the opposite is true, and that educating the public about these things is the right thing to do.  That's why we have bodies like the FDA.  

The functional difference here is that martial arts as a community has no regulatory oversight like GOOP or these other snake oil salesmen.  Doesn't mean there isn't any snake oil being sold.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> So, cut to the chase. What are you arguing for/about. What exactly is it that you want?


This is an odd question.  I don't want anything.  I'm having a discussion on a martial arts forum about self defense training. 

You know, I take that back.  I think it would great if martial arts schools just struck the phrase "self defense" from their advertising and marketing.  It would be more honest, I think.  Instead, focus on the fitness elements, the cultural elements, or whatever is actually being learned and developed.  

I don't think there's anything wrong with selling vaginal eggs, either.  I just think it's more honest to avoid claims that are unsubstantiated.  

Earlier, when you said you tell people up front who attend your seminars that they probably wouldn't learn anything... I wasn't kidding when I said that's a great gig.  But hey, at least it's up front.  

Mostly, though, this is a philosophical discussion about martial arts.  I really don't expect anything to change.  Though, I'm optimistic in your case, that you'll come around eventually.  You'll get there.  Unless you don't.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> This is where your argument(s) get so broad and circular it is obvious you just want to argue ad nauseum.
> I will ask you again; define self defense and it's training. Define amateur and professional. Define your idea of a self defense scenario and how/what you use as defense. Define how MA training, any training does not or would not help. Do not be stereotypical, be real.


Okay.  Here's the thing.  I've answered these questions, and even provided links to a self defense program I think is terrific.  In this thread.  But I won't rehash it again, because the next play in your book is to say I'm being repetitive and circular.  And then I'm stating the obvious and what I'm saying is common sense.  Then it's ridiculous.  And then you ask me to define things for you again.

Regarding defining amateur and professional.  I'm shocked that you don't understand what those two words mean.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> What other kind of guarantee could there be?  Of course, that's hyperbolic.  The real response would be, "I'm sorry.  If only you had attended that anti-rape seminar."  We all know that a martial arts school is never going to refund a month's tuition because someone failed to defend him or herself.
> 
> Look.  Don't get me wrong, guys.  I think you have this impression that I go out and picket self defense schools or something.  Certainly not the case.  I just think that "self defense" in a martial arts school is like the "wellness" tab on GOOP.  Most people just intuitively understand that it's all placebo, pseudo science, hope, and faith.  Most people are naturally skeptical that a jade or quartz vaginal egg won't balance hormones, regulate menstrual cycles, prevent uterine prolapse, and increase bladder control. Or that a blend of essential oils meant to be taken orally or added to bathwater, could help prevent depression.
> 
> Now, like self defense training, most of what GOOP sells is largely benign.  But also like self defense training, every once in awhile, it skirts up against things that will hurt people.  The difference is that consumers have no real recourse for self defense training.  GOOP gets into trouble when they overstep and actually make claims like the ones above.  Self defense schools have perfected the con.  If you train in self defense, you are either proof that it works (if you survive) or unlucky (if you don't).  If you do not train in self defense, you are either lucky (if you survive) or should train in self defense (if you don't).
> 
> Now, I don't go out and picket GOOP HQ or anything.  But I don't think my opinions about GOOP are unreasonable.  In fact, I think my opinions about GOOP are considered common knowledge... even obvious to most people.  My opinions about self defense are virtually the same as for GOOP, for the same reasons.  The difference is that here, it's like talking to a group of folks, some of whom are huge advocates of the vaginal egg, and some who even work for GOOP.


THIS IS THE THIRD TIME IVE ASKED YOU WHAT EVIDENCE YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT MY SELF DEFENCE TRAINING IS EFFECTIVE, 

your refusing to answer as it will show the holes in your argument.

you cant give guarantees on someones ability to learn a skill and use it effectively.

i took guitar lesion he told me in three months id be good enough to cut a record, i wasnt, that not his fault, i just dont have the aptitude for music.

even if you set a high entry requirement there are still no guarantees, every year hundreds of very skilled kids go into football academies to have the best coaching, only the smallest % of these reach the level required to be a professional, thats a 90 odd % failure rate. but no one is accusing them of being incompetent coaches or snake oil sales men

the other question ive asked which you wont answer, is how have you verified the training your taken is effective at self defence ? if you were unfortunately subject to a rape, would you go back to your instructor and blame them for you being subject to an horrendous crime ?

there is an enormous duel standard being applied here by you


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> THIS IS THE THIRD TIME IVE ASKED YOU WHAT EVIDENCE YOU WOULD ACCEPT THAT MY SELF DEFENCE TRAINING IS EFFECTIVE,
> 
> your refusing to answer as it will show the holes in your argument.
> 
> you cant give guarantees on someones ability to learn a skill and use it effectively.
> 
> i took guitar lesion he told me in three months id be good enough to cut a record, i wasnt, that not his fault, i just dont have the aptitude for music.
> 
> even if you set a high entry requirement there are still no guarantees, every year hundreds of very skilled kids go into football academies to have the best coaching, only the smallest % of these reach the level required to be a professional, thats a 90 odd % failure rate. but no one is accusing them of being incompetent coaches or snake oil sales men
> 
> the other question ive asked which you wont answer, is how have you verified the training your taken is effective at self defence ? if you were unfortunately subject to a rape, would you go back to your instructor and blame them for you being subject to an horrendous crime ?
> 
> there is an enormous duel standard being applied here by you


Easy cowboy.  No reason to get worked up.  No one's ignoring you.

Are you asking about evidence that your training program works or that your individual skills are effective?  Because they're two different things. 

You mention music.  My kids have all done the elementary school band/orchestra thing, as literally thousands and thousands of kids do in America.  Some kids have a lot of aptitude.  Some kids have zero aptitude.  Funny... after a year, they all get better and they all play music by the end of the year.  How can we tell?  Well, it's easy.  Just like how you can tell that kids are getting better at playing football or soccer.  

So, regarding self defense, I think the term is too vague to really gauge individual skill.  You'd have to demonstrate skills that are complimentary, and explain how it relates and in what context.  

At a higher level, the only real way to evaluate the effectiveness of a program is through data.  That said, when you look at statistics, there is no "self defense" category.  You can, however, create a program that is specific and measurable, and I've posted a link to the one good example I've seen of that.  It's possible. 

My comment early about someone being raped was regarding the complete lack of accountability within self defense training. Like GOOP wellness products, self defense training can run the gamut from totally ineffective to questionable but benign to dangerously misguided.  And if you lack any external validation, it's a short trip from fooling yourself into thinking something works to finding yourself in the ER with a vaginal egg stuck up your wahoo.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Easy cowboy.  No reason to get worked up.  No one's ignoring you.
> 
> Are you asking about evidence that your training program works or that your individual skills are effective?  Because they're two different things.
> 
> You mention music.  My kids have all done the elementary school band/orchestra thing, as literally thousands and thousands of kids do in America.  Some kids have a lot of aptitude.  Some kids have zero aptitude.  Funny... after a year, they all get better and they all play music by the end of the year.  How can we tell?  Well, it's easy.  Just like how you can tell that kids are getting better at playing football or soccer.
> 
> So, regarding self defense, I think the term is too vague to really gauge individual skill.  You'd have to demonstrate skills that are complimentary, and explain how it relates and in what context.
> 
> At a higher level, the only real way to evaluate the effectiveness of a program is through data.  That said, when you look at statistics, there is no "self defense" category.  You can, however, create a program that is specific and measurable, and I've posted a link to the one good example I've seen of that.  It's possible.
> 
> My comment early about someone being raped was regarding the complete lack of accountability within self defense training. Like GOOP wellness products, self defense training can run the gamut from totally ineffective to questionable but benign to dangerously misguided.  And if you lack any external validation, it's a short trip from fooling yourself into thinking something works to finding yourself in the ER with a vaginal egg stuck up your wahoo.


well now youve recognised the question, though it took three attempts and a lo of capitals to at least get that response

you are now however just being evasive, its a very simple question which if you had actually consider the case your making you would have a ready answer to

lets recap, you have said a lot of uncomplimentary things about classes marketed as self defence, and some very nasty things about people who attend such classes, along the lines of them all being paranoid, insecure gullible fools

so i attend such a class, i and most of the others there do so to learn/enhance our self defence skills, so we are right in the cross hairs of your diatribe

i believe after due consideration that both myself and others who have stuck it out for a while have greatly enhanced skills. you it seems are very sceptical that that is possible. 

so what evidence do you required, that that is so, in the specific or even possible in the general

allowing that their is no sport out let to refer to and to my knowledge the only one of the group who has been attacked in that time is myself and this wasn't caught on camera. of course the lack of attacks could in its self be a result of the training, but that is indeed impossible to quantify

a succinct answer rather than a load of evasive waffle would be appreciated


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> This gets into the heart of the differences in producing a product and offering a service.
> 
> The product will always be more repeatable because it is possible to control the variables. That is the manufacturers goal. But variables and unexpected results do exist. In the refrigerator analogy, typically several of the parts that go into the unit are manufactured somewhere else and shipped to the build/assembly facility. In the best quality controlled processes 'sheet happens' and a minor flaw in one part becomes a major flaw for the whole product. The percentage of error would be directly proportional to the QC throughout the supply chain (aka unit cost). There is very little ambiguity in the entire process. One of the main goals in manufacturing is to reduce or eliminate human error.
> 
> In a Service their are dependencies that are so broad and varying they are near impossible to track and control. The product Users are as diverse as can be imagined thus things like 'results' can be very hard to measure and specific to the user. Most services are dynamic so there are very many markers that would have to be measured. And even the markers would have to be scalar since the users are also scalar.
> So, what I see in large is that most MMA service users measure value through competition and video(?) evidence. Most of the common martial arts users measure value using a broader set of rules. Effectiveness is measured in similar ways however. Resistance training and sparring and/or competition is used in every style I have experience with. Video proof, not so much.
> 
> I do expect that to change, largely because of the ease of making video and the effects of the pandemic and the way it is forcing people to change how they train. Video and distance training will be more prevalent, at least for a time.
> 
> I expect this will not be considered evidence to you however. Is the only way you see your product working is winning a match?



Steve actually presented a system to qualify instructional service. 

Sparring is quantifiable. We can know sparring at the pro class at tiger muay thai or alpha male is good and has quality guys. And that sparring there would be an example of evidence without needing competition.

But you choose not to quantify your sparring and still expect it to hold up to scrutiny. And then expect people to take your claims of "sparring" seriously.

The more vague you make you own set of standards the more your argument that a student should somehow know the difference between quality training and straight up rubbish erodes itself.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, I don't think I've ever heard a self-defense-oriented place claim they don't have to produce results. Some probably don't, but I've never heard that claim made by them. I think your analogy is backwards if that was your point.



Then those self defense schools are lying. 

(Actually dovocran said that he may not produce any results  on this thread when he does a short course.)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Mostly, they watch classes or attend a few to see if it's what they want. They get to see (and experience, if they choose) my teaching approach that way. It's much more informative than a few videos would ever be. Most also have training in other arts, so are well equipped to make that decision. Mostly, folks from Australia seem to have a hard time finding information on my training approach, but they rarely come by to watch classes and quite literally never sign up for training, so it seems a non-issue.



Yeah so long as enough people are convinced by the marketing to support the service then it justifies the method. 

Do you guys have Danos direct over there?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're still drawing a distinction between self-defense fighting skill and fighting skill. They're not that different.




If I enter competitions with no fighting skill I will get to a level where I get beaten up. And we can put a gauge on my fighting skill. If I train a bunch of guys and they enter competitions they can put a gauge on my training skills.

And we can see at a glance if a school is going to produce a fighting skill or not and to what degree.

 If I learn self defense as a fighting skill there no point at which my level of fighting skill matters. There is no point which the instructor level of fighting skill matters and there is no point which anybody in that rooms fighting skill matters.

Because results don't matter.

And results don't matter because there is some sort of difference in training a person for self defense or competition. But because self defense instructors conceal their ability and conceal the ability of their students.

And they do this by saying things like "we spar" and then just sort of wait for people to just accept that.


----------



## drop bear

And while I am thinking of it. This is something that isn't really mentioned when people are saying that this coming to the gym and get a guage that way. Or when people say we do sparring or resisted drills. 

(Combat scenarios are the worst of this idea but hasn't been used recently)






If I had the choice between fedors gym and Johnson's gym.

I would probably appear to progress a lot faster in Johnson gym. (Start taking guys down earlier, start winning spars or wrestles quicker) than Fedors.

But I am basing that on perception not empirical evidence.

And is the conformation bias people go on about.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Steve actually presented a system to qualify instructional service.
> 
> Sparring is quantifiable. We can know sparring at the pro class at tiger muay thai or alpha male is good and has quality guys. And that sparring there would be an example of evidence without needing competition.
> 
> But you choose not to quantify your sparring and still expect it to hold up to scrutiny. And then expect people to take your claims of "sparring" seriously.
> 
> The more vague you make you own set of standards the more your argument that a student should somehow know the difference between quality training and straight up rubbish erodes itself.


if i went sparing at the pro class and as seems inevitable get smash about to the extent i cant walk for a month or two

that will a) greatly hamper my ability to defend myself in a street altercation, which is you must admit some what counter productive to the intended goal of increasing my effectiveness in a street altercation

ans b) has no bearing at all on if i can beat the arrogant !!!! with the pit bull up or not in any altercation with an arrogant !!!! with a pit bull, who is not very likely to be a pro class fighter what with his weight issues and drug addiction and likening for drinking strong larger on park benches

you've not thought this through, have you

not once in my long history of altercations have i ever been in a fight with a pro class fighter, im not sure ive ever been in the same post code as one, i do some times see some Manchester united players jogging round the woods, but im not getting to a fight with a pro footballer either, they are a bit fit, so i dont tell them they were !!!! last Saturday


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> if i went sparing at the pro class and as seems inevitable get smash about to the extent i cant walk for a month or two
> 
> that will a) greatly hamper my ability to defend myself in a street altercation, which is you must admit some what counter productive to the intended goal of increasing my effectiveness in a street altercation
> 
> ans b) has no bearing at all on if i can beat the arrogant !!!! with the pit bull up or not in any alternation with an arrogant !!!! with a pit bull, who is not very likely to be a pro class fighter what with his weight issues and drug addiction and likening for drinking strong larger on park benches
> 
> you've not thought this through, have you
> 
> not once in my long history of altercations have i ever been in a fight with a pro class fighter, im not sure ive ever been in the same post code as one



Yeah. Because in self defense, results don't matter. So long as you can beat up Johnny drunk our work here is done.






But then whatever you do don't say pro fighters have a better training program. Because. All styles are equal. And we can't judge a system by competition results.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Because in self defense, results don't matter. So long as you can beat up Johnny drunk our work here is done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But then whatever you do don't say pro fighters have a better training program. Because. All styles are equal. And we can't judge a system by competition results.


 in self defence the only result that matters is the last one, and if that was knob head then that indeed is a successful outcome that proves the training system

im sure we have had this talk before, the number of belligerent knob heads round here out number the pro class fighters many thousands to one

im willing to bet that my chances of being attacked by A MT pro on my way back from the chip shop are some what less than a lottery win

added to which going into spar with said MT pro will only end very badly for me

there is no sense at all in getting beaten up to try and lessen the chances of me being beaten up by some one who almost certainly wont attack me in the first place


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> in self defence the only result that matters is the last one, and if that was knob head then that indeed is a successful outcome that proves the training system
> 
> im sure we have had this talk before, the number of belligerent knob heads round here out number the pro class fighters many thousands to one
> 
> im willing to bet that my chances of being attacked by A MT pro on my way back from the chip shop are some what less than a lottery win
> 
> added to which going into spar with said MT pro will only end very badly for me
> 
> there is no sense at all in getting beaten up to try and lessen the chances of me being beaten up by some one who almost certainly wont attack me in the first place



Yeah. Self defense training isn't very good but you will probably never really need it is kind of a terrible argument for self defense training.

It isn't a bad argument for not bothering to train at all.

 But unfortunately I know about 10 guys in my area who either are pro fighters or at about the standard of one, because I train with them. So I am not sure how much that argument really holds water.

But regardless of that if your desire to do a standard of martial arts that isn't very good. At least you should know it isn't good. And it isn't cool for martial arts to disguise that fact from you.

And yes we had this discussion before.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Steve actually presented a system to qualify instructional service.
> 
> Sparring is quantifiable. We can know sparring at the pro class at tiger muay thai or alpha male is good and has quality guys. And that sparring there would be an example of evidence without needing competition.
> 
> But you choose not to quantify your sparring and still expect it to hold up to scrutiny. And then expect people to take your claims of "sparring" seriously.
> 
> The more vague you make you own set of standards the more your argument that a student should somehow know the difference between quality training and straight up rubbish erodes itself.


Who ever said I do not quantify my sparring? Just the MMA junkies I suppose.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Steve actually presented a system to qualify instructional service.
> 
> Sparring is quantifiable. We can know sparring at the pro class at tiger muay thai or alpha male is good and has quality guys. And that sparring there would be an example of evidence without needing competition.
> 
> But you choose not to quantify your sparring and still expect it to hold up to scrutiny. And then expect people to take your claims of "sparring" seriously.
> 
> The more vague you make you own set of standards the more your argument that a student should somehow know the difference between quality training and straight up rubbish erodes itself.


Listing a couple of credible sources in no way quantifies all sources. This competition thing has blinded you to the reality that there are multiple ways to become conversant and test your skills.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> This is an odd question.  I don't want anything.  I'm having a discussion on a martial arts forum about self defense training.
> 
> You know, I take that back.  I think it would great if martial arts schools just struck the phrase "self defense" from their advertising and marketing.  It would be more honest, I think.  Instead, focus on the fitness elements, the cultural elements, or whatever is actually being learned and developed.
> 
> I don't think there's anything wrong with selling vaginal eggs, either.  I just think it's more honest to avoid claims that are unsubstantiated.
> 
> Earlier, when you said you tell people up front who attend your seminars that they probably wouldn't learn anything... I wasn't kidding when I said that's a great gig.  But hey, at least it's up front.
> 
> Mostly, though, this is a philosophical discussion about martial arts.  I really don't expect anything to change.  Though, I'm optimistic in your case, that you'll come around eventually.  You'll get there.  Unless you don't.


