# you don't need to bash your uke.



## drop bear (Oct 24, 2014)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcu2sRnIlo&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google

This has recently frustrated me. Has anybody been through this?

You do a demo your instructor tells you exactly what to come at him with. He knows when you are going to throw and you are not really fighting back. Then he springs on you a hundred miles an hour with solid finishing shots and spazzy submissions.

It is not neccesary. The idea of a compliant demo is so people can see what is going on. I would have thought that people accept that it is not real life and not resisted so take a chill pill and just show the movements at a casual rate. It is not like the uke is going anywhere.

If you do want to show technique at a million miles an hour then do the drill resisted. Give the other guy a chance to make you look stupid by defending.

My two major problems with this. One it is just not cool. You are playing at two different levels one going easy and one going hard. You can't work like that. One pace is only reasonable.

And two. What does this do to the uke? He flinches covers and collapses. Which are not helpful responses. And certainly not something you want to train to be instinctive.

So when you do demos just be normal about it.

I have been guilty of doing this by the way. But have started to think it is a pretty silly way to show a technique.


----------



## hussaf (Oct 25, 2014)

It's a demo.  He's barely touching his partner.  I would equate it to medium light sparring


----------



## K-man (Oct 25, 2014)

I think I'm missing the point here. Are you referring to the Krav video or demonstrations in general? It's not long back in threads that there was a lot of criticism of demonstrations that were not realistic enough.
:asian:


----------



## jezr74 (Oct 25, 2014)

It didn't appear there was any surprises to me. If the guy didn't realize what was going on after the 50th scenario I'd be surprised. But I think I get your sentiment.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2014)

K-man said:


> I think I'm missing the point here. Are you referring to the Krav video or demonstrations in general? It's not long back in threads that there was a lot of criticism of demonstrations that were not realistic enough.
> :asian:



Demos in general. Not resisted is my issue with realism. Not the pace at which a compliant drill is done.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 25, 2014)

'Spazzy' again? So he jumped on him like a spastic ie a cripple, a disabled person? As I said before it's the same as saying the N word. 
[h=3]Etymology[edit][/h]From _spastic_.
[h=3]Noun[/h]*spaz* (_plural_ *spazzes*)


(slang, pejorative, offensive) A stupid person.
(slang, pejorative, offensive) A hyperactive person.
(slang, pejorative, offensive) An incompetent person. &#8195;[quotations &#9660;]
Tiger Woods, 2006 &#8220;I was so in control from tee to green, the best I&#8217;ve played for years&#8230; But as soon as I got on the green I was a *spaz*.&#8221;
 
(slang, pejorative, offensive) A tantrum, a fit.
[h=4]Usage notes[/h]In addition to being insulting to the target, the term itself is offensive to some due to associations with disability (especially cerebral palsy in the UK)


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2014)

hussaf said:


> It's a demo.  He's barely touching his partner.  I would equate it to medium light sparring



Sparring you can defend yourself. There are different dynamics in play.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 25, 2014)

Hmm&#8230; To be blunt, I really don't think you're understanding much of what you're criticising here&#8230; I'll see if I can explain.



drop bear said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcu2sRnIlo&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google



Er&#8230; okay&#8230; honestly, I'm not sure what that clip has to do with anything you're saying&#8230; but we'll come back to it.



drop bear said:


> This has recently frustrated me. Has anybody been through this?



What has frustrated you? Been through what? The video (or whatever you see in it)? Or the idea of "bashing your uke" that you mention in the title? Reason I ask is that the two aren't really the same thing&#8230; in the clip, the "uke" (it's not a Japanese system, so that term isn't correct or accurate&#8230 isn't being "bashed"&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> You do a demo your instructor tells you exactly what to come at him with. He knows when you are going to throw and you are not really fighting back. Then he springs on you a hundred miles an hour with solid finishing shots and spazzy submissions.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you meant to type "snazzy" submissions here&#8230; but, more to the point, yeah&#8230; that's kinda how a demo works&#8230; the "attacker" comes in with the prescribed attack (well&#8230; most of the time&#8230, and the "defender" responds. Of course, the context, and tactical expressions dictate (at least in part) what happens next on both sides&#8230; and yeah, it can involve "fighting back" in some form&#8230; but, in this instance, one of the basic tactical methods of Krav Maga being demonstrated is to completely overwhelm the opponent&#8230; to not give them the chance to continue to attack, or to really fight back at all&#8230; just to "duck and cover"&#8230; 

You might note, of course, that absolutely none of the shots in the clip were landed "solidly"&#8230; nor were there really many forms of submissions, regardless of poorly chosen descriptives&#8230; I agree that the pace of the response should match that of the attack, but that's about it.



drop bear said:


> It is not neccesary. The idea of a compliant demo is so people can see what is going on.