Yea, in your case that sounds doubtful.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Yea, in your case that sounds doubtful.


good one.  A real zinger.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Who ever said I do not quantify my sparring? Just the MMA junkies I suppose.



I said it.

I will say it again if you like.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> Listing a couple of credible sources in no way quantifies all sources. This competition thing has blinded you to the reality that there are multiple ways to become conversant and test your skills.



And what would those multiple ways be?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You mention music. My kids have all done the elementary school band/orchestra thing, as literally thousands and thousands of kids do in America. Some kids have a lot of aptitude. Some kids have zero aptitude. Funny... after a year, they all get better and they all play music by the end of the year. How can we tell? Well, it's easy. Just like how you can tell that kids are getting better at playing football or soccer.


This is an interesting analogy. Because literally everyone I've ever trained with (or taught) has gotten better at punching and throwing if they were around a school year later. And, like with the music, it's pretty easy to see.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Then those self defense schools are lying.
> 
> (Actually dovocran said that he may not produce any results  on this thread when he does a short course.)


So, now a school not making a claim is lying?

As to the short course, those of you upset with the statement that they don't produce long-term skills and that someone is clear about that to the attendees......you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think we could all agree that a few hours isn't enough to produce long-term repeatable applicable skills with beginners in MA. But once someone adds "self-defense" to the comment, suddenly "AHA! SEE! YOU CAN'T PRODUCE RESULTS!!!"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah so long as enough people are convinced by the marketing to support the service then it justifies the method.
> 
> Do you guys have Danos direct over there?


What marketing are you thinking convinces them? Most just walk in without having run into any marketing. Literally most folks have apparently not even been to the website, judging by their questions. Folks come in and watch classes, then decide to join.

Not at all familiar with Danos direct. A quick search suggests maybe you're talking about Danoz direct, which I'd never heard of before. If you're supposing there's some hype marketing going on, that's an interesting claim.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If I enter competitions with no fighting skill I will get to a level where I get beaten up. And we can put a gauge on my fighting skill. If I train a bunch of guys and they enter competitions they can put a gauge on my training skills.
> 
> And we can see at a glance if a school is going to produce a fighting skill or not and to what degree.
> 
> If I learn self defense as a fighting skill there no point at which my level of fighting skill matters. There is no point which the instructor level of fighting skill matters and there is no point which anybody in that rooms fighting skill matters.
> 
> Because results don't matter.
> 
> And results don't matter because there is some sort of difference in training a person for self defense or competition. But because self defense instructors conceal their ability and conceal the ability of their students.
> 
> And they do this by saying things like "we spar" and then just sort of wait for people to just accept that.


You're making no sense. In the past you've argued (rather vehemently) that sport fighting skills aren't materially different from the fighting skills needed for self-defense. Now you're trying to describe self-defense as a fighting skill, which is just linguistically screwy.

Fighting skills are fighting skills, for the most part. The context can dictate what's useful (nobody trains punches for a Judo or MAGA competition), but the skills are much the same where the context is similar (BJJ competition skills translate reasonably well to SD scenarios that involve ground grappling, for instance).

"Self-defense" isn't a fighting skill. It's a way of applying that fighting skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Self defense training isn't very good but you will probably never really need it is kind of a terrible argument for self defense training.
> 
> It isn't a bad argument for not bothering to train at all.
> 
> But unfortunately I know about 10 guys in my area who either are pro fighters or at about the standard of one, because I train with them. So I am not sure how much that argument really holds water.
> 
> But regardless of that if your desire to do a standard of martial arts that isn't very good. At least you should know it isn't good. And it isn't cool for martial arts to disguise that fact from you.
> 
> And yes we had this discussion before.


If a tool works for its purpose, then it's good for that. It doesn't have to be the best at a more generalized context to suit the purpose. I keep a tack hammer over my workbench, because most of the hammering I do there is with small nails and brads. It would suck badly at driving 10-penny glue nails, but that's irrelevant, since that's not what it's there for. It's quite a good little hammer for its purpose.

If someone wants to be able to beat high-level fighters (even high-level amateurs) they need to train specifically for that (and specifically for that context, because that's the level where context training starts to be essential, IMO). But it's most folks aren't interested or concerned with that level.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> And what would those multiple ways be?


I am tired of hashing this to death. We train in different ways that have a lot of overlapping methods and practices. It is really that simple. You are convinced if it is not labeled MMA then is crap and I cannot change that. 
Because a match does not end in a choke-out or submission does not automatically make it less of a match. I have the broken bones to prove that. 
Giving this some thought, there is More violence in classic striking MA's. I have not researched this but there has to be a good percentage of knockouts vs. submissions in pro fighting. Surely you can agree that at least that part of what you do is Directly related to various other MA's? If not then you are truly blind to the reality of what you do and are just living on the hype of your environment. That is on you.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> I said it.
> 
> I will say it again if you like.


Brother, you need to get a life. There is a Lot more out there than what you watch on Youtube.

I do not expect you to know my life but me and my wife combined have 5 businesses going at the same time. One (two really) are directly related to MA's. While MA's is still a part of my life, the full contact competition ship sailed a while ago. Trust me, if you do this long enough, you will find ways to test your method that do not require broken bones or being knocked. I have been submitted enough to know it is not nearly as painful or effective.
Or you will simply fade away like so many full on competitors do.
IF however what you do on a daily basis is not at That level, well then I Will call what you are doing crap. Your worlds method of 'proof' is crap and totally unrealistic. I will not try to get into what constitutes a 'tap' or 'tap out' with you. 

I can tell you are an intelligent person by your posts. But you are also blinded by your convictions. We have all been there and for the most part it is a good thing; as long as at some point we can step back and be objective. Most assuredly, as with all things, something else will come along and change the emphasis and popularity of what you do. 
When the shine goes away I hope your passion does not. 

Just enjoy what you do and don't worry about what everyone else does. The 'me Hulk' chest bump has gotten really old. Everyone knows your position.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> good one.  A real zinger.


Was not intended to be. Just stating the obvious.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> This is an interesting analogy. Because literally everyone I've ever trained with (or taught) has gotten better at punching and throwing if they were around a school year later. And, like with the music, it's pretty easy to see.


It is amazing how differently people can see the same thing. It seems we all agree you have to crawl before you walk in every learned skill. And barring any physical/mental limitations Everyone gets better over time. 
But that logic immediately gets skewed by some when you change the label to martial arts or self defense. Just does not make sense to me.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> This is an interesting analogy. Because literally everyone I've ever trained with (or taught) has gotten better at punching and throwing if they were around a school year later. And, like with the music, it's pretty easy to see.


sure. Like folks who do tae bo or cardio kickboxing.  The real question is, do they self defense better?


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Was not intended to be. Just stating the obvious.


Dang. Another one. Zing.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> sure. Like folks who do tae bo or cardio kickboxing.  The real question is, do they self defense better?


well people who do cardio are likely to be better at defending themselves than those who dont, so yes a definite self defence strategy to kick the hell out of a heavy bag

i see youve gone back to ignoring my question again


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> It is amazing how differently people can see the same thing. It seems we all agree you have to crawl before you walk in every learned skill. And barring any physical/mental limitations Everyone gets better over time.
> But that logic immediately gets skewed by some when you change the label to martial arts or self defense. Just does not make sense to me.


Where we disagree is in who is qualified to teach.  Ie the idea of experience by osmosis.  

We also disagree that self defense training is actually useful, as commonly taught.  I.e., it's like drinking Quicksilver serum thinking it will cure your coronavirus.  The claims are unsubstantiated.  

Like that darn vaginal egg they sold on goop.  There might be a million great reasons to stick an egg shaped piece of quartz in your vagina.  The issue isn't the egg (unless it's actually dangerous).  The issue is in the claims. 

Generally, overstated claims are benign.  A knife that claims to be the last one you'll ever buy. Or A diet that claims you'll lose 30 lbs in the first week. But sometimes, people get hurt.  Someone deluded into thinking he can fight when he can't is benign until he needs to fight.  Then it matters.  It's not the activity, it's the exaggerated claims


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> well people who do cardio are likely to be better at defending themselves than those who dont, so yes a definite self defence strategy to kick the hell out of a heavy bag
> 
> i see youve gone back to ignoring my question again


I agree with that. I said earlier that CrossFit is probably more effective for self defense than some self defense oriented arts.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I agree with that. I said earlier that CrossFit is probably more effective for self defense than some self defense oriented arts.


well thats not comparing apples and apples to be honest, ma with out a reasonable degree of fitness is only any real good if your attacked by someone less fit than you are

if you are serious about self defence you need to devote some effort to physical conditioning, thats not a short fall in any particular training school, that a failure of the individual to meet the other half of the equation

nb cross fit also do self defence training and there are some seriously strong young women there that i wouldn't mess with


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> well thats not comparing apples and apples to be honest, ma with out a reasonable degree of fitness is only any real good if your attacked by someone less fit than you are
> 
> if you are serious about self defence you need to devote some effort to physical conditioning, thats not a short fall in any particular training school, that a failure of the individual to meet the other half of the equation
> 
> nb cross fit also do self defence training and there are some seriously strong young women there that i wouldn't mess with


I disagree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> sure. Like folks who do tae bo or cardio kickboxing.  The real question is, do they self defense better?


Since punching and throwing are fighting skills that can be applied in self-defense...


----------



## Gweilo

A commonality, facts produced by different training methods, always back up the theory of that method, mma beleive they have the monopoly of stats and facts, because they are recorded for sports, and results based training, but the facts are scewed, towards mma, same is true of any training method, but mma is recent, and recent tech allows a modern method to utilise the tech data, most traditional arts never had this option, and yes they are jumping on the band wagon, this does not make mma a better self defense, I could claim, my art was used by special forces, so must be better than other methods, because military methods work better than sport, nonsense, pressure testing is key. Some are naturally better than others at fighting, be it talent or experience, 40% skill, 60% mentality, you can have all mma stats and video you like, its how you respond to pressure, how you respond when hit or hurt, I used to know when an opponent on the street was beaten, by the way they responed, when they saw their own blood, or the way they responded, when you could smell the blood on their breath, watching their body language change when they tasted their own blood. My point is, fitness, strength, and skill all play their part, the mind is equal to those combined, you can have all the stats in the world, beat 20 out of 20, sparring or in a sports enviroment, but when it gets real, thats the only proof you should need, is how you respond, this will tell you, if your method works or not.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Since punching and throwing are fighting skills that can be applied in self-defense...


So you're saying tae bo and cardio kickboxing are self defense programs?  That would at least be intellectually consistent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So you're saying tae bo and cardio kickboxing are self defense programs?  That would at least be intellectually consistent.


You're being purposefully insulting. You could do better, but you don't. That's disappointing.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> You're being purposefully insulting. You could do better, but you don't. That's disappointing.


Not true.  Just trying to make a point.  You talk about fighting skills.  When have you been in a fight?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not true.  Just trying to make a point.


Okay, so not purposely insulting. Just making insinuations by accident. Apparently you're doing that a lot lately, since you've walked back a few statements. Maybe you're using language that overstates your position?



> You talk about fighting skills.  When have you been in a fight?


Only occasionally. It really depends how we define "fight". Soft (light-technical) sparring doesn't seem like it should be included. Official bouts would be (I have none of those, obviously). I'd include hard sparring. The very few times I've used my fighting skills outside of sparring (in my adult life) I wouldn't call "fights" - just never got to that level.

Now if we go back to my teens, there were a few more fights back then. Some I was in, some I broke up. I'm not sure how much those have informed my training, though.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so not purposely insulting. Just making insinuations by accident. Apparently you're doing that a lot lately, since you've walked back a few statements. Maybe you're using language that overstates your position?
> 
> Only occasionally. It really depends how we define "fight". Soft (light-technical) sparring doesn't seem like it should be included. Official bouts would be (I have none of those, obviously). I'd include hard sparring. The very few times I've used my fighting skills outside of sparring (in my adult life) I wouldn't call "fights" - just never got to that level.
> 
> Now if we go back to my teens, there were a few more fights back then. Some I was in, some I broke up. I'm not sure how much those have informed my training, though.


my position has been very consistent.  I'm not aware of walking back anything.  If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous.  But the message doesn't change.  I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand. 

And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense. 

You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight.  There's just no two ways about it.

 You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it. 

But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.


----------



## Gweilo

Steve said:


> vaginal eggs



You seem to have a thing for these eggs, is that a subliminal message?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> my position has been very consistent.  I'm not aware of walking back anything.  If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous.  But the message doesn't change.  I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand.
> 
> And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense.
> 
> You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight.  There's just no two ways about it.
> 
> You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it.
> 
> But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.


First, let me address something that hasn't been brought up this tread that I recall: "self-defense" has a couple of different common usages. The definition I most commonly use only includes the physical defense against an imminent attack, so that course you cite would (by my usage) be a self-protection course - self-protection being the larger term that includes self-defense, as well as the self-defense area. Just clarifying that because it's been brought up a couple of times.

And while I think it's probably _possible_ to learn to fight only through drills, I don't think that's a reliable method and I'm not sure how anyone would know where they are. Fighting - which includes competitions and sparring that reasonably approximate combat - is an important part of the process. The harder that fighting gets, the more the training benefits. The wider the range of people that fighting tests with, the more the training benefits. At the very least, good resistive sparring of some sort within the school seems a reasonable minimum.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> my position has been very consistent.  I'm not aware of walking back anything.  If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous.  But the message doesn't change.  I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand.
> 
> And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense.
> 
> You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight.  There's just no two ways about it.
> 
> You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it.
> 
> But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.


 il have another go at one of the several questions you have chosen to ignore

how do you test your fighting skill steve, ?

il answer to show good faith, i dont, its impossible to do so... im making a number of assumptions which may of course be incorrect

im assuming if i get in a ring with a trained 30 yo fighter im going to get crushed in short order, may be when i was 30 id stand a chance but im 61, even when i was 30 i relied extensively on fast reactions, i was very difficult to hit, i was always likely to loose to someone with faster reactions or hand speed that exceeds my reactions and reactions diminished substantially with age, im likely to provided him with a walking punch bag


so thats out, i could try and find a ring match with a similar aged person, but that would prove nothing but i can hold my own with a pensioner and i already new that, and self defence against pensioners is of limited use

if theres an altercation brewing i make an assessment of the cause of my annoyance, if they are 25 and hit the weights im likely to let things go, 25 yo me would have had no fear, but 25 yo me would be beat 61 yo me up, so ive no reason to believe that this 25 yo wont do like wise, if this 25 yo attacks me, then my best bet is i catch him by surprise, i can still knock him out if he walk on to punch

for other less intimidating folk, they dont seem to want to take things further than shout insults from a distance, even if i provoke hard they still tend to leave rather than fight, this possibly partly because of the confidence i give out and partly that i still look big and strong and as i train very very hard im stronger than i look, hence my confidence

so what is it you expect me to do


and just in case youve forgotten this started with a question, what is it you do to test your self defence skills


----------



## Steve

Gweilo said:


> You seem to have a thing for these eggs, is that a subliminal message?


I think they're hilarious.  It's not subliminal at all.  And it makes the point while also being a funny visual.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> First, let me address something that hasn't been brought up this tread that I recall: "self-defense" has a couple of different common usages. The definition I most commonly use only includes the physical defense against an imminent attack, so that course you cite would (by my usage) be a self-protection course - self-protection being the larger term that includes self-defense, as well as the self-defense area. Just clarifying that because it's been brought up a couple of times.
> 
> And while I think it's probably _possible_ to learn to fight only through drills, I don't think that's a reliable method and I'm not sure how anyone would know where they are. Fighting - which includes competitions and sparring that reasonably approximate combat - is an important part of the process. The harder that fighting gets, the more the training benefits. The wider the range of people that fighting tests with, the more the training benefits. At the very least, good resistive sparring of some sort within the school seems a reasonable minimum.


So we've reached the, "you're using exotic definitions" stage of the thread?  The term is vague.  It matters a little bit how you define it.  What matters most, in the context of this thread, is how the lay public commonly defines it.  

But it's also interesting to me that you create these reasonable scales, and always tack on the way you train at the end as a reasonable minimum.   Why even do that?


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> il have another go at one of the several questions you have chosen to ignore
> 
> how do you test your fighting skill steve, ?
> 
> il answer to show good faith, i dont, its impossible to do so... im making a number of assumptions which may of course be incorrect
> 
> im assuming if i get in a ring with a trained 30 yo fighter im going to get crushed in short order, may be when i was 30 id stand a chance but im 61, even when i was 30 i relied extensively on fast reactions, i was very difficult to hit, i was always likely to loose to someone with faster reactions or hand speed that exceeds my reactions and reactions diminished substantially with age, im likely to provided him with a walking punch bag
> 
> 
> so thats out, i could try and find a ring match with a similar aged person, but that would prove nothing but i can hold my own with a pensioner and i already new that, and self defence against pensioners is of limited use
> 
> if theres an altercation brewing i make an assessment of the cause of my annoyance, if they are 25 and hit the weights im likely to let things go, 25 yo me would have had no fear, but 25 yo me would be beat 61 yo me up, so ive no reason to believe that this 25 yo wont do like wise, if this 25 yo attacks me, then my best bet is i catch him by surprise, i can still knock him out if he walk on to punch
> 
> for other less intimidating folk, they dont seem to want to take things further than shout insults from a distance, even if i provoke hard they still tend to leave rather than fight, this possibly partly because of the confidence i give out and partly that i still look big and strong and as i train very very hard im stronger than i look, hence my confidence
> 
> so what is it you expect me to do
> 
> 
> and just in case youve forgotten this started with a question, what is it you do to test your self defence skills


Oh, hey man.  I don't test my skills.  I'm a lover, not a fighter.  Seriously though, outside of pretty typical bjj training, I don't fight.   I know a lot of fighters, so I can tell the difference.  I would never hold myself as being a highly skilled fighter. 

But, I think I'm also pretty safe.  I have two giant dogs that are vigilant and vocal to deter bad guys from entering my home.  I live in a pretty nice neighborhood.  I don't engage in high risk behaviors like fighting in bars, hanging with a gang, or taking illegal drugs.  Honestly, the place I'm most at risk is at work, but I do what I can to mitigate those risks. 

But, I'll tell you what.  If I wanted to learn to be a better fighter, I would find a place where I could fight a lot.  Because that's how it's done.

Also, I would never presume to teach "self defense" because that would, in my opinion, be dishonest.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> Oh, hey man.  I don't test my skills.  I'm a lover, not a fighter.  Seriously though, outside of pretty typical bjj training, I don't fight.   I know a lot of fighters, so I can tell the difference.  I would never hold myself as being a highly skilled fighter.
> 
> But, I think I'm also pretty safe.  I have two giant dogs that are vigilant and vocal to deter bad guys from entering my home.  I live in a pretty nice neighborhood.  I don't engage in high risk behaviors like fighting in bars, hanging with a gang, or taking illegal drugs.  Honestly, the place I'm most at risk is at work, but I do what I can to mitigate those risks.
> 
> But, I'll tell you what.  If I wanted to learn to be a better fighter, I would find a place where I could fight a lot.  Because that's how it's done.
> 
> Also, I would never presume to teach "self defense" because that would, in my opinion, be dishonest.


 that admission  makes a mockery of most of your points

 my high risk behaviour is owning a dog, that brings considerable points of possible confrontations with belligerent cyclist particularly and belligerent big dog owners, i could get in 10 fights a day for dissing me, if i could raise the enthusiasm, a it is a wait till someone really pushes it.

several cyclists have found themselves extracting both themselves and their bikes from the canal, you really shouldn't antagonise people when your only two foot away from a waterway, and another who very narrowly managed to escape after he narrowly missed my dog and then decided he would stop and lecture me on dog ownership, just as one pit bull owner felt the full force of my wrath after he attacked me, just for telling him he was a complete &&&&

there were two well publicist cases just before the lock down, one where a cyclist had narrowly missed a middle aged  pedestrian and when he shouted something after him, he came back and punched the guy unconscious, all on cctv and another were an old guy had had words about someones big dog attacking his little dog and got punched and died.

thats why i train so hard, its a real and present danger and whist the dog owners are general puffed up body builders, them cyclists tend to have excellent cardio


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> that admission  makes a mockery of most of your points


Why would it?  I've never alleged to be a tough guy.  I think what would invite mockery is if I put out my shingle as a self defense expert.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> my position has been very consistent.  I'm not aware of walking back anything.  If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous.  But the message doesn't change.  I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand.
> 
> And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense.
> 
> You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight.  There's just no two ways about it.
> 
> You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it.
> 
> But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.



Self defense not tailored to fighting should still be tested by real application. Same as fighting should be tested by fighting.

It is something people miss a lot when they sell this idea. That so long as you train deescalation you are somehow getting automatically better at it.

And something with generally less evidence of authenticity than fighting skills.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> that admission  makes a mockery of most of your points
> 
> my high risk behaviour is owning a dog, that brings considerable points of possible confrontations with belligerent cyclist particularly and belligerent big dog owners, i could get in 10 fights a day for dissing me, if i could raise the enthusiasm, a it is a wait till someone really pushes it.
> 
> several cyclists have found themselves extracting both themselves and their bikes from the canal, you really shouldn't antagonise people when your only two foot away from a waterway, and another who very narrowly managed to escape after he narrowly missed my dog and then decided he would stop and lecture me on dog ownership, just as one pit bull owner felt the full force of my wrath after he attacked me, just for telling him he was a complete &&&&
> 
> there were two well publicist cases just before the lock down, one where a cyclist had narrowly missed a middle aged  pedestrian and when he shouted something after him, he came back and punched the guy unconscious, all on cctv and another were an old guy had had words about someones big dog attacking his little dog and got punched and died.
> 
> thats why i train so hard, its a real and present danger and whist the dog owners are general puffed up body builders, them cyclists tend to have excellent cardio



There needs to be a third party method of determining the validity of this training. Because if there isn't the system is broken.

Either we have novices who use their ignorance to determine validity. Or we have vested interest determining the validity of a system. 

I know guys who can legitimately fight and who are full of crap and make stories up to sell themselves. 

This idea that hard men are speaking gospel about fighting is incorrect.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, now a school not making a claim is lying?
> 
> As to the short course, those of you upset with the statement that they don't produce long-term skills and that someone is clear about that to the attendees......you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think we could all agree that a few hours isn't enough to produce long-term repeatable applicable skills with beginners in MA. But once someone adds "self-defense" to the comment, suddenly "AHA! SEE! YOU CAN'T PRODUCE RESULTS!!!"



A short course is industry standard for security, military and police to prepare people for real world combat. Life and death stuff. 

So we don't all agree that a few hours is not enough to produce long term so on so on. Because we have an entire industry that sells an idea that these short courses sufficiently prepare people for self defense fighting. 

Now I don't agree that this is long enough or comprehensive enough. But then i don't earn money from selling short courses. So who am I to say.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If a tool works for its purpose, then it's good for that. It doesn't have to be the best at a more generalized context to suit the purpose. I keep a tack hammer over my workbench, because most of the hammering I do there is with small nails and brads. It would suck badly at driving 10-penny glue nails, but that's irrelevant, since that's not what it's there for. It's quite a good little hammer for its purpose.
> 
> If someone wants to be able to beat high-level fighters (even high-level amateurs) they need to train specifically for that (and specifically for that context, because that's the level where context training starts to be essential, IMO). But it's most folks aren't interested or concerned with that level.



Now is this from a personal investment point of view? or an instructor with accountability for your training point of view?

Because how do you determine what is an acceptable level of ability should a person engage in this activity you are training them to engage in?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> There needs to be a third party method of determining the validity of this training. Because if there isn't the system is broken.
> 
> Either we have novices who use their ignorance to determine validity. Or we have vested interest determining the validity of a system.
> 
> I know guys who can legitimately fight and who are full of crap and make stories up to sell themselves.
> 
> This idea that hard men are speaking gospel about fighting is incorrect.


 how can you possibly validate its effectiveness when you have no idea who its going to have be effective against,

 your daft idea about going up against pro fighter breaks down if your taking about pensioners  and people with infirmities and people who are doing it as the step aerobic class was fully booked, in fact just about any one who isnt as fit as a pro fighter is getting an *** kicking and bizarrely there are no where near enough pro fighters to go round and what does the pro fighter get out of sparring jim from accounts with the bad back, when he is pre paring for a pro fight

you seem to think that people are delusional enough to think that attending every Tuesday at the Church hall for an hour is going to turn them from feeble to killer, it wont and thats not what people genera;lly believe, will it make them better at defending themselves yes most probably, does that mean they win a fight who knows, depends who they are fighting


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> how can you possibly validate its effectiveness when you have no idea who its going to have be effective against,
> 
> your daft idea about going up against pro fighter breaks down if your taking about pensioners  and people with infirmities and people who are doing it as the step aerobic class was fully booked, in fact just about any one who isnt as fit as a pro fighter is getting an *** kicking and bizarrely there are no where near enough pro fighters to go round and what does the pro fighter get out of sparring jim from accounts with the bad back, when he is pre paring for a pro fight
> 
> you seem to think that people are delusional enough to think that attending every Tuesday at the Church hall for an hour is going to turn them from feeble to killer, it wont and thats not what people genera;lly believe, will it make them better at defending themselves yes most probably, does that mean they win a fight who knows, depends who they are fighting



Which is self defense as a weasel word.

This argument gets used a lot but then people jump of the self defense is a meaningless term bus and try then try to justify it without context.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> you seem to think that people are delusional enough to think that attending every Tuesday at the Church hall for an hour is going to turn them from feeble to killer, it wont and thats not what people genera;lly believe, will it make them better at defending themselves yes most probably, does that mean they win a fight who knows, depends who they are fighting




And again yes people are delusional enough to think that sub standard training will equip them for a self defense fight. 

And police training is the best example of this because the expectation is that after a few weeks of training they will go out and provoke these fights. 

After basic training you will go out and arrest hardened criminals.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> your daft idea about going up against pro fighter breaks down if your taking about pensioners and people with infirmities and people who are doing it as the step aerobic class was fully booked, in fact just about any one who isnt as fit as a pro fighter is getting an *** kicking and bizarrely there are no where near enough pro fighters to go round and what does the pro fighter get out of sparring jim from accounts with the bad back, when he is pre paring for a pro fight



And no it doesn't break down there. Because that gives you a realistic gauge of your ability so that you are not delusional. 

We are back to needing a reliable method of seppartating fact from fiction. Which is the point I am trying to make.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Which is self defense as a weasel word.
> 
> This argument gets used a lot but then people jump of the self defense is a meaningless term bus and try then try to justify it without context.


but you've not dealt with any of the points ive made, lets take them one at a time

how do you  evaluate if self defence training is effective with out knowing the attributes of a yet unknown attacker, their motives, their mo and if they are armed or not


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> but you've not dealt with any of the points ive made, lets take them one at a time
> 
> how do you  evaluate if self defence training is effective with out knowing the attributes of a yet unknown attacker, their motives, their mo and if they are armed or not



You don't which makes self defense a meaningless term.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You don't which makes self defense a meaningless term.
> 
> View attachment 22849


so we now agree that that very long post about having to have a method of validation was its self fantasy


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> A short course is industry standard for security, military and police to prepare people for real world combat. Life and death stuff.
> 
> So we don't all agree that a few hours is not enough to produce long term so on so on. Because we have an entire industry that sells an idea that these short courses sufficiently prepare people for self defense fighting.
> 
> Now I don't agree that this is long enough or comprehensive enough. But then i don't earn money from selling short courses. So who am I to say.



Hmm, it sounds like you and Gerry just said much the same thing. 
A short course has value for professionals who already have experience. 
How/why it is misrepresentative and bad for MA’s to tell laypeople up front that the training in a short course is limited is beyond me.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> so we now agree that that very long post about having to have a method of validation was its self fantasy



No. You could make self defense meaningful. You choose not to.

A self defense school could make verifiable claims.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> So we've reached the, "you're using exotic definitions" stage of the thread?  The term is vague.  It matters a little bit how you define it.  What matters most, in the context of this thread, is how the lay public commonly defines it.
> 
> But it's also interesting to me that you create these reasonable scales, and always tack on the way you train at the end as a reasonable minimum.   Why even do that?


So, that's a stage now? I was just clarifying that you're including something in the category "self-defense' that I don't. From talking to people, there seems to be a pretty wide range of definitions folks use, and most folks don't seem to have a hard boundary on the term. Because it's a concept, rather than a specific action or skill. I was hoping this wouldn't derail the conversation - I was actually trying to keep us on track by pointing out that I'm not really talking about stuff beyond the physical skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> But it's also interesting to me that you create these reasonable scales, and always tack on the way you train at the end as a reasonable minimum. Why even do that?


Sorry, hit reply before I replied to this part. If I were training well beyond that point, I'd still consider it a reasonable minimum. I was just sharing my position on that in response to your post. You know, like how discussions work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Also, I would never presume to teach "self defense" because that would, in my opinion, be dishonest.


And once again, you make it clear you think anyone who teaches with a self-defense orientation is a fraud. We get it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Now is this from a personal investment point of view? or an instructor with accountability for your training point of view?
> 
> Because how do you determine what is an acceptable level of ability should a person engage in this activity you are training them to engage in?


They have to decide what they want to achieve. Their goals are their own, not mine.

I have some standards at each rank, to help them compare their progress to those around them. But that's a limited measure. If they want a wider measure, they need to test it with folks outside the school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which is self defense as a weasel word.
> 
> This argument gets used a lot but then people jump of the self defense is a meaningless term bus and try then try to justify it without context.


The problem with your argument is that you are pushing the term as if it's a driving force that changes everything about training. Some places it may be. Most places I've seen, it was just an orientation for discussions and setting up situational drills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And again yes people are delusional enough to think that sub standard training will equip them for a self defense fight.
> 
> And police training is the best example of this because the expectation is that after a few weeks of training they will go out and provoke these fights.
> 
> After basic training you will go out and arrest hardened criminals.


And they often do arrest those folks, oddly enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> but you've not dealt with any of the points ive made, lets take them one at a time
> 
> how do you  evaluate if self defence training is effective with out knowing the attributes of a yet unknown attacker, their motives, their mo and if they are armed or not


You work on basic fighting skills, and evaluate whether those skills work in sparring situations, for starters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. You could make self defense meaningful. You choose not to.
> 
> A self defense school could make verifiable claims.


I'm not sure what a verifiable claim about self-defense would even be, since that's a situation/concept, rather than a skill.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> And once again, you make it clear you think anyone who teaches with a self-defense orientation is a fraud. We get it.


Not a fraud.  That's against the rules.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not a fraud.  That's against the rules.


Okay, so just liars. Not sure how that's different, but I'll roll with it.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And they often do arrest those folks, oddly enough.



Yeah. Which I think breaks the link between police being able to police and training being validated by police being able to police.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what a verifiable claim about self-defense would even be, since that's a situation/concept, rather than a skill.



You test what you can do. 

There are a few ways to determine if something works by determining similar things that work. 

I was going to do a whole fridge metaphor.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The problem with your argument is that you are pushing the term as if it's a driving force that changes everything about training. Some places it may be. Most places I've seen, it was just an orientation for discussions and setting up situational drills.



Yeah it is. It is a niche section of martial arts instruction. And I think it is mostly a fabricated niche.

So if say an instructor can't win a MMA fight that doesn't matter because they train self defense. And that is this specialist field.

Which is then conveniently vague. 

And that difference surfaces all the time and not just in orientation.


----------



## Buka

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Which I think breaks the link between police being able to police and training being validated by police being able to police.



Is this, like, a cool three stooges routine? I kind of like it. Not taking a shot at you brother, I really do like it. 
I just don't know what it means.


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> Is this, like, a cool three stooges routine? I kind of like it. Not taking a shot at you brother, I really do like it.
> I just don't know what it means.



Police could arrest villains with no training whatsoever. So the idea that police arrest people therefore the training works is false. 

Now there may be some effect from training but it is a lot harder to quantify than this idea that police do training. Police arrest people so the training works.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> No. You could make self defense meaningful. You choose not to.
> 
> A self defense school could make verifiable claims.


 it seems times  like your running these debates of a script, which you stick to irrespective of what you or anybody else has said in a previous post. you have your straw-man and your beating it come what may.

you previously conceded that it was impossible to validate the effectiveness of self defence training, now your back on script insisting that it should be validated/verified

so which is it ? at best your creating a situation where your insisting that something you know to be impossible should be done !


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You test what you can do.
> 
> There are a few ways to determine if something works by determining similar things that work.
> 
> I was going to do a whole fridge metaphor.


That would be verifying the fighting skills. Which I agree with. There is a range of good ways to do that.

But what's the claim that's verifying?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah it is. It is a niche section of martial arts instruction. And I think it is mostly a fabricated niche.
> 
> So if say an instructor can't win a MMA fight that doesn't matter because they train self defense. And that is this specialist field.
> 
> Which is then conveniently vague.
> 
> And that difference surfaces all the time and not just in orientation.


If that were an absolute, I'd agree. But it's not. There are folks who teach at least part of the time with a self-defense orientation, and also compete. There are folks who teach with a SD orientation and test what they do with others outside formal competition.

Would I win an MMA fight? Dunno. I'd certainly fare better than if I hadn't trained, but I don't do so much active training these days for myself. Back in the day when I was training hard and in great shape, I'd have had a shot against a low-level fighter in a match. Today, probably not, unless I went into fight-training mode.

For most folks I've run into who teach with a self-defense orientation, they're just using the SD thoughts to guide some aspects of the training. Some do have odd notions of what that changes (the all-powerful kick in the stones, for instance), but that's not something most would figure out even if they went to compete unless they focused on kicking in the groin during competition (which most formats don't allow, from what I know).


----------



## _Simon_

Been following this thread and thought I'd chime in...

I just think "self-defence" training is more of a continuum. Can't really be any absolutes in this, as though something is guaranteed to work or training you undergo is absolutely 100% of the time guaranteed to ALWAYS make you unbeatable, or able to defend yourself.

Yes, there are systems that are maybe more efficient or dare I say effective. No I cannot detail what that means! But if a place I go to says it can guarantee me ability to defend myself, I'd probably walk the other way. It's not living in reality.

To me it's mixing levels of reality, trying to push a scientific method on something which has far too many variables to guarantee any sort of outcome.

And again, I think it's a continuum. Some styles are maybe leaning more towards realistically preparing you for what actual self defence encounters will look like.

There are only ever likelihoods (increasing likelihoods of defending yourself), and systems that have self-defence in their flier dot points along with fitness etc etc, I don't think that's lying, as what is taught CAN be used in self defence. Heck, flying kicks can be used in self defence from what I've seen. Again it's a continuum and there are margins of error or effectiveness.

I think that claiming something will teach you self defence skills (techniques that MAY be useable in self defence) is different from guaranteeing self defence.

Not sure if that made sense, but feel free to take it with a grain of salt, I have nothing at stake here.

I'm surprised the thread is still trucking on though!


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Police could arrest villains with no training whatsoever. So the idea that police arrest people therefore the training works is false.
> 
> Now there may be some effect from training but it is a lot harder to quantify than this idea that police do training. Police arrest people so the training works.


I think you already know it is not that black and white.  Police could arrest Some 'villains' with no training. Some villains are a tall order even with tons of training and tons of help. 
In context, I do not think there is 1:1 relationship between just training and the officers ability to make an arrest.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Not a fraud.  That's against the rules.


What "rules"? Oh, like the super defined and uniform rules for sparring? Now I get it. Not.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> it seems times  like your running these debates of a script, which you stick to irrespective of what you or anybody else has said in a previous post. you have your straw-man and your beating it come what may.
> 
> you previously conceded that it was impossible to validate the effectiveness of self defence training, now your back on script insisting that it should be validated/verified
> 
> so which is it ? at best your creating a situation where your insisting that something you know to be impossible should be done !



You are making it impossible by demanding it remains undefined. Which then makes every version of self defence training valid.

Like your fridge. If you believed you fridge may or may not work. It would be as sensible to keep your cold food in a box.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> If that were an absolute, I'd agree. But it's not. There are folks who teach at least part of the time with a self-defense orientation, and also compete. There are folks who teach with a SD orientation and test what they do with others outside formal competition.
> 
> Would I win an MMA fight? Dunno. I'd certainly fare better than if I hadn't trained, but I don't do so much active training these days for myself. Back in the day when I was training hard and in great shape, I'd have had a shot against a low-level fighter in a match. Today, probably not, unless I went into fight-training mode.
> 
> For most folks I've run into who teach with a self-defense orientation, they're just using the SD thoughts to guide some aspects of the training. Some do have odd notions of what that changes (the all-powerful kick in the stones, for instance), but that's not something most would figure out even if they went to compete unless they focused on kicking in the groin during competition (which most formats don't allow, from what I know).