No, that's one potential idea/aim of a compliant demo&#8230; it might just as easily be to impress others with a display of athleticism, strength, precision, speed, aggression, or anything else&#8230; or to highlight tactical and technical methods of a system or teacher&#8230; or to entertain&#8230; see if you can figure out what the clip's purpose is&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> I would have thought that people accept that it is not real life and not resisted so take a chill pill and just show the movements at a casual rate. It is not like the uke is going anywhere.



Why would they do that if the purpose is to showcase aggressive, overwhelming responses? This is kinda what I was getting at when I said you don't seem to be understanding what you're critiquing&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> If you do want to show technique at a million miles an hour then do the drill resisted. Give the other guy a chance to make you look stupid by defending.



Uh&#8230; no. Resistant drills are one thing, prescribed responses are another. And yes, if you want to ensure you can respond properly with the prescribed responses, you need to do them at proper, full combative speed. To suggest that you should only do them "chill" is really rather, well&#8230; I'm trying to find the word&#8230; stupid.

Thing is, why on earth would you, when demonstrating the system you train in, want to be made to look stupid? When training, testing etc, sure&#8230; but in a demo? That's so far out of whack with the reality that I hardly know where to start&#8230; besides which, let's say it's me doing the demo, if I'm working with someone, and they suddenly start coming back with something "out of the script", then I'm going to respond off-script as well&#8230; which firstly defeats the entire purpose of what I was trying to demonstrate, and secondly, is not going to be a pleasant experience for anyone.



drop bear said:


> My two major problems with this. One it is just not cool. You are playing at two different levels one going easy and one going hard. You can't work like that. One pace is only reasonable.



That both sides should be operating at the same pace, I agree&#8230; I've ranted against what I refer to as a Ferrari versus a Go-kart demonstrations (and training practices) myself a number of times, and my guys get pulled up pretty quickly if they are seen training like that&#8230; but I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from&#8230; it's actually not seen in the clip itself (there is a related issue, but not that one), and it's not by definition present in paced demo's. Which just brings us back to exactly what you're saying you're frustrated by&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> And two. What does this do to the uke? He flinches covers and collapses. Which are not helpful responses. And certainly not something you want to train to be instinctive.



Yeah, you're missing the point here pretty badly as well&#8230; 

Yes, the attacker (not an "uke"&#8230; mind you, if you want to look at the term itself, all it means is "receiver"&#8230; so yeah, their job is really to "receive" the technique&#8230; which is what's happening) flinches and covers&#8230; but why do you think that's not helpful? It's actually very helpful&#8230; it's a more realistic response, and entirely appropriate to the overwhelming tactic of Krav Maga, than in many other arts demos&#8230; where an attacker comes in with a single attack, then stands as a statue while the defender performs a range of kicks and strikes all over their body.

As far as it not being something you want to train to be instinctive, again, you're really missing the structure and methodology of this training device. Unlike a sporting system, where both sides are trying to employ the same methodology (i.e. it's a matched engagement), this is an attempt to simulate a realistic situation&#8230; which is not matched&#8230; both sides are employing differing methodologies and tactics&#8230; with the idea that the Krav practitioner (the defender) is the one training the technique. The defender (receiver) is there, not to train how to be an attacker, but to provide feedback for the defenders techniques&#8230; as a result, covering and flinching is realistic, and is a form of positive feedback provided to the defender, showing that the technique is doing what it's meant to be doing. Which is helpful, if you didn't catch it.



drop bear said:


> So when you do demos just be normal about it.



That is normal (in the video). But, for fun, how do you define "normal" in this sense? Cause a sporting, resistant, fighting back ideal would be quite abnormal, you know&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> I have been guilty of doing this by the way. But have started to think it is a pretty silly way to show a technique.



As I'm still a little unsure of what you're thinking you've been guilty of, or what you think is a "silly way to show a technique", I don't really have a response for this&#8230; so I'll simply ask for some clarification.

Are you seeing the issues you are attempting to identify in the clip you linked? The way you've described them, I don't (besides which, if you have an issue with the way things are shown there, you'd really hate my classes&#8230. I do see a range of issues that I have with the clip, but nothing really close to what you seem to be talking about.

For the record, my issues are that the responses are almost entirely overkill and unnecessary, to the point of being overtly classed as assault in many cases&#8230; many of the attacks are "static" (someone holding up a hand, pointing at you, etc), or represent very little actual threat&#8230; and garner a response of multiple kicks, including to the head in a number of cases. I also had quite a few issues with the weapon defence (knife, impact, and firearm), with many of them being just shy of suicide to my eyes. The only times I saw something you seem to be discussing was the pacing issue, which was most apparent with some of the bat defences&#8230; the attack came in relatively slowly&#8230; but that I took as a safety concern with the attack.