That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Do you have a practical example of this club you are describing?


----------



## Gweilo

I think DBs thought process is common, police, uniform, air of authority, there are those who will submit to that, but the point I think he is missing is, experienced based training, does not just benefit fighting arts, police forces around the world, have been there, seen it, done it, and usually done it many times, if results based training works for mma, then it sure as hell works for the police, military.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> You are making it impossible by demanding it remains undefined. Which then makes every version of self defence training valid.
> 
> Like your fridge. If you believed you fridge may or may not work. It would be as sensible to keep your cold food in a box.


im not demanding anything, i am asking nicely and repeatably how you intend to validate it, which seems a fair question as you say it cant be done and it must be done even though its impossible


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> im not demanding anything, i am asking nicely and repeatably how you intend to validate it, which seems a fair question as you say it cant be done and it must be done even though its impossible



I validate elements of it to get a general picture of the whole.

So say I get good at punching, kicking and grappling for example. I will have an advantage in a situation that involves punching, kicking and grappling. 

Now I can verify my punching, kicking and grappling skill. So I can have a fairly accurate assessment of where I stand with that.

And so on. Same as the fridge.

I can look at similar fridges and by determining their performance I can make an assessment on if my fridge will be cold tomorrow.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> I think DBs thought process is common, police, uniform, air of authority, there are those who will submit to that, but the point I think he is missing is, experienced based training, does not just benefit fighting arts, police forces around the world, have been there, seen it, done it, and usually done it many times, if results based training works for mma, then it sure as hell works for the police, military.



I have no doubt it would work. But because police can successfully subdue criminals isn't really evidence that the training works.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> I think you already know it is not that black and white.  Police could arrest Some 'villains' with no training. Some villains are a tall order even with tons of training and tons of help.
> In context, I do not think there is 1:1 relationship between just training and the officers ability to make an arrest.



Correct.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That would be verifying the fighting skills. Which I agree with. There is a range of good ways to do that.
> 
> But what's the claim that's verifying?



I think it was if something works for "self defense"


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> I have no doubt it would work. But because police can successfully subdue criminals isn't really evidence that the training works.



So if results based training works, why, in your opinion, does it not work for the police? 
Take for instance crowd dispersal, many police forces use different techniques, sheild and baton, officers on horse back, water cannons and tear gas, rubber bullets, to just shooting people, through training, constant testing and re visiting training, tweaking stratergy, or should I say adapting to the conditions. This is training at work, sounds very similar to self defense to me.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> So if results based training works, why, in your opinion, does it not work for the police?
> Take for instance crowd dispersal, many police forces use different techniques, sheild and baton, officers on horse back, water cannons and tear gas, rubber bullets, to just shooting people, through training, constant testing and re visiting training, tweaking stratergy, or should I say adapting to the conditions. This is training at work, sounds very similar to self defense to me.



I have handled riots with no training whatsoever. People have successfully defended themselves with no training whatsoever. People even make arrests with no training whatsoever.

The results of the training and no training are indistinguishable by this method of results.

Obviously being a tradie is a results based training program that works as well.

10 News First Adelaide


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> I have handled riots with no training whatsoever. People have successfully defended themselves with no training whatsoever. People even make arrests with no training whatsoever.
> 
> The results of the training and no training are indistinguishable by this method of results.
> 
> Obviously being a tradie is a results based training program that works as well.
> 
> 10 News First Adelaide



Thatsceasy in oz though, you just dangle a few tinnies, game over, on a serious note, an untrained fighter may win fights, but what is their opponents calibre?
I agree, you can have all the skill in the world in the gym, but if your head goes to mush, because of nerves or fear in a real situation, no skill (apart from running very fast) is going to help, perhaps the police are trained differently where you come from, but you are still dodging jobo's question


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> So say I get good at punching, kicking and grappling for example. I will have an advantage in a situation that involves punching, kicking and grappling.



If your opponent is limited to punching, kicking and grappling, so you are limiting the arguement to your skill set, this is called spin in politcs, or as you once stated bollocks. What if your opponent was good at blocking, parrying, countering, where does leave your skill set, your results based evidence?


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> with no training whatsoever.


I feel you need to qualify this statement. No formal, professional OTJ defensive training? Lived in a void with zero human exposure? There is a very, very wide spectrum in 'no training'. 




Gweilo said:


> but what is their opponents calibre?


 This is a very valid point. I wonder if DB's video showed the whole story but the job site thief did not appear to put up any resistance at all. 



Gweilo said:


> I agree, you can have all the skill in the world in the gym, but if your head goes to mush, because of nerves or fear in a real situation, no skill (apart from running very fast) is going to help


 Another valid point. It speaks to the wide spectrum of the phrase no training. Experiential 'training' is the most valuable of all. IMHO


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> I validate elements of it to get a general picture of the whole.
> 
> So say I get good at punching, kicking and grappling for example. I will have an advantage in a situation that involves punching, kicking and grappling.
> 
> Now I can verify my punching, kicking and grappling skill. So I can have a fairly accurate assessment of where I stand with that.
> 
> And so on. Same as the fridge.
> 
> I can look at similar fridges and by determining their performance I can make an assessment on if my fridge will be cold tomorrow.


But by in large that is not what you are doing is it? It appears you are gathering somewhat biased data and using it to support the conclusion you have already decided is correct. Which is apparently inherent to the MMA society. Youtube videos and regional experience just does not paint the whole picture. 
It is also clear semantics are at play; or at least the way the term 'self defense' is perceived. In a comprehensive program it is a part of the whole in regards to training. 
Again, this is a big reason I emphasize the limited learning in a short SD class for laypeople. You can think of it as an introductory demo if that makes it easier. I am still not certain why @Steve took this so strongly. It is simply being transparent and honest. Gaining any level of competency (at anything) requires practice and commitment. Selling it any other way is where things go off the rails.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> But by in large that is not what you are doing is it? It appears you are gathering somewhat biased data and using it to support the conclusion you have already decided is correct. Which is apparently inherent to the MMA society. Youtube videos and regional experience just does not paint the whole picture.
> It is also clear semantics are at play; or at least the way the term 'self defense' is perceived. In a comprehensive program it is a part of the whole in regards to training.
> Again, this is a big reason I emphasize the limited learning in a short SD class for laypeople. You can think of it as an introductory demo if that makes it easier. I am still not certain why @Steve took this so strongly. It is simply being transparent and honest. Gaining any level of competency (at anything) requires practice and commitment. Selling it any other way is where things go off the rails.



So have you provided data to balance the scales?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Thatsceasy in oz though, you just dangle a few tinnies, game over, on a serious note, an untrained fighter may win fights, but what is their opponents calibre?
> I agree, you can have all the skill in the world in the gym, but if your head goes to mush, because of nerves or fear in a real situation, no skill (apart from running very fast) is going to help, perhaps the police are trained differently where you come from, but you are still dodging jobo's question



I am not dodging his question. Not being able to determine what self defense is while using it for your own marketing purposes is quite simply using self defense as a weasel word.

Not defining self defense and then claiming to do self defense is a cop out and to provide ethical training you need to specify what you are actually training and what sort of progress you can expect from training it.

That is the answer to Jojos question. That is why I do a martial with a defined purpose and a verifiable progression from people who can do the things they say they can do.

Now if you were to ethically break down self defense in to a defined purpose you would be able to see and gauge what you are learning and whether or not it is having any effect.

But self defense instructors and the bulk of the industry choose to keep this vague.

Like police do training. Police arrest people the training must work.

This keeps police trainers in buisness without ever having to develop a system that would stand up to scrutiny based on its own merits.

And this is how healing crystals work. I got sick. I used healing crystals I got better so therefore healing crystals work.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Not defining self defense and then claiming to do self defense is a cop out and to provide ethical training you need to specify what you are actually training and what sort of progress you can expect from training it.



Although, this is your thought pattern, it also contradicts what you have written, yes you can defend yourself without training, and yes you can arrest someone with little training, but without training, your chances of defending yourself diminish, this is why the majority of people take up martial arts. As reqards to effective self defense, your going around in circles, any training is better than none, pressure testing through sport or contact sparring is the best way to test ourselves other than going out fighting week in week out, just because we do not record this by way of 17 and 0, with 15 knockouts or submission, or have the stats of, in 200 fights, there was 95 knockouts, 48 submission, so lets all train powershots, and submissions, because our stats say thats what works this week, so if you dont train it, your wasting your time.
I am sorry, I never recorded my total amounts of wins etc, and how the fight was won, but I was busy fighting.



drop bear said:


> But self defense instructors and the bulk of the industry choose to keep this vague.



This though, I do agree with, there are far too many in my opinion, and a lot of 25 year olds opening self defense schools, and claiming to have 10 first dans in 10 arts, this is worrying as there will be a massive drop in quality of techniques taught, butbthen this is my opinion, I have no evidence to back this up.



drop bear said:


> Now if you were to ethically break down self defense in to a defined purpose you would be able to see and gauge what you are learning and whether or not it is having any effect.



You mean something like, person gets fit, person improves core strength, person learns to move in a self defense minded way, person learns techniques to help in self defense, person spars, person learns what things work for them, and what dosnt, person continues regular sparring, learns how to adapt techniques, and combine techniques, person improves distance and timing, person becomes better at adapting to different size people, with different strength, speed, ability, persons confidence grows, person looks for new skills to add to their repitiore, person continues to grow, I could have rambled on a lot longer.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Although, this is your thought pattern, it also contradicts what you have written, yes you can defend yourself without training, and yes you can arrest someone with little training, but without training, your chances of defending yourself diminish, this is why the majority of people take up martial arts. As reqards to effective self defense, your going around in circles, any training is better than none, pressure testing through sport or contact sparring is the best way to test ourselves other than going out fighting week in week out, just because we do not record this by way of 17 and 0, with 15 knockouts or submission, or have the stats of, in 200 fights, there was 95 knockouts, 48 submission, so lets all train powershots, and submissions, because our stats say thats what works this week, so if you dont train it, your wasting your time.
> I am sorry, I never recorded my total amounts of wins etc, and how the fight was won, but I was busy fighting.



Why is any training better than none?

I mean it sounds good but without a real link from training to application I think this is a dangerous and very common assumption.

Imagine if police training was all different. If different departments just did whatever they felt was neccessary at the time. Now imagine with even that massive discrepancy in training nobody could tell you what training works to what extent.  

It would be impossible to tell if any of the training worked.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> You mean something like, person gets fit, person improves core strength, person learns to move in a self defense minded way, person learns techniques to help in self defense, person spars, person learns what things work for them, and what dosnt, person continues regular sparring, learns how to adapt techniques, and combine techniques, person improves distance and timing, person becomes better at adapting to different size people, with different strength, speed, ability, persons confidence grows, person looks for new skills to add to their repitiore, person continues to grow, I could have rambled on a lot longer.




Maybe I am not sure.

I learn to grapple. And I can grapple to a fairly known quantity because I do it to a lot of different people in and out of competition.

Any situation that involves grappling is a known quantity to me.

If I was engaged in self defence and that involved grappling I would have a quantifiable skill that I can use at that time.


I can use enough of these things I know to solve situations I don't know. The unquantifiable becomes quantifiable in smaller bites.






And quantifiable is important. If I am not a good grappler I know that as well. I can make a real assessment of my development. And so can develop better.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Do you have a practical example of this club you are describing?


I don't follow the question, DB. I don't think I described any specific club in that post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have no doubt it would work. But because police can successfully subdue criminals isn't really evidence that the training works.


It's also not evidence the training doesn't. That was my point. The training is too short - I think most cops agree with that, but understand the reality behind it. That we see a lot of common approaches among cops suggests the training leaves an imprint, though the development of appliable skills happens over time as they get a chance to practice them in the field.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I don't follow the question, DB. I don't think I described any specific club in that post.



You didn't and I was asking if you could.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think it was if something works for "self defense"


Okay. That's pretty much what I've said in the past, then.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's also not evidence the training doesn't. That was my point. The training is too short - I think most cops agree with that, but understand the reality behind it. That we see a lot of common approaches among cops suggests the training leaves an imprint, though the development of appliable skills happens over time as they get a chance to practice them in the field.



It is a dumb way to assess or validate a training program. But it seems to be the most common way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I am not dodging his question. Not being able to determine what self defense is while using it for your own marketing purposes is quite simply using self defense as a weasel word.
> 
> Not defining self defense and then claiming to do self defense is a cop out and to provide ethical training you need to specify what you are actually training and what sort of progress you can expect from training it.
> 
> That is the answer to Jojos question. That is why I do a martial with a defined purpose and a verifiable progression from people who can do the things they say they can do.
> 
> Now if you were to ethically break down self defense in to a defined purpose you would be able to see and gauge what you are learning and whether or not it is having any effect.
> 
> But self defense instructors and the bulk of the industry choose to keep this vague.
> 
> Like police do training. Police arrest people the training must work.
> 
> This keeps police trainers in buisness without ever having to develop a system that would stand up to scrutiny based on its own merits.
> 
> And this is how healing crystals work. I got sick. I used healing crystals I got better so therefore healing crystals work.


I've provided my working definition many times. As have others who appear to have a self-defense orientation. That the definition isn't consistent between people isn't a flaw or unethical, it's just how language works. There are plenty of other words in common usage that people understand each other quite well, but the words aren't hard-edged (here are a few: religion, politics, leadership, ethics). Ask folks to define those words, and they'll have some difficulty finding the borders, but for general discussion we mostly manage to understand each other. Sometimes, we have to discuss the term, itself, to clarify what each person is talking about, so we can stay on concepts rather than being distracted by different semantics.

Or, you could just say people are being dishonest and using "weasel words" when they refer to any concept that doesn't have hard edges. Which is really just derailing the discussion, rather than having it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You didn't and I was asking if you could.


With which part? My point was that the post doesn't describe a club. It covers some different points, but there's nothing there that could be a description of a club or group of clubs, that I see. If you point the the part you're thinking of, I'll try to answer the question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> It is a dumb way to assess or validate a training program. But it seems to be the most common way.


And maybe the only way available. With only short training periods being used (and that's unlikely to change, given reality), how else could they assess results?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And maybe the only way available. With only short training periods being used (and that's unlikely to change, given reality), how else could they assess results?



Test them. Have them fight each other. Invent a competition that involves the skills they were taught, review the trained person in 6 months, 12months 2years.

I used to make noobs drag out drunk people to see if they could. And then I would assess that.

I mean if the only way to assess a course that is too short is with an unworkable validation method then maybe they are just doing everything wrong.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> With which part? My point was that the post doesn't describe a club. It covers some different points, but there's nothing there that could be a description of a club or group of clubs, that I see. If you point the the part you're thinking of, I'll try to answer the question.



Cool. Can you describe a club that does this?


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> So have you provided data to balance the scales?


How do you accurately balance the scales when it is the input that is unbalanced? Trash in/trash out would be the result. So nothing would really change.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Why is any training better than none?



Climb mount everest without training, drive a car without training, go walkabout in the great sandy dessert without training, theoretically you have a very slim chance of success on any of these, training gives you a better chance of overcoming obstacles or challenges, because you draw on experience of others that have experienced what you have been through, yes that can be quality training, it could be ineffective training, thats where pressure testing comes in, and the individuals responsibility to overcome


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Gweilo said:


> Climb mount everest without training, drive a car without training, go walkabout in the great sandy dessert without training, theoretically you have a very slim chance of success on any of these, training gives you a better chance of overcoming obstacles or challenges, because you draw on experience of others that have experienced what you have been through, yes that can be quality training, it could be ineffective training, thats where pressure testing comes in, and the individuals responsibility to overcome



This opens up something else.   People do those without FORMAL training.   If you grow up in a desert, its part of your life living in it, same with if you are ina  mountanious area etc.    If anything people living there would think its a little funny if you seek out formal training for it.    and that is where doing and learning by doing comes into the equation.  As well as learning by exposure.


----------



## jobo

Rat said:


> This opens up something else.   People do those without FORMAL training.   If you grow up in a desert, its part of your life living in it, same with if you are ina  mountanious area etc.    If anything people living there would think its a little funny if you seek out formal training for it.    and that is where doing and learning by doing comes into the equation.  As well as learning by exposure.


 well youve put formal in big letters, whats formal exactly,

my dad trained me to ride a bike when i was 7 by running me up to top speed and letting go, where as i then travel 50 yards and crashed into the wall at the bottom, no one had mentioned brakes, when i picked myself up i noted that he had gone back inside to watch the rugby and hadnt stuck around long enough to see the crash, this did however work, though it was a somewhat painful experiences, at little more formality on the various skills required and slightly more than 5 seconds exsperiancial learning would have been much appreciated


----------



## Deleted member 39746

jobo said:


> well youve put formal in big letters, whats formal exactly,
> 
> my dad trained me to ride a bike when i was 7 by running me up to top speed and letting go, where as i then travel 50 yards and crashed into the wall at the bottom, no one had mentioned brakes, when i picked myself up i noted that he had gone back inside to watch the rugby and hadnt stuck around long enough to see the crash, this did however work, though it was a somewhat painful experiences



A good question, it can mean many things to many people.  I emphisised it as plenty of people dont consider your parents teaching you formal instruction.       And then we have the break aways, like observational learning or trying to teach yourself to do somethign soley by yourself.  (technically that is observational for 95% of circumstances as you see something and try to teach yourself to do it)

Just a example for former, your parents teaching you can be literally just show you how and thats it. There isnt a standard really.


----------



## Gweilo

Rat said:


> This opens up something else.   People do those without FORMAL training.   If you grow up in a desert, its part of your life living in it, same with if you are ina  mountanious area etc.    If anything people living there would think its a little funny if you seek out formal training for it.    and that is where doing and learning by doing comes into the equation.  As well as learning by exposure.



So these people who live in desserts and mountains, they just know how to survive?
Dont you think they may have been shown how to survive by their parents/community, shown in this case being another word for trained, in the skills passed on by their ancestors, or do you beleive it was pop, out of the womb, and these skills to survive in harsh enviroments is instinct?


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Gweilo said:


> So these people who live in desserts and mountains, they just know how to survive?
> Dont you think they may have been shown how to survive by their parents/community, shown in this case being another word for trained, in the skills passed on by their ancestors, or do you beleive it was pop, out of the womb, and these skills to survive in harsh enviroments is instinct?



They pick it up usually.  From where ever.     That is hence my point on "formal" instruction, you would be looked at weirdly in some cases if you did a survival course and live in the bush.   Yet a lot of people who live in it probbly dont know half of whats in a formal course and do fine most of the time and in day to day living.

Hell some people move to a remote location and literally learn everything through trial and error. They have no prior education or experience in the subject or not enough to make a diffrence in the context.


----------



## Gweilo

Rat said:


> They pick it up usually. From where ever.



So they learn, do you think learnt by watchingbtheir parents?


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Gweilo said:


> So they learn, do you think learnt by watchingbtheir parents?



Doing that, other people or via trial and error, many things are done in life.  plenty of skills are picked up via trial and error without any proper direction.


----------



## Gweilo

Trial and error I agree, but who teaches the trial and error.
Talking as you are, I went to school, never learnt maths, it was trial and error.
On a slightly different note, are you actually training, or trial and erroring a martial art at present?


----------



## Gweilo

I think I may of come accross, the argue no matter what thread, one needs evidance to fit in with their narrow mind, another dont need proof as skills are instinctual, and you dont need training..
I would love to fight either of you, in a friendly way of course, DB, Inknow you are going to be fit and strong, you are goingvto have some skill, but I reckon no more than 2 , 3 mins rounds, I will put you night nights, Rat LMFAO, is that a flying cheese sarny, night night.


----------



## Buka

Looking back....

I've been through the desert......


----------



## Gweilo

On a horse with no name?


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> How do you accurately balance the scales when it is the input that is unbalanced? Trash in/trash out would be the result. So nothing would really change.



Definitely not by never providing imput and then trying to use that to make an assessment.

Let's look at all the evidence that isn't there. Is just silly.


----------



## Buka

Gweilo said:


> On a horse with no name?



Yes. It felt good to get out of the rain....


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Climb mount everest without training, drive a car without training, go walkabout in the great sandy dessert without training, theoretically you have a very slim chance of success on any of these, training gives you a better chance of overcoming obstacles or challenges, because you draw on experience of others that have experienced what you have been through, yes that can be quality training, it could be ineffective training, thats where pressure testing comes in, and the individuals responsibility to overcome



So if I do dry land swimming I will be better at climbing mount Everest?


You support this notion that training works. Then you support pressure testing it. 

If training works you don't have to test it.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> I think I may of come accross, the argue no matter what thread, one needs evidance to fit in with their narrow mind, another dont need proof as skills are instinctual, and you dont need training..
> I would love to fight either of you, in a friendly way of course, DB, Inknow you are going to be fit and strong, you are goingvto have some skill, but I reckon no more than 2 , 3 mins rounds, I will put you night nights, Rat LMFAO, is that a flying cheese sarny, night night.



The point is we don't know. So we don't make stuff up.

I mean come on guys 47 pages and that isn't self evident?


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> So if I do dry land swimming I will be better at climbing mount Everest?
> 
> 
> You support this notion that training works. Then you support pressure testing it.
> 
> If training works you don't have to test it.



I just put a post on the Systema thread, through covidv19, the main thing I am missing is the contact, not because of the physicality of contact, but the learning process, becoming successful in my ability, whilst helping others become successful in theirs, its a process that is infinate, in my art, yours, or any other, you are in the stage of Me, thats fine, maybe one day you will understand, yes its great to push, but sometimes, you need others to push, guide and control what we are


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> If training works you don't have to test it.



Yes you do, or how do you know its effective, if you really beleive that, why do you preach mma, and the stats that so say back its training. At my age, there sre fery few 50 year olds, willing to fight, so I draw from my experience of my past, or sparring sessions I have had recently, most of which,mmy sparring partners are late 20's to early 40's, yes I may find the youngens fast, difficult to control, but my favorite quote from point break movie,, young, dumb, and full of cum, let them think they are special, then show them they aint, maybe I am a minority, 50 year old that spars with younger guys, I dougt it. Education, education, education, no matter how old you are.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

Gweilo said:


> I think I may of come accross, the argue no matter what thread, one needs evidance to fit in with their narrow mind, another dont need proof as skills are instinctual, and you dont need training..
> I would love to fight either of you, in a friendly way of course, DB, Inknow you are going to be fit and strong, you are goingvto have some skill, but I reckon no more than 2 , 3 mins rounds, I will put you night nights, Rat LMFAO, is that a flying cheese sarny, night night.








All i have for the latter part of that one.  i will reply with a  proper response later, and because i dont want to get funny replies to a serious point or muddle the reactions.


----------



## Steve

I've missed a lot.  So just to hit a couple of quick points I've noticed skimming through the last few days...  People learn to do a lot of things without training.  Trial and error is a thing. Opens up even more if you consider all of the things we learn to do with minimal, informal training.  But no one builds real skill without experience.   

Self defense isn't an actual thing that people can do.  The best one can do is identify a specific context, identify skills that are complimentary and develop those skills through experience and training. So, where does this leave us?  Well, if you think fighting is part of it, and you aren't fighting, you aren't learning to fight.  If you think deescalation is part of it, but you have no occasion to deescalate, you aren't getting better at that.  What you are hoping for is, much like CPR training, that you're training  is better than nothing.  In my opinion, to that sounds a lot like faith.  And if you look at the stats on CPR, you're probably going to be very sorry if the **** hits the fan.

Regarding the self defense seminar, I'll just say again I admire anyone who can sell a product like that.  It's honest, and I can't fault it.  As I said before, that sounds like a great gig.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Cool. Can you describe a club that does this?


Okay, still not clear, but I assume you're talking about the first two sentences of that post - places that teach with a SD orientation and either compete or test with others outside competition.

I'm an example of the latter. There are folks on here who compete and have also discussed that at least part of their training orientiation is for SD. The woman who owns the Karate school I teach at was a frequent competitor (full contact Karate tournaments), and from talking with her instructor he does talk about SD in their training. Much of Tomiki Aikido falls into that category, as well. Many of the more serious folks I trained with liked to get together with folks from other styles and spar to find out what works against them. Though it's not nearly everyone in the SD world, it's also not all that rare, either.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> This opens up something else.   People do those without FORMAL training.   If you grow up in a desert, its part of your life living in it, same with if you are ina  mountanious area etc.    If anything people living there would think its a little funny if you seek out formal training for it.    and that is where doing and learning by doing comes into the equation.  As well as learning by exposure.


Actually, they learn in that situattion through being around experienced folks all the time. They don't teach themselves.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> They pick it up usually.  From where ever.     That is hence my point on "formal" instruction, you would be looked at weirdly in some cases if you did a survival course and live in the bush.   Yet a lot of people who live in it probbly dont know half of whats in a formal course and do fine most of the time and in day to day living.
> 
> Hell some people move to a remote location and literally learn everything through trial and error. They have no prior education or experience in the subject or not enough to make a diffrence in the context.


It's not going to be quite so haphazard as picking it up "wherever". They'll be taught the most important parts, and will absorb most of the detail either by being explictly taught or by repetition and observation. Note that you can't compare knowing to keep your head covered with a piece of cloth or how much water to carry, to throwing an effective kick. They aren't the same kind of learning, at all.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> Doing that, other people or via trial and error, many things are done in life.  plenty of skills are picked up via trial and error without any proper direction.


Driving isn't one of them. Some skills need tuning for most folks to get good at them in a reasonable time, with reasonable risk. Don't let confirmation bias cloud your observations.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So if I do dry land swimming I will be better at climbing mount Everest?
> 
> 
> You support this notion that training works. Then you support pressure testing it.
> 
> If training works you don't have to test it.


I agree with your point here.

Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> It's not going to be quite so haphazard as picking it up "wherever". They'll be taught the most important parts, and will absorb most of the detail either by being explictly taught or by repetition and observation. Note that you can't compare knowing to keep your head covered with a piece of cloth or how much water to carry, to throwing an effective kick. They aren't the same kind of learning, at all.



Covering all bases, some  do learn it by themselves.   Or in a uncommon model, ie learning it themselves as opposed to family teach them.       And i dont belive i was, we can dispute the diffrent skills and how easy/hard they are to pick up and the diffrences in people picking it up ad infitium.  (and i do dispute a lot of them to be honest)



gpseymour said:


> Driving isn't one of them. Some skills need tuning for most folks to get good at them in a reasonable time, with reasonable risk. Don't let confirmation bias cloud your observations.



Oh for driving, plenty of people havent had formal instruction in how to do it, you dont need a licence in plenty of places for private property and then a  licence isnt nessisarily anything more than a formality.  (if its even enforced in the area you drive in)   that indeed has the spectrum of, they crashed enough times to figure it out by themselves, their parents taught them in a  formal manner, they did a informal manner etc.           Lots of variables for learning in reality, and then this isnt covering the people who move and do in deed learn by trial and error and if they love up will die, seen some of them for the reality shows for remote areas.

Kind of mixed the points up in here.

Addendum:    I listed a spectrum and the spectrum of "they pick it up somewhere" is apt, no one persons expreince in life is 1:1 to someone elses.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Driving isn't one of them. Some skills need tuning for most folks to get good at them in a reasonable time, with reasonable risk. Don't let confirmation bias cloud your observations.


Driving education starts in the classroom, but they’re actually driving in traffic within just a few weeks.  I think we need to distinguish now between training and coaching.  Learning to drive requires a little training, and a lot of coaching.  Central to coaching is that the person is doing the thing they’re learning.  So, kids go out and actually drive the car in traffic and are coached along the way.   

and even the coaching gives way very quickly to application.   If we consider the Actual time involved, it’s  Hours of training, days of coaching (maybe up to a few weeks) and a lifetime of application.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Yes you do, or how do you know its effective, if you really beleive that, why do you preach mma, and the stats that so say back its training. At my age, there sre fery few 50 year olds, willing to fight, so I draw from my experience of my past, or sparring sessions I have had recently, most of which,mmy sparring partners are late 20's to early 40's, yes I may find the youngens fast, difficult to control, but my favorite quote from point break movie,, young, dumb, and full of cum, let them think they are special, then show them they aint, maybe I am a minority, 50 year old that spars with younger guys, I dougt it. Education, education, education, no matter how old you are.





gpseymour said:


> I agree with your point here.
> 
> Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.



That doesn't create nuance. Train and then test that training to see if it is working. 

Not train because it works. 

If you train to do a thing you test that thing. There is no nuance there either.

Where there is nuance is training to do a thing. Testing that thing and then doing a different thing. 

And the nuance is the difference between doing the pieces and doing the whole. 

And the extra element you need then is someone with experience of how the pieces are put together.

So for a MMA fight. We train the pieces much more than we train the whole. And we create this picture that is a MMA fight.

But we need to reference people who have created this picture. (Someone who competes) or we could wind up creating a different picture. 

MMA is easy to do this because we can see bullcrap pretty easily. Self defense is a world of bullcrap and is much harder.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I agree with your point here.
> 
> Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.



What we get is eventually someone who has looked at a picture and has tried to recreate that without testing the parts.






Now we go back to nuance. If you look at the picture and have tested the parts you may get a different picture but it still could work. And you go test the whole thing and see. This is where the idea all styles work it is how you train it gets misused.

But if you haven't tested it. It probably won't work and isn't the picture you were going for and is a stupid waste of time and then you have to make up a bunch of excuses to rationalize it so you don't look like a tool. E.g.. That video.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> What we get is eventually someone who has looked at a picture and has tried to recreate that without testing the parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we go back to nuance. If you look at the picture and have tested the parts you may get a different picture but it still could work. And you go test the whole thing and see. This is where the idea all styles work it is how you train it gets misused.
> 
> But if you haven't tested it. It probably won't work and isn't the picture you were going for and is a stupid waste of time and then you have to make up a bunch of excuses to rationalize it so you don't look like a tool. E.g.. That video.




And then people see that and think that is the picture  and will try to recreate that.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I agree with your point here.
> 
> Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.


In this analogy, one can learn to fly a twin engine plane and then actually pilot that plane.  One can learn to fly a jet, and then actually pilot that jet.  The two skill sets may be complimentary... or they may just seem similar superficially to a lay person.

This is actually a pretty good analogy, because it highlights how easy it is for a lay person to presume that similar skill sets are complimentary. In this analogy, your position is that flying a twin engine plane is in some way preparing you to pilot an F18. Further, the self defense application in this analogy would be someone advertising F18 lessons, but offering twin engine plane lessons, all the while muddying the waters with allusions to F18 skill as some kind of attainable goal, should the person just put in the time and effort to get there.  When in fact, no one in that school will ever learn to fly a jet.  Ever.  And they may not even be able to fly a twin engine plane, because you never actually get within a mile of a runway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Rat said:


> Covering all bases, some  do learn it by themselves.   Or in a uncommon model, ie learning it themselves as opposed to family teach them.       And i dont belive i was, we can dispute the diffrent skills and how easy/hard they are to pick up and the diffrences in people picking it up ad infitium.  (and i do dispute a lot of them to be honest)
> 
> 
> 
> Oh for driving, plenty of people havent had formal instruction in how to do it, you dont need a licence in plenty of places for private property and then a  licence isnt nessisarily anything more than a formality.  (if its even enforced in the area you drive in)   that indeed has the spectrum of, they crashed enough times to figure it out by themselves, their parents taught them in a  formal manner, they did a informal manner etc.           Lots of variables for learning in reality, and then this isnt covering the people who move and do in deed learn by trial and error and if they love up will die, seen some of them for the reality shows for remote areas.
> 
> Kind of mixed the points up in here.
> 
> Addendum:    I listed a spectrum and the spectrum of "they pick it up somewhere" is apt, no one persons expreince in life is 1:1 to someone elses.


A couple of thoughts that sort of summarize what I'm thinking:

1) "Formal" doesn't have to mean a paid professional. My dad took me to a parking lot and taught me the first bit of driving. Then took me out on the road and kept teaching me. It was time specifically spent being taught those skills by an experienced driver. For these purposes, I'd consider that "formal" training.

2) Yes, you could find exceptions. But basing your plans around exceptions is one area of confirmation bias I was warning about. There's a famous golfer (from back in the 30's, I think) who is thought to have put his clubs away at the end of the competition season, and take them back out when it started back. That has happened, but probably isn't a good basis for determining how to get really good at golf, as most really good golfers practice quite a bit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That doesn't create nuance. Train and then test that training to see if it is working.
> 
> Not train because it works.
> 
> If you train to do a thing you test that thing. There is no nuance there either.
> 
> Where there is nuance is training to do a thing. Testing that thing and then doing a different thing.
> 
> And the nuance is the difference between doing the pieces and doing the whole.
> 
> And the extra element you need then is someone with experience of how the pieces are put together.
> 
> So for a MMA fight. We train the pieces much more than we train the whole. And we create this picture that is a MMA fight.
> 
> But we need to reference people who have created this picture. (Someone who competes) or we could wind up creating a different picture.
> 
> MMA is easy to do this because we can see bullcrap pretty easily. Self defense is a world of bullcrap and is much harder.


I think you and I might have entirely different ideas what "nuance" means.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What we get is eventually someone who has looked at a picture and has tried to recreate that without testing the parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now we go back to nuance. If you look at the picture and have tested the parts you may get a different picture but it still could work. And you go test the whole thing and see. This is where the idea all styles work it is how you train it gets misused.
> 
> But if you haven't tested it. It probably won't work and isn't the picture you were going for and is a stupid waste of time and then you have to make up a bunch of excuses to rationalize it so you don't look like a tool. E.g.. That video.


Yeah, not really sure what that has to do with the idea that skills can be applied at various levels.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> In this analogy, your position is that flying a twin engine plane is in some way preparing you to pilot an F18.


Actually, no, it's not.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Actually, no, it's not.


Yeah. It really is. You just don't want to see it.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> If you train to do a thing you test that thing. There is no nuance there either.
> 
> Where there is nuance is training to do a thing. Testing that thing and then doing a different thing.



Perhaps you forgot the word ADAPT, also the part about sparring/training with different people, bigger, stronger, faster, smaller, slower, weaker. With the first 3, learn to adapt, learn to use your skill against difficult opponents, the 2nd 3, play, experiment, adapt, learn to conserve energy, try new things, a different approach/angle, things to you can then test against the more difficult opponents.
Imo, I agree in part, for example, there are some arts, that teach x amount of grades in technique, and x amount of routine movement, which becomes predeictable, very little or no sparring, or a tippy tappy point scoring competition once in a blue moon, and always train with the same person, here you have a very valid point. We used to call that one dimensional, they had a lot of skill in a confined area, no nuance as you put it, a difference or graduation of difference, like a piece of music, I have heard this thrase many times over the years, nuance, the problem is, like music, nuance needs to work off a beat,mor rythme if you like. Stopping the learning process, no longer adapting, thinking you have the magic formula, this is the problem, your nuances are different to mine, mine are different to JP's, its just you beleive yours is better. There are things to be learnt from Mma, and its data from matches and performance based training, but its just another nuance, adapt and use whats useful, then move on. Nuance.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Perhaps you forgot the word ADAPT, also the part about sparring/training with different people, bigger, stronger, faster, smaller, slower, weaker. With the first 3, learn to adapt, learn to use your skill against difficult opponents, the 2nd 3, play, experiment, adapt, learn to conserve energy, try new things, a different approach/angle, things to you can then test against the more difficult opponents.
> Imo, I agree in part, for example, there are some arts, that teach x amount of grades in technique, and x amount of routine movement, which becomes predeictable, very little or no sparring, or a tippy tappy point scoring competition once in a blue moon, and always train with the same person, here you have a very valid point. We used to call that one dimensional, they had a lot of skill in a confined area, no nuance as you put it, a difference or graduation of difference, like a piece of music, I have heard this thrase many times over the years, nuance, the problem is, like music, nuance needs to work off a beat,mor rythme if you like. Stopping the learning process, no longer adapting, thinking you have the magic formula, this is the problem, your nuances are different to mine, mine are different to JP's, its just you beleive yours is better. There are things to be learnt from Mma, and its data from matches and performance based training, but its just another nuance, adapt and use whats useful, then move on. Nuance.



I think people are using nuance like I would use excuse machine.

So if we look at SCARS guy and his basic inability to do martial arts. And then listen to his line about how he doesn't roll around with people he just kills them with throat pressure so therefore every dumb thing he is doing is actually amazing.

That isn't nuance. That is a line of horse hooey designed to disguise incompetence.

With nuance you should still be able to do the things you say you can do.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think you and I might have entirely different ideas what "nuance" means.



I assume you think you just write nuance and that therefore makes you correct.

Which is exactly what nuance in quotation marks mean. 

I am using it non sarcastically.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I agree with your point here.
> 
> Now, let's bring some nuance. Someone doesn't have to try flying a jet to know they can fly a twin-engine plane. There is a whole spectrum of testing the ability to fly an aircraft.



I was thinking along the lines of Steve here. But are you saying that if I can fly a crap easy to fly plane but not a super hard one I can still fly a plane?

And so therefore if I do a crap easy to progress self defense and not a super hard one. I am still doing self defense?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, not really sure what that has to do with the idea that skills can be applied at various levels.



I thought we were still on testing pieces to make a whole.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> So if we look at SCARS



There is nothing new, or outstanding about this video, this type of approach is in many arts, again adapting, you seem to think you have stumbled onto a magic formula, thatsvthe horse dooey.


----------



## Gweilo

The discussion of static technique v adapability has been going for years.


----------



## Gweilo

Adaptability is the single most important trait a fighter can have. It is more important than power, speed, timing, balance, coordination, grace, fortitude, conditioning, aggressiveness, agility, precision, endurance, body feel, posture or form. To instantly respond to your adversary’s every move, the conditions and the fight environment requires a flexible mind and a martial art suited to modification.
The only flaw in the above sentance, adaptability is more important, but you cannot attain adaptability until you have attained the others.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I assume you think you just write nuance and that therefore makes you correct.
> 
> Which is exactly what nuance in quotation marks mean.
> 
> I am using it non sarcastically.


Actually putting a word in quotes is formally correct in that usage. You're just interpreting it the way you want to, to continue arguing a point by ignoring a point. Which means you've run out of attempts in that area and are trying to shift to a different argument.

Which I guess means we're done?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I was thinking along the lines of Steve here. But are you saying that if I can fly a crap easy to fly plane but not a super hard one I can still fly a plane?
> 
> And so therefore if I do a crap easy to progress self defense and not a super hard one. I am still doing self defense?


Okay, so you've just made a point I've asserted several times with you: if something isn't (in your eyes) the best, it's crap. Twin-engine planes get a lot of use, including still in daily commuter runs. In other words, they're useful. So is being able to fight against average folks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I thought we were still on testing pieces to make a whole.


I'm not sure I've said anything about that in this thread.


----------



## jobo

Gweilo said:


> Adaptability is the single most important trait a fighter can have. It is more important than power, speed, timing, balance, coordination, grace, fortitude, conditioning, aggressiveness, agility, precision, endurance, body feel, posture or form. To instantly respond to your adversary’s every move, the conditions and the fight environment requires a flexible mind and a martial art suited to modification.
> The only flaw in the above sentance, adaptability is more important, but you cannot attain adaptability until you have attained the others.


well yes agree, it has its place, i doubt its the most important, as with out speed, power agility etal, its useless,

personalty if i had to choose, and i suppose i have done to some extent, id go for power speed and,agility as then what my opponent is doing is largely irrelevant, im in the iron mike camp for fight strategy


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> In this analogy, one can learn to fly a twin engine plane and then actually pilot that plane.  One can learn to fly a jet, and then actually pilot that jet.  The two skill sets may be complimentary... or they may just seem similar superficially to a lay person.
> 
> This is actually a pretty good analogy, because it highlights how easy it is for a lay person to presume that similar skill sets are complimentary. In this analogy, your position is that flying a twin engine plane is in some way preparing you to pilot an F18. Further, the self defense application in this analogy would be someone advertising F18 lessons, but offering twin engine plane lessons, all the while muddying the waters with allusions to F18 skill as some kind of attainable goal, should the person just put in the time and effort to get there.  When in fact, no one in that school will ever learn to fly a jet.  Ever.  And they may not even be able to fly a twin engine plane, because you never actually get within a mile of a runway.


 f18 are largely self flying planes, that is they are so inherently unstable its only the computer that keeps them in the air, id suggest the skill set to actually fly on its relatively similar to a crop duster,  actually fighting in one is of course some what different.

though the only thing that separates a modern fighter flyers and say a spitefire flyer in the 1940s, is 80 years, either could do the other ones job with a bit of practice, and spitfire flyers were getting straight out of crop dusters. its the freakish reactions and hand eye co ordintion that sets them apart rather than any training, oh and being suicide brave helps


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> f18 are largely self flying planes, that is they are so inherently unstable its only the computer that keeps them in the air, id suggest the skill set to actually fly on its relatively similar to a crop duster,  actually fighting in one is of course some what different.
> 
> though the only thing that separates a modern fighter flyers and say a spitefire flyer in the 1940s, is 80 years, either could do the other ones job with a bit of practice, and spitfire flyers were getting straight out of crop dusters. its the freakish reactions and hand eye co ordintion that sets them apart rather than any training, oh and being suicide brave helps


I suspect training plays a bit of a role. Trial-and-error in a warplane during active combat seems a bit chancy.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I suspect training plays a bit of a role. Trial-and-error in a warplane during active combat seems a bit chancy.


we were taking about flying them, not dog fights which is clearly a step up

simulators play a big part,as do dual controls, like say a self defence drill, they are a bit expensive for trial and error at any time, they are however just a very expensive video game flying planes is quite ridiculously easy, easier than riding a motor bike for instance, harder than driving a car, landing them can bit a bit trick, avoiding tall building is a good idea., i can see no reason beyond control familiarity why a fighter jet should be fundamental more difficult to get from point a to point b. the dam thing has auto controls for one thing


----------



## Steve

I think the salient point is that it's a different skill set, even though it may seem similar to a lay person.  

Hey guys. Look. There's a forest over there where all the trees are.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> I think the salient point is that it's a different skill set, even though it may seem similar to a lay person.
> 
> Hey guys. Look. There's a forest over there where all the trees are.


 no its the same skill set, like running is an advanced version of walking. the forward motion whilst not falling over skill is the same

its the reason for that well known idiom,'' learning to walk before you can run''


----------



## Gweilo

jobo said:


> well yes agree, it has its place, i doubt its the most important, as with out speed, power agility etal, its useless,



But if you cannot adapt to a random attack, then it does not matter how fast or strong you are, fortunately, adaptability is helped by continual movement, andcremaining calm.


----------



## jobo

Gweilo said:


> But if you cannot adapt to a random attack, then it does not matter how fast or strong you are, fortunately, adaptability is helped by continual movement, andcremaining calm.


 i would ''adapt'' to a random attack by unleashing everything i had onto them. which is much what i would do for an nonrandom attack, usually accompanied by screaming IL !!!!ing kill you , you &&&&, i dont do calm whilst attempting to beat someone to death


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so you've just made a point I've asserted several times with you: if something isn't (in your eyes) the best, it's crap. Twin-engine planes get a lot of use, including still in daily commuter runs. In other words, they're useful. So is being able to fight against average folks.



Ok. Your "nuance" comment is wrong then. 

If you can fly a twin engine plane you can fly a plane. If you have done training in that plane you should be able to fly that plane or the training isn't very good. 

In other words they are useful. 

If you are training to fight against average folks. Then you should be able to do that and there is no nuance there either.

Unless like self defense you train to fly an undefined plane and an undefined folk and wind up with no idea what you have actually been trained to do. And have to use "nuance" sarcastically.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so you've just made a point I've asserted several times with you: if something isn't (in your eyes) the best, it's crap.



And this is incorrect. A plane has a minimum standard so it will probably not blow up or fall out of the air. Pilot training has a minimum standard so pilots don't just crash the thing.

Martial arts has no minimum standard. If we trained pilots to the standard of martial artists. Then crap would not even be in debate.

Planes don't fly because they are planes. There is a lot of back of house that actually makes planes fly.

And this seems to be the argument. Planes fly. So if I build a plane it will fly.

John Jones throws oblique kicks. I throw oblique kicks therefore nuance.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I think the salient point is that it's a different skill set, even though it may seem similar to a lay person.
> 
> Hey guys. Look. There's a forest over there where all the trees are.



Yeah. And we go back to that whole picture speach I made. Which is where I thought we were going in the first place

So at least it applied somewhere.


----------



## Steve

Gweilo said:


> But if you cannot adapt to a random attack, then it does not matter how fast or strong you are, fortunately, adaptability is helped by continual movement, andcremaining calm.


if someone can't manage an expected attack outside of training, how could they possibly be expected to adapt to a random attack?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> The discussion of static technique v adapability has been going for years.



Honestly timing and performing technique in real time is almost self evident to people who actually apply technique.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> And this is incorrect. A plane has a minimum standard so it will probably not blow up or fall out of the air. Pilot training has a minimum standard so pilots don't just crash the thing.
> 
> Martial arts has no minimum standard. If we trained pilots to the standard of martial artists. Then crap would not even be in debate.
> 
> Planes don't fly because they are planes. There is a lot of back of house that actually makes planes fly.



There are lots of planes that have a higher standard for operation than others.  A lot of planes that have individual training requirements that others don't.  Can anyone who's trained for a couple of hours on a Cessna fly a F-22 Raptor effectively?  How about a Harrier?  There is additional training requirements to be a commercial pilot than just to fly by yourself.  There's additional training to do acrobatics than just to fly a plane.  There's additional training to do solo flights than to fly under the guidance of an instructor.

If a plane is a plane, there's no difference between your average joe with a pilot's license, and the Red Baron.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> There are lots of planes that have a higher standard for operation than others.  A lot of planes that have individual training requirements that others don't.  Can anyone who's trained for a couple of hours on a Cessna fly a F-22 Raptor effectively?  How about a Harrier?  There is additional training requirements to be a commercial pilot than just to fly by yourself.  There's additional training to do acrobatics than just to fly a plane.  There's additional training to do solo flights than to fly under the guidance of an instructor.
> 
> If a plane is a plane, there's no difference between your average joe with a pilot's license, and the Red Baron.



Ok. But then we are all happy with the term self defense enough to say we can do that or teach that?

Because the training isn't anything near the same.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> But if you cannot adapt to a random attack, then it does not matter how fast or strong you are, fortunately, adaptability is helped by continual movement, andcremaining calm.



Yeah but that is too big a bite of the problem to properly solve it.

Boxing is helped by hitting them and not letting them hit you.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Yeah but that is too big a bite of the problem to properly solve it



Why would you say that? All these "to big a bite of a problem" can be solved by moving,, transitioning, whether its to a position of avoidance, or a positioning to strike, or from one technique to another.
Trial and error, or results based training. You have fallen hook line and sinker into the hype of a new craze, we have seen this, and most fallen for several times over the generations, Karate, judo, kung fu, ninjitsu, TKD, bjj, vale tudo, mma, not knocking any of these arts, but your in a rebranded, repackaged trend, that happens to of used modern tech, to the marketing advantage, not saying your training is useless (as you have to many), its just your train is red, mine is blue, but they are both going to different station,s in the same destination, yours sport, mine not.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Why would you say that? All these "to big a bite of a problem" can be solved by moving,, transitioning, whether its to a position of avoidance, or a positioning to strike, or from one technique to another.
> Trial and error, or results based training. You have fallen hook line and sinker into the hype of a new craze, we have seen this, and most fallen for several times over the generations, Karate, judo, kung fu, ninjitsu, TKD, bjj, vale tudo, mma, not knocking any of these arts, but your in a rebranded, repackaged trend, that happens to of used modern tech, to the marketing advantage, not saying your training is useless (as you have to many), its just your train is red, mine is blue, but they are both going to different station,s in the same destination, yours sport, mine not.



I could beat Mike Tyson by moving and transitioning. But that isn't going to make me able to beat Mike Tyson.

And my train is a real train. It is not a new craze. It is not a variation on a theme it is n not a bias, it is not marketing. It is a real provable trackball system.

My system actually exists. The performance of my instructors actually exists, the performance of the rest of my club actually exists. And it exists in that it does what it says it does. There is the ability to track my progress in my club against other members of my club. Who track their progress against members of other clubs.

My training is based on really real things.

Is yours?  When have you last seen your instructor fight anybody who was any good? When have you fought anyone who is any good?

It is not the color of the train it is whether there is a train there at all.

Because most of these discussions is about conceptual train.

My coach doing a real thing.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2436752679707490
			




Me in the background doing a real thing.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2994739633889812
			




Me in the background again doing real things dressed up like santa clause in a room full of real people doing real things.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2404075843177975
			




Other students doing real things.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> I could beat Mike Tyson by moving and transitioning. But that isn't going to make me able to beat Mike Tyson



Sort of says it all.
Ok whats your professional fight record, I could give you mine, but have no proof, as it was unliscensed fights, means jack I know, but 8-0 with 8 stoppages, not many granted, but this was before mma, and in barns, working mens clubs, and pub car parks, with straw bales as the ring. Or your ameteur fight record, who have you beat that is of note?
Your answer is probably nobody we have heard of, like mine, but £1000 says, you couldnt hit a cows butt with a banjo, and I could arm bar you in 5 mins, but will never know, seeing as you live approx 4000 miles away


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Sort of says it all.
> Ok whats your professional fight record, I could give you mine, but have no proof, as it was unliscensed fights, means jack I know, but 8-0 with 8 stoppages, not many granted, but this was before mma, and in barns, working mens clubs, and pub car parks, with straw bales as the ring. Or your ameteur fight record, who have you beat that is of note?
> Your answer is probably nobody we have heard of, like mine, but £1000 says, you couldnt hit a cows butt with a banjo, and I could arm bar you in 5 mins, but will never know, seeing as you live approx 4000 miles away



Real people from other clubs training in our club. And you know what they were training?

Yep. Real things.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Real people from other clubs training in our club. And you know what they were training?
> 
> Yep. Real things.
> View attachment 22856



Cuddling each other


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Sort of says it all.
> Ok whats your professional fight record, I could give you mine, but have no proof, as it was unliscensed fights, means jack I know, but 8-0 with 8 stoppages, not many granted, but this was before mma, and in barns, working mens clubs, and pub car parks, with straw bales as the ring. Or your ameteur fight record, who have you beat that is of note?
> Your answer is probably nobody we have heard of, like mine, but £1000 says, you couldnt hit a cows butt with a banjo, and I could arm bar you in 5 mins, but will never know, seeing as you live approx 4000 miles away



You don't understand that if I moved and transitioned correctly I could win fights all the time. If they punch me I just move out of the way. 

The concept to winning fights is actually pretty simple.

Unfortunately the application is where the time effort and money goes. 

Which is my point.


----------



## Gweilo

Are you the fat one, 2nd from left?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Cuddling each other



Combat cuddles.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Are you the fat one, 2nd from left?



No that is Rob grufridda.


----------



## Gweilo

No fight record then?


----------



## Gweilo

Just looked up HIS record 21-5-0, knocked out in all 5 of his loses, perhaps he forgot to protect or move his chin


----------



## Gweilo

Very little stats or quotes coming back, and no fight record for drop bear.


----------



## Gweilo

Or are you looking for more youtube videos, that are unrelated to you or you arguenent?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> No fight record then?



Nope. But i train with guys who have one.

Which is why I don't teach because I don't believe in teaching something that I basically haven't done.

And this is Important because it works because it works. Isn't it works because I am awesome.

I basically set the bar that my system actually exists. And I think I have met that

And you raised that bar to a professional fight record and then did not see the need to meet that yourself.

While not even meeting my bar.

Why does your argument make any sense?

Like what point were you trying to make with it?


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Just looked up HIS record 21-5-0, knocked out in all 5 of his loses, perhaps he forgot to protect or move his chin



So now you have raised the bar again?

From pro fighter to pro fighter with a perfect record.

Even though you couldn't meet mine.

I mean I get it if we raise the bar high enough nobody meets that standard.

But that doesn't justify having no standards.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Nope. But i train with guys who have one



So this is like your quotes, teacher says, so must be true, but teacher is talking horse dooey, you have no fights, you have just been listening to teacher, and the big boys talk, all that talk about demanding proof, and you have no evidence of your progression, the so say evidence of proof you demand from others, go figure


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Nope. But i train with guys who have one.



I have trained with guys who have 5th and 8th dans, but in your words, i am wasting my time, as I have no evidence


----------



## Gweilo

There are no quantifyable stats, teacher says, so it must be true, and you have just said the same thing, you have knocked and riddiculed other posters for saying, cows butts, banjos and arm locks.


----------



## Gweilo

And I can tell from your answers, under pressure, you fold, so keep your training as a hobby, you will not  hack the pressure of the fight game, you maybe ok in the gym, butbkeep it there.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> So this is like your quotes, teacher says, so must be true, but teacher is talking horse dooey, you have no fights, you have just been listening to teacher, and the big boys talk, all that talk about demanding proof, and you have no evidence of your progression, the so say evidence of proof you demand from others, go figure



You really didn't understand the whole parts of a picture thing.

Find a teacher who has done the thing he is training you to do.

Try the things the teacher tells you and see if they work. 

Look around the room and see if they work for other people and to what degree.

Use that information to make an assessment of your own development. Test and retest that. 

I mean this is what I have said about sparring. There is a difference between it works in sparring and it works in sparring against a guy who has won 27 pro fights. 

And where did I set the bar? 

Because it wasn't win professional fights. 

I said prove what you do is real. And you still haven't done that. 

This is the most amazing thing about this conversation is my performance is so low to what it could conceivably be. There are a couple of jits comps, a mma which I lost and some hard sparring with some quality guys. A heap of pub fights. But we will leave that out for now as it will all be anecdotal. 

And yet is still so far above the average expectation that it is considered unobtainable. 

And I am 45. It is not even that people can use old man excuse.


----------



## drop bear

And in my defense of my MMA loss it was my first fight and i fought this guy.

About Us -

And he had cut weight to get to 90kg. And i rolled up at 90 walking around on 10 days notice because i was told he was a twelve week program guy who just needed someone for his fight.

And it was the only time I got uppercuted airborne.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> sparring and it works in sparring against a guy who has won 27 pro fights



But you have not, this is the statement, you have jumped on, when other forum members have said exactly what you just posted, yes it may have worked for your teacher, but clearly you are not him, you talk about results based training, providing proof that training actually works, practice what you preach, in the little conversation we have had tonight, you have revealed more about you than you have before, a little pressure, and the real you emerges, we have never met, by tonights conversation, I know how to beat you, we have never met, never sparred, but I know you fold under pressure, its not you really talking, its a version of whatvyou want to be, a version of how you want to be perseveed, which is not you, you talk the talk, but deep down, you do not beleive in yourself, you do not beleive you are worth it, you wish you were. You train because you wantvto be the ego inside, but until you deal with your short comings, you will never get there, you are a dreamer, and not a do'er, this has been revealed in your answers, you dont respond well to pressure, good day dreamer


----------



## Gweilo

The following is like the scene in kindergarten cop, with the girl that is told to behave, and keeps on saying the same things over and over, only getting quieter every time, until it becomes a mumble.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> The following is like the scene in kindergarten cop, with the girl that is told to behave, and keeps on saying the same things over and over, only getting quieter every time, until it becomes a mumble.



Yeah pretty much.

"Show your system is real"

"YOU ARE NOT A PRO FIGHTER!"

"Show your system is real"

"YOU HAVE NEVER FOUGHT GOD AND WON!"

"Show your system is real"

"BUT..........YOU ARE MEAN.......and.....and .........sorry I can't"


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> But you have not, this is the statement, you have jumped on, when other forum members have said exactly what you just posted, yes it may have worked for your teacher, but clearly you are not him, you talk about results based training, providing proof that training actually works, practice what you preach, in the little conversation we have had tonight, you have revealed more about you than you have before, a little pressure, and the real you emerges, we have never met, by tonights conversation, I know how to beat you, we have never met, never sparred, but I know you fold under pressure, its not you really talking, its a version of whatvyou want to be, a version of how you want to be perseveed, which is not you, you talk the talk, but deep down, you do not beleive in yourself, you do not beleive you are worth it, you wish you were. You train because you wantvto be the ego inside, but until you deal with your short comings, you will never get there, you are a dreamer, and not a do'er, this has been revealed in your answers, you dont respond well to pressure, good day dreamer



Thanks Dr Phil.

Good chat.

It really doesn't take much for you to create a whole fantasy that makes you the hero. Does it?


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Ok. But then we are all happy with the term self defense enough to say we can do that or teach that?
> 
> Because the training isn't anything near the same.



Did you miss the left turn at Albuquerque?

You're saying that a plane is a plane, and a pilot is a pilot.  But you're getting upset with people who call themselves pilots, but aren't qualified to fly a military fighter jet into battle.  If we're going with this analogy, then you would either have every crop-duster be trained to the level of a military fighter jet pilot, or you would have everyone capable of flying a crop-duster be automatically qualified for those jets.  You've set a binary benchmark for a skill where there's a big gap between unqualified and expert.

Regarding your professional fight record, doesn't that make you a hypocrite that you don't have a professional record?  You have all of these opinions about what works and what doesn't, you have all of these opinions on how stuff is tested or not.  You're even giving other people crap about not having pro fights themselves.  And yet you don't.  You've set such a high standard for everyone else, that you don't even meet yourself.  By your own logic, you're not qualified to give opinions on the subject.

I think you need to adjust your attitude to something that lines up more with your expectations of others.  Because if I hold you to your own standards, I should assume you know nothing.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> Did you miss the left turn at Albuquerque?
> 
> You're saying that a plane is a plane, and a pilot is a pilot.  But you're getting upset with people who call themselves pilots, but aren't qualified to fly a military fighter jet into battle.  If we're going with this analogy, then you would either have every crop-duster be trained to the level of a military fighter jet pilot, or you would have everyone capable of flying a crop-duster be automatically qualified for those jets.  You've set a binary benchmark for a skill where there's a big gap between unqualified and expert.
> 
> Regarding your professional fight record, doesn't that make you a hypocrite that you don't have a professional record?  You have all of these opinions about what works and what doesn't, you have all of these opinions on how stuff is tested or not.  You're even giving other people crap about not having pro fights themselves.  And yet you don't.  You've set such a high standard for everyone else, that you don't even meet yourself.  By your own logic, you're not qualified to give opinions on the subject.
> 
> I think you need to adjust your attitude to something that lines up more with your expectations of others.  Because if I hold you to your own standards, I should assume you know nothing.



Ok. You are confusing fantasy and reality again. 

People who are pilots are different to people who are self defense instructors

A pilot is someone who flies a plane. It is a real definable thing. And from there we can find out what plane the pilot flies and Mabye even how good he is.

A self defense instructor isn't someone who makes people better at self defense. We can't know what self defense he instructs. If it works. Of he can defend himself. We effectively know nothing. It is an indefinable thing. 

If you can't fly a plane you pretty much can't be a pilot. If you can't defend yourself you can be a self defense instructor.

Real thing vs fantasy thing.

You could make self defense a real thing with real results. You could legitimately say if you can't do something self defense related you can't be an instructor. But you choose not to. You just avoid this little complication with a whole bunch of mental backflipping.

I haven't given anyone crap for not having pro fights. That is your fantasy.

I have given people crap for not being in a definable accountable system. When I gave you crap for standing arm bars for example. It wasn't that you couldn't do them in a pro fight. It was that you couldn't do them anywhere anyone could verify. 

There was a literal gaping black hole where being able to do a standing arm bar should have existed. 

So if we ever get to the point in which we have discussions where people can Mabye do a thing at all. Like in a way anyone can actually see. Then I might raise the idea of a pro fight. 

Mabye you are getting confused with me constantly referencing experts to support my opinion. So I might say. Do a technique like this and it is also the opinion of a pro fighter. And I will show that as well. 

This is generally called a source and is designed to support an case. the insane argument that using experts damages a point is something you have invented and it basically doesn't count.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. Your "nuance" comment is wrong then.
> 
> If you can fly a twin engine plane you can fly a plane. If you have done training in that plane you should be able to fly that plane or the training isn't very good.
> 
> In other words they are useful.
> 
> If you are training to fight against average folks. Then you should be able to do that and there is no nuance there either.
> 
> Unless like self defense you train to fly an undefined plane and an undefined folk and wind up with no idea what you have actually been trained to do. And have to use "nuance" sarcastically.


That's a characterization you bring up often about SD training. You continue to suggest that's my approach, even after being told my personal view is that folks should test their skills both within the school and outside it. They should get out and fly the plane.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And this is incorrect. A plane has a minimum standard so it will probably not blow up or fall out of the air. Pilot training has a minimum standard so pilots don't just crash the thing.
> 
> Martial arts has no minimum standard. If we trained pilots to the standard of martial artists. Then crap would not even be in debate.
> 
> Planes don't fly because they are planes. There is a lot of back of house that actually makes planes fly.
> 
> And this seems to be the argument. Planes fly. So if I build a plane it will fly.
> 
> John Jones throws oblique kicks. I throw oblique kicks therefore nuance.


You're dodging the point you made against yourself. And throwing out odd statements apparently ascribing attitudes to me. You do both of those things rather often.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Ok. You are confusing fantasy and reality again.
> 
> People who are pilots are different to people who are self defense instructors
> 
> A pilot is someone who flies a plane. It is a real definable thing. And from there we can find out what plane the pilot flies and Mabye even how good he is.
> 
> A self defense instructor isn't someone who makes people better at self defense. We can't know what self defense he instructs. If it works. Of he can defend himself. We effectively know nothing. It is an indefinable thing.
> 
> If you can't fly a plane you pretty much can't be a pilot. If you can't defend yourself you can be a self defense instructor.
> 
> Real thing vs fantasy thing.
> 
> You could make self defense a real thing with real results. You could legitimately say if you can't do something self defense related you can't be an instructor. But you choose not to. You just avoid this little complication with a whole bunch of mental backflipping.
> 
> I haven't given anyone crap for not having pro fights. That is your fantasy.
> 
> I have given people crap for not being in a definable accountable system. When I gave you crap for standing arm bars for example. It wasn't that you couldn't do them in a pro fight. It was that you couldn't do them anywhere anyone could verify.
> 
> There was a literal gaping black hole where being able to do a standing arm bar should have existed.
> 
> So if we ever get to the point in which we have discussions where people can Mabye do a thing at all. Like in a way anyone can actually see. Then I might raise the idea of a pro fight.
> 
> Mabye you are getting confused with me constantly referencing experts to support my opinion. So I might say. Do a technique like this and it is also the opinion of a pro fighter. And I will show that as well.
> 
> This is generally called a source and is designed to support an case. the insane argument that using experts damages a point is something you have invented and it basically doesn't count.



What is a plane? People qualified to teach you to fly a Cessna aren't qualified to teach you to fly a fighter jet.

And please stop reminding me how bitter you are that you're too stupid to understand how to break someone's arm from any other position than from the ground. It doesn't help your point when you constantly remind me that you can't understand simple concepts.

I'm done beating around the bush with you. This is how I see you. Someone too dense to even understand simple martial arts concepts that my 6 year old students understand.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's a characterization you bring up often about SD training. You continue to suggest that's my approach, even after being told my personal view is that folks should test their skills both within the school and outside it. They should get out and fly the plane.



You are still being very vague about what you consider testing of skills. 

Which flows on to your flying a plane. 

These statements can mean literally anything. 

Nuance isn't a constantly shifting goalpost.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> What is a plane? People qualified to teach you to fly a Cessna aren't qualified to teach you to fly a fighter jet.
> 
> And please stop reminding me how bitter you are that you're too stupid to understand how to break someone's arm from any other position than from the ground. It doesn't help your point when you constantly remind me that you can't understand simple concepts.
> 
> I'm done beating around the bush with you. This is how I see you. Someone too dense to even understand simple martial arts concepts that my 6 year old students understand.



I have honestly no idea what qualifies you to do what when you learn to fly a plane. I assume unlike self defense if you can't fly a plane they probably don't let you teach others to fly one.

Sorry I didn't realise you meant arm bars work on a six year olds arm.

I mean that makes more sense.

It is these points of context that make understanding easier.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> It really doesn't take much for you to create a whole fantasy that makes you the hero. Does it?



I was thinking about this, and our conversation earlier, whilst I was curling one down, there is only one fantasy here, and its your opinion of your superior training against everyone elses, yes you are probably fit, strong and have good cardio, maybe you are good in a sd senario, I doubt it though, because in your opinion, it cannot work, as you have no proof, apart from my instructor says so, something YOU CALLED, a waste of training time. You have also demonstrated you do not react well when under pressure, which will hinder your reaction, you have no authority in your field, you have no fight record, you have no proof according to your criteria, in previous conversations, so either your in a silver brumby dooey fantasy, or you dont really know or fully understand what you are doing in your training.
Cows butts, banjo's and arm locks.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok. You are confusing fantasy and reality again.
> 
> People who are pilots are different to people who are self defense instructors
> 
> A pilot is someone who flies a plane. It is a real definable thing. And from there we can find out what plane the pilot flies and Mabye even how good he is.
> 
> A self defense instructor isn't someone who makes people better at self defense. We can't know what self defense he instructs. If it works. Of he can defend himself. We effectively know nothing. It is an indefinable thing.
> 
> If you can't fly a plane you pretty much can't be a pilot. If you can't defend yourself you can be a self defense instructor.
> 
> Real thing vs fantasy thing.
> 
> You could make self defense a real thing with real results. You could legitimately say if you can't do something self defense related you can't be an instructor. But you choose not to. You just avoid this little complication with a whole bunch of mental backflipping.
> 
> I haven't given anyone crap for not having pro fights. That is your fantasy.
> 
> I have given people crap for not being in a definable accountable system. When I gave you crap for standing arm bars for example. It wasn't that you couldn't do them in a pro fight. It was that you couldn't do them anywhere anyone could verify.
> 
> There was a literal gaping black hole where being able to do a standing arm bar should have existed.
> 
> So if we ever get to the point in which we have discussions where people can Mabye do a thing at all. Like in a way anyone can actually see. Then I might raise the idea of a pro fight.
> 
> Mabye you are getting confused with me constantly referencing experts to support my opinion. So I might say. Do a technique like this and it is also the opinion of a pro fighter. And I will show that as well.
> 
> This is generally called a source and is designed to support an case. the insane argument that using experts damages a point is something you have invented and it basically doesn't count.


its just your straw man again

the mechanics of making someone '' better '' at fighting and thus better able to defend themselves are simple and much understood and almost certainly a part of most SD programs

teach them to punch, teach them to not get punched, teach them to use size and strength of their opponent against them

theres no requirement for the instructor to have been a life long serial brawler for him to understand and teach those things

i do some time teaching ''street kids'' to box, it consists mainly of saying move your feet, keep you guard up, some of the 20 yo would undoutably beat me up in a fight, their just to fast, that doesn't mean i cant teach them to be better at it

if what you have in mind are classes they totally neglect teaching basic skills for fancy magic movements, then im in agreement with you, but thats not the case your making where all self defence training is ''bad''


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Ok. You are confusing fantasy and reality again.
> 
> People who are pilots are different to people who are self defense instructors
> 
> A pilot is someone who flies a plane. It is a real definable thing. And from there we can find out what plane the pilot flies and Mabye even how good he is.
> 
> A self defense instructor isn't someone who makes people better at self defense. We can't know what self defense he instructs. If it works. Of he can defend himself. We effectively know nothing. It is an indefinable thing.
> 
> If you can't fly a plane you pretty much can't be a pilot. If you can't defend yourself you can be a self defense instructor.
> 
> Real thing vs fantasy thing.
> 
> You could make self defense a real thing with real results. You could legitimately say if you can't do something self defense related you can't be an instructor. But you choose not to. You just avoid this little complication with a whole bunch of mental backflipping.
> 
> I haven't given anyone crap for not having pro fights. That is your fantasy.
> 
> I have given people crap for not being in a definable accountable system. When I gave you crap for standing arm bars for example. It wasn't that you couldn't do them in a pro fight. It was that you couldn't do them anywhere anyone could verify.
> 
> There was a literal gaping black hole where being able to do a standing arm bar should have existed.
> 
> So if we ever get to the point in which we have discussions where people can Mabye do a thing at all. Like in a way anyone can actually see. Then I might raise the idea of a pro fight.
> 
> Mabye you are getting confused with me constantly referencing experts to support my opinion. So I might say. Do a technique like this and it is also the opinion of a pro fighter. And I will show that as well.
> 
> This is generally called a source and is designed to support an case. the insane argument that using experts damages a point is something you have invented and it basically doesn't count.


At some point you have to agree most of this debate is based on terminology. Both you and skribs explain the fact that the job of 'pilot' is  a general definition that need specific explanation when certain skills are required for the job. That same is absolutely true in MA's. There are instructors/styles in the general sense and some who deal in specific skills. 
This is where your 'black and white' argument falls apart. I will argue you are very narrowminded because you have been conditioned by your MA environment that there is only one method of proof. Most everyone else is arguing that this is not correct. 

We are way past the point to agree to disagree IMHO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are still being very vague about what you consider testing of skills.
> 
> Which flows on to your flying a plane.
> 
> These statements can mean literally anything.
> 
> Nuance isn't a constantly shifting goalpost.


I don't think I've been all that vague. Spar with people. There's a wide range of activities that fit in that description, and all of them are useful to varying degrees and for varying purposes.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Sorry I didn't realise you meant arm bars work on a six year olds arm.



No.  I meant we teach these techniques to 6 year olds and they're able to figure it out.  The fact you can't figure it out tells me the six-year-olds are smarter than you.

You keep bringing it up like it's this big embarrassment of mine.  But you're too stupid to realize that the embarrassment is yours.  You're like a flat-earther who keeps reminding someone that they said the earth is round.  You're like an anti-vaxxer who keeps reminding people they said vaccines don't cause autism.  Every time you bring up standing armbars, you remind me of how you're too dense to understand what is considered a simple concept that we teach to our beginner belts.  You remind me of me trying to explain simple concepts to you that a six-year-old can understand, and your failure to understand them.

You think it's this golden button that says "you said 'standing armbar' once, therefore I am smarter."  And that's what makes it even more pathetic.  Because every time I see this, I'm thinking that we teach our 6-year-olds this.  We teach our yellow belts this.  Thus, I must assume you have the knowledge and intelligence of a 5-year-old white belt.  And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, since all I know is it's less than a 6-year-old yellow belt.

Now, if you were nice about it, I'd just pity you and move on.  But you're a total *** to everyone who doesn't bow before your "superior" knowledge.  Yet, this "superior" knowledge is not even that of a 6-year-old.  Every time you bring up the standing armbar, I know that I've won the argument for 2 reasons:

You had to resort to an old fight instead of providing evidence in this one
You still are dumber than a 6-year-old that you can't even figure out how to make a standing armbar work
So go ahead.  Keep bringing it up.  Keep reminding me that my 6-year-old students are smarter than you.  Keep reminding me that my yellow belts know things that you can't even comprehend.  Keep reminding of your failure to understand a simple technique.  Keep thumping your chest about how great you are.  It's just a reminder of how simple-minded you are.

I'm done trying to use logic with you.  I'm done trying to debate you.  I'm done trying to explain things to you.  Because you can't even understand something so simple I can teach it to a 6-year-old.  This is how I see you every time you bring up the standing armbar.


----------



## skribs

dvcochran said:


> We are way past the point to agree to disagree IMHO.



If his attitude were different, I'd be okay with him.  But since he's decided he's the arbiter of all martial arts...I agree with you.


----------



## Gweilo

@drop bear  I found one of your training videos.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> No.  I meant we teach these techniques to 6 year olds and they're able to figure it out.  The fact you can't figure it out tells me the six-year-olds are smarter than you.
> 
> You keep bringing it up like it's this big embarrassment of mine.  But you're too stupid to realize that the embarrassment is yours.  You're like a flat-earther who keeps reminding someone that they said the earth is round.  You're like an anti-vaxxer who keeps reminding people they said vaccines don't cause autism.  Every time you bring up standing armbars, you remind me of how you're too dense to understand what is considered a simple concept that we teach to our beginner belts.  You remind me of me trying to explain simple concepts to you that a six-year-old can understand, and your failure to understand them.
> 
> You think it's this golden button that says "you said 'standing armbar' once, therefore I am smarter."  And that's what makes it even more pathetic.  Because every time I see this, I'm thinking that we teach our 6-year-olds this.  We teach our yellow belts this.  Thus, I must assume you have the knowledge and intelligence of a 5-year-old white belt.  And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt, since all I know is it's less than a 6-year-old yellow belt.
> 
> Now, if you were nice about it, I'd just pity you and move on.  But you're a total *** to everyone who doesn't bow before your "superior" knowledge.  Yet, this "superior" knowledge is not even that of a 6-year-old.  Every time you bring up the standing armbar, I know that I've won the argument for 2 reasons:
> 
> You had to resort to an old fight instead of providing evidence in this one
> You still are dumber than a 6-year-old that you can't even figure out how to make a standing armbar work
> So go ahead.  Keep bringing it up.  Keep reminding me that my 6-year-old students are smarter than you.  Keep reminding me that my yellow belts know things that you can't even comprehend.  Keep reminding of your failure to understand a simple technique.  Keep thumping your chest about how great you are.  It's just a reminder of how simple-minded you are.
> 
> I'm done trying to use logic with you.  I'm done trying to debate you.  I'm done trying to explain things to you.  Because you can't even understand something so simple I can teach it to a 6-year-old.  This is how I see you every time you bring up the standing armbar.


It's actually kind of funny that you think Drop Bear is the flat earther.  He might be.  But... and stay with me for just a second... what if you're the flat earther in this analogy?  Not saying you are or are not... but I think it's worth considering.


----------



## Gweilo

Steve said:


> It's actually kind of funny that you think Drop Bear is the flat earther.  He might be.  But... and stay with me for just a second... what if you're the flat earther in this analogy?  Not saying you are or are not... but I think it's worth considering.



Here is the problem with DB arguement, most here have put a lot of time and effort into training, training that has been passed down for decades, if not centuries, techniques that have been forged and tweaked over time, in combat, and wars, yes he has a valid opinion, yes sometimes he has a very good point, but its the onipotent way its been put across, and the its mma way or no way, times change, everyone has to adapt throughout their ma journey, DB is very willing to tell others they have no nuance, no evidence of their skill set, then tells them, they have wasted their entire ma journey there training is fraud, or fantasy, because they cannot provide proof, and when asked for proof of his convictions, he cannot provide it. Practice what you preach.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Everyone, keep in mind that this is a *friendly *martial arts forum. You're free to argue with each other's points if you like, but don't attack the posters themselves. Thank you.

*William H.
@Monkey Turned Wolf 
MartialTalk Moderator*


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> It's actually kind of funny that you think Drop Bear is the flat earther.  He might be.  But... and stay with me for just a second... what if you're the flat earther in this analogy?  Not saying you are or are not... but I think it's worth considering.



I have considered it.


----------



## Steve

Gweilo said:


> Here is the problem with DB arguement, most here have put a lot of time and effort into training, training that has been passed down for decades, if not centuries, techniques that have been forged and tweaked over time, in combat, and wars, yes he has a valid opinion, yes sometimes he has a very good point, but its the onipotent way its been put across, and the its mma way or no way, times change, everyone has to adapt throughout their ma journey, DB is very willing to tell others they have no nuance, no evidence of their skill set, then tells them, they have wasted their entire ma journey there training is fraud, or fantasy, because they cannot provide proof, and when asked for proof of his convictions, he cannot provide it. Practice what you preach.


Tradition is a fine reason to do something.  Just speaking for myself here, I disagree that old=effective in martial arts.  In fact, earlier in this thread, I tried to make very clear my opinion that it really only takes one generation for an effective art to become ineffective, if the instructor lacks practical experience.  I won't rehash it again.  Suffice to say, if you take pride in your style, and feel like it connects you to folks who came before, you, great.  That's a wonderful reason to do it.  I get the same kind of joy in several ways, including from cooking and baking.  

But nothing you say above has much to do with whether a style is effective for self defense, or perhaps more importantly, whether a person is qualified to teach self defense strictly by virtue of being an expert in your style.


----------



## Buka

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> Everyone, keep in mind that this is a *friendly *martial arts forum. You're free to argue with each other's points if you like, but don't attack the posters themselves. Thank you.
> 
> *William H.
> @Monkey Turned Wolf
> MartialTalk Moderator*



Can we appoint somebody as Forum Whipping Boy and just attack them?
You know, like a Representative?


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> Can we appoint somebody as Forum Whipping Boy and just attack them?
> You know, like a Representative?


I go ahead and volunteer.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> At some point you have to agree most of this debate is based on terminology. Both you and skribs explain the fact that the job of 'pilot' is  a general definition that need specific explanation when certain skills are required for the job. That same is absolutely true in MA's. There are instructors/styles in the general sense and some who deal in specific skills.
> This is where your 'black and white' argument falls apart. I will argue you are very narrowminded because you have been conditioned by your MA environment that there is only one method of proof. Most everyone else is arguing that this is not correct.
> 
> We are way past the point to agree to disagree IMHO.



Well it is not even the idea of black and white but fantasy and reality.

So there are instructors who deal in specific skills. Fine. So for those skills why do the instructors not feel the need to demonstrate they have those skills or can teach those skills.

It doesn't matter what the skills are. Or how specific those skills are there is a real tangible thing that occurs in the transfer of those skills. 

And it is observable and measurable. 

Yet in martial arts it for some reason it isn't. And that removes martial arts from learning things like flying planes. 

Because flying planes is a real thing.


----------



## drop bear

Gweilo said:


> Here is the problem with DB arguement, most here have put a lot of time and effort into training, training that has been passed down for decades, if not centuries, techniques that have been forged and tweaked over time, in combat, and wars, yes he has a valid opinion, yes sometimes he has a very good point, but its the onipotent way its been put across, and the its mma way or no way, times change, everyone has to adapt throughout their ma journey, DB is very willing to tell others they have no nuance, no evidence of their skill set, then tells them, they have wasted their entire ma journey there training is fraud, or fantasy, because they cannot provide proof, and when asked for proof of his convictions, he cannot provide it. Practice what you preach.



Yeah. And this is the issue in that I don't think cause and effect is negotiable in this discussion. 

And you will find that if you test cause and effect it ignores the colourful back story that legitimizes the practice.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Well it is not even the idea of black and white but fantasy and reality.



...you do realize that's a black-and-white argument, right?



> Because flying planes is a real thing.



Again, flying planes is not a black-and-white skill.  There are many different skills and skill levels in flying a plane.  There are different situations in which those skills apply.  Yet, you're making it black-and-white as "fly or no fly."


----------



## skribs

Buka said:


> Can we appoint somebody as Forum Whipping Boy and just attack them?
> You know, like a Representative?



Based on some of the posts I've seen lately, it seems some people thought @gpseymour already volunteered for that role...


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> its just your straw man again
> 
> the mechanics of making someone '' better '' at fighting and thus better able to defend themselves are simple and much understood and almost certainly a part of most SD programs
> 
> teach them to punch, teach them to not get punched, teach them to use size and strength of their opponent against them
> 
> theres no requirement for the instructor to have been a life long serial brawler for him to understand and teach those things
> 
> i do some time teaching ''street kids'' to box, it consists mainly of saying move your feet, keep you guard up, some of the 20 yo would undoutably beat me up in a fight, their just to fast, that doesn't mean i cant teach them to be better at it
> 
> if what you have in mind are classes they totally neglect teaching basic skills for fancy magic movements, then im in agreement with you, but thats not the case your making where all self defence training is ''bad''



Ok here are a couple ideas for you to play with. 

Better is better. 

So regardless how much you feel the need for training. Better training will work better and produce better results. 

This is different to training to a person capability or their level of interest. 

And the skills taught have to be real skills it is not fancy movements that is my problem. It is this insane idea of training  movement that you can't tell if they do anything at all. 

I keep saying this and it keeps getting missed. It works or it doesn't work. 

So fancy movements is a good example. It is only a method of separation if you are operating off a story. 

If a fancy movement works better than a simple one. I will do a fancy movement. But people make these weird distinctions and they don't necessarily apply.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> Based on some of the posts I've seen lately, it seems some people thought @gpseymour already volunteered for that role...


By definition, a moderator holds all the cards.  Gerry plays the victim well when he wants to, but since he holds all the cards, it's just not real.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> ...you do realize that's a black-and-white argument, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, flying planes is not a black-and-white skill.  There are many different skills and skill levels in flying a plane.  There are different situations in which those skills apply.  Yet, you're making it black-and-white as "fly or no fly."



No.

Ok we are back to nuance. There is a whole bunch of different real things. We could discuss the merits of different real things. But for self defense we really have to be discussing real things. Or the whole system breaks down.

So see how you made flying a plane not black and white? But flying a plane in all its variations is still a real thing.

Flying a cloud isn't a real thing and doesn't work in the discussion.

Now with martial arts we can add in flying a cloud because everyone refuses to separate fantasy from reality.


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> It is this insane idea of training movement that you can't tell if they do anything at all.



So you dont beleive in discuising movement?
Or do you mean something else?


----------



## Gweilo

drop bear said:


> Better is better.


Define better.


----------



## Gweilo

Steve said:


> By definition, a moderator holds all the cards.  Gerry plays the victim well when he wants to, but since he holds all the cards, it's just not real.



I think monkey turned wolf has a point, the regional or personal definition or perception of a technique/process is muddying the water.


Buka said:


> Can we appoint somebody as Forum Whipping Boy and just attack them?
> You know, like a Representative?



There is no need, Drop bear regularly does this, he has broad shoulders, and secretly he relishes it, in his mind he is playing call of duty or something.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> No.
> 
> Ok we are back to nuance. There is a whole bunch of different real things. We could discuss the merits of different real things. But for self defense we really have to be discussing real things. Or the whole system breaks down.
> 
> So see how you made flying a plane not black and white? But flying a plane in all its variations is still a real thing.
> 
> Flying a cloud isn't a real thing and doesn't work in the discussion.
> 
> Now with martial arts we can add in flying a cloud because everyone refuses to separate fantasy from reality.



What you say here is correct.  I have never seen you correctly apply this concept before, though.

The way conversations go with you, you seem to expect that all pilots be ace fighter pilots, or they're worthless.  Even though you can fly in a commercial jet and succeed at what a commercial jet is designed for.

You seem to understand what nuance is.  Now actually make nuanced judgments instead of drawing the line at an expert level...which you don't even meet.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Ok here are a couple ideas for you to play with.
> 
> Better is better.
> 
> So regardless how much you feel the need for training. Better training will work better and produce better results.
> 
> This is different to training to a person capability or their level of interest.
> 
> And the skills taught have to be real skills it is not fancy movements that is my problem. It is this insane idea of training  movement that you can't tell if they do anything at all.
> 
> I keep saying this and it keeps getting missed. It works or it doesn't work.
> 
> So fancy movements is a good example. It is only a method of separation if you are operating off a story.
> 
> If a fancy movement works better than a simple one. I will do a fancy movement. But people make these weird distinctions and they don't necessarily apply.


 i make what i believe to be salient points, repeatedly and you just ignored them and return to your script

lets try again,

your behaviour is odd, really really odd, middle aged men learning ma is a fringe behaviour, you take it to a whole new level of odd. but your telling people who actions is its self usual by the norms of society that they should do exactly the same as you and become even odder, because you said they should !

most people dont want to fight, they dont like fighting, they dont want to turn up at work with black eyes and they particularly dont like getting hurt. however most people would if they are attacked like to be in a position to put up a robust defence.

that of course is catch 22

people who wash up at self defence classes are themselves largely a self selecting population, they have identified themselves as weak and vulnerable, just by signing up, people who are capable and like to hit and get hit have all gone to the mma gym or at least have signed up for a competition art

so what is the instructor supposed to do with that, he has a class of vulnerable people who want to learn to ''fight'' with out actually getting hurt in the process.

if people start banging them they will leave, hell we get people at our club who wont even go on the floor even if you put them down gently or retire injured if you punch the focus pad they are holding to hard, and of course press ups are much to difficult for them

all you can do is look for value added. that they are better than when they arrived and they are, notably, even though unless they get a personality transplant they will never ever be able to fight by the standards you are holding as the minimum


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> Well it is not even the idea of black and white but fantasy and reality.
> 
> So there are instructors who deal in specific skills. Fine. So for those skills why do the instructors not feel the need to demonstrate they have those skills or can teach those skills.
> 
> It doesn't matter what the skills are. Or how specific those skills are there is a real tangible thing that occurs in the transfer of those skills.
> 
> And it is observable and measurable.
> 
> Yet in martial arts it for some reason it isn't. And that removes martial arts from learning things like flying planes.
> 
> Because flying planes is a real thing.


Man, you have to get your head out of blooper reels. Yes, we all agree there are bad teachers, in every style and in Everything. 
We Always demonstrate skills. That is teaching 101 in every school/system I have ever been in, which is quite a lot. It is not an oral recitation. It is an integral part of every class. Period. There is NO school/style/system/person that goes full speed/full power every drill every class. Again, irrational on an epic level and reeks of your lack of understanding of real training. 

I fully believe you go hard and that you are in a good program. But there is some outside noise you are buying into that is just incorrect. I hope you see the bigger picture at some point.


----------



## dvcochran

Buka said:


> Can we appoint somebody as Forum Whipping Boy and just attack them?
> You know, like a Representative?


Seems that we are all 'representatives' right now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok here are a couple ideas for you to play with.
> 
> Better is better.
> 
> So regardless how much you feel the need for training. Better training will work better and produce better results.
> 
> This is different to training to a person capability or their level of interest.
> 
> And the skills taught have to be real skills it is not fancy movements that is my problem. It is this insane idea of training  movement that you can't tell if they do anything at all.
> 
> I keep saying this and it keeps getting missed. It works or it doesn't work.
> 
> So fancy movements is a good example. It is only a method of separation if you are operating off a story.
> 
> If a fancy movement works better than a simple one. I will do a fancy movement. But people make these weird distinctions and they don't necessarily apply.


I suspect you think much of this is something I'd disagree with.

Better training is better. The same training isn't "better" for everyone, because different people have different priorities, interests, commitment levels, etc.

You also seem to be discussing a second issue (though you say it vaguely, so I may have missed the point) around things like aiki movement drills. That's an entirely different area, and (to me) less about what's most effective than about learning that specific thing. This is where you and I can't seem to get on a level where we can discuss this, because you seem to want folks to have your specific priorities.

As to the point about training to people's interest level or personal capability...you have to either do that or ignore it. Doing the latter will usually result in folks not being interested, so they leave (or never start). I suspect that's not the best training for them.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I suspect you think much of this is something I'd disagree with.
> 
> Better training is better. The same training isn't "better" for everyone, because different people have different priorities, interests, commitment levels, etc.
> 
> You also seem to be discussing a second issue (though you say it vaguely, so I may have missed the point) around things like aiki movement drills. That's an entirely different area, and (to me) less about what's most effective than about learning that specific thing. This is where you and I can't seem to get on a level where we can discuss this, because you seem to want folks to have your specific priorities.
> 
> As to the point about training to people's interest level or personal capability...you have to either do that or ignore it. Doing the latter will usually result in folks not being interested, so they leave (or never start). I suspect that's not the best training for them.



Well you did disagree with it.

And yeah. There are a few martial arts that cater more towards protecting people's intrest than developing people's martial arts.

Results based used to remove people because I think there was more of a culture of successful people vs unsuccessful. Especially in combat sports, but fitness as well.

But with YouTube and with access to more information, arts like BJJ that turn these unsuccessful people into successful ones. Competition promotions that are more inclined to support people at a beginner level. And a basic openness between martial arts schools.

That attitude has changed considerably. And now these average people are grabbing this really good training when they can.

And the really good training is much more available.

An example of this cultural shift is for example women who were perceived so weak that they couldn't do obstical courses in the military.

A task too extreme for soldiers preparing for war has now become tough mudder and is smashed by soccer mums.

So yeah the martial arts equivalent of a Richard Simmons workout.





Is not necessarily the best option it is the comfortable option.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well you did disagree with it.
> 
> And yeah. There are a few martial arts that cater more towards protecting people's intrest than developing people's martial arts.
> 
> Results based used to remove people because I think there was more of a culture of successful people vs unsuccessful. Especially in combat sports, but fitness as well.
> 
> But with YouTube and with access to more information, arts like BJJ that turn these unsuccessful people into successful ones. Competition promotions that are more inclined to support people at a beginner level. And a basic openness between martial arts schools.
> 
> That attitude has changed considerably. And now these average people are grabbing this really good training when they can.
> 
> And the really good training is much more available.
> 
> An example of this cultural shift is for example women who were perceived so weak that they couldn't do obstical courses in the military.
> 
> A task too extreme for soldiers preparing for war has now become tough mudder and is smashed by soccer mums.
> 
> So yeah the martial arts equivalent of a Richard Simmons workout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not necessarily the best option it is the comfortable option.


You're still not getting it. I'm not sure how to explain it to you, so I'll just leave it be.


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Well you did disagree with it.
> 
> And yeah. There are a few martial arts that cater more towards protecting people's intrest than developing people's martial arts.
> 
> Results based used to remove people because I think there was more of a culture of successful people vs unsuccessful. Especially in combat sports, but fitness as well.
> 
> But with YouTube and with access to more information, arts like BJJ that turn these unsuccessful people into successful ones. Competition promotions that are more inclined to support people at a beginner level. And a basic openness between martial arts schools.
> 
> That attitude has changed considerably. And now these average people are grabbing this really good training when they can.
> 
> And the really good training is much more available.
> 
> An example of this cultural shift is for example women who were perceived so weak that they couldn't do obstical courses in the military.
> 
> A task too extreme for soldiers preparing for war has now become tough mudder and is smashed by soccer mums.
> 
> So yeah the martial arts equivalent of a Richard Simmons workout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not necessarily the best option it is the comfortable option.


 i think your miss understanding the net result of a dance work out to sd and indeed fitness in general,

back in the day i augmented my ma and soccer training with an hour of step aerobics, every week. just me and 30'' fat girls'', it made a significant improvement to both, some of those'' fat girls'' were extremely fit, im collapsed in a pool of my own sweat and they are still knocking out the beat

if you wanted to improve fitness for self defence purposes it is quite possibly the best thing you could do, you should really go and try it before holding it up to ridicule and calling it comfortable,, its anything but comfortable


----------