----------



## Hanzou (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pkcu2sRnIlo&has_verified=1&layout=tablet&client=mv-google



It's always impressive to watch a bigger guy beat the crap out of a smaller guy in a demonstration.....


----------



## K-man (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Demos in general. Not resisted is my issue with realism. Not the pace at which a compliant drill is done.


OK. I've been on the receiving end of Krav students twice in the last six weeks. First time was scenario training where I had a firearm. I was thumped by 35 students one after the other for about 45 minutes. I had some protective gear on but I still felt the power of their response. Then a couple of weeks ago, as I said recently, just regular training, some protective gear and attacking with a stick. I hit the deck 25 times in a similar fashion to what you saw in that video. I felt that I'd been hit by a truck both times. Every one of the students went is full steam and I was totally overwhelmed by their ferocity and the barrage of blows.

Could I have fought back? Possibly but in reality once you commit to an attack with a weapon your mindset is not on defending, it is attacking and when you get their response it is right in your face. I doubt I could have resisted much more than 25% of the responses.

Demos are different, but if they lack realism then that defeats the purpose. Even so, the response in the video shown was pretty much spot on to my mind.
:asian:


----------



## elder999 (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Sparring you can defend yourself.* There are different dynamics in play*.



Yeah, fer instance-let's take your original post, and see what?




> This has recently frustrated me. Has anybody been through this?
> 
> You do a demo your instructor tells you exactly what to come at him with. He knows when you are going to throw and you are not really fighting back. Then he springs on you a hundred miles an hour with solid finishing shots and spazzy submissions.



You do a demo and the uke knows exactly what the instructor is going to defend himself with. He knows what how I'm going to respond, and he's not really going to fight back. _Then he makes it all dramatic, by looking like I'm springing on him at a hundred miles an hour, making it *appear* that I'm using solid finishing shots and *writhing in feigned spasms of pain *at each of my submissions._



See what I did there?

Demonstrations

_Not meant to instruct

But to entertain, *feign pain*

uke flies, and lands_...


Let's continue....




> It is not neccesary. The idea of a compliant demo is so people can see what is going on. I would have thought that people accept that it is not real life and not resisted so take a chill pill and just show the movements at a casual rate. It is not like the uke is going anywhere.



The idea of a compliant demo is so _people can be entertained._ I would have thought that people accept the idea that it is not real life and not resisted, so take a chill pill and just _accept that the whole things an act._*It's not like the uke is going to the hospital.* 



> If you do want to show technique at a million miles an hour then do the drill resisted. Give the other guy a chance to make you look stupid by defending.



If you do want to show technique at a "million miles an hour," then doing the drill resisted might get the other guy hurt. Giving "the other guy a chance to make you look stupid" isn't particularly entertaining either.



> My two major problems with this. One it is just not cool. You are playing at two different levels one going easy and one going hard. You can't work like that. One pace is only reasonable.



My two major problems with this? You are playing at what _appear_ to be two different levels, but are actually one: prearranged and practiced. You can't work any other way-it's the only reasonable way-and it's entertaining.



> And two. What does this do to the uke? He flinches covers and collapses. Which are not helpful responses. And certainly not something you want to train to be instinctive.



And two. What does the _uke do?_ He flinches covers and collapses. Which are very entertaining responses, and *demonstrations certainly aren't training.....*



> So when you do demos just be normal about it.



So when you see demos, recognize that it's just that: a demo.

Now, in class, it's altogether another story, most of the time-you're going to _demonstrate_ at a variety of angles and speeds, almost all of which are equally unrealistic for their own reasons- a knife attacker isn't going to just stand there with his arm extended while explain things to everyone around me, move him around so people can see all angles, and then let me show the next part of the technique.......so _unrealistic....:_lfao:
riously, in my opinion, that's what a Youtube video is, 99% of the time-entertainment, or *advertising*. Both have to be somewhat sensational-of course, a lot of what you see on Youtube is fairly craptastick, and some is meant to be instructional....how much it actually is....well, that's another longstanding internet debate, isn't it? :lfao:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 25, 2014)

Eh, I've seen situations like what you are complaining about, but I don't think this video is a good example. As elder999 notes, it's really a demo for advertising purposes. The strikes are mostly pulled and/or deliberately off-target while the "attacker" play-acts getting beat down. It's like a scripted movie fight scene.

There can be some validity in actually training this way occasionally. If you want your students to be psychologically prepared to continue pressing the attack when they have the advantage rather than backing off when their opponent looks in trouble, then it doesn't hurt to sometimes practice following through until the "attacker" is thoroughly defeated. Personally, I wouldn't do this sort of practice all the time.  For one thing, it can build up a false sense of confidence that can be shattered when the student encounters an attacker who does not go down so easily and who stays in the fight.  Also, as Chris mentioned, some of the follow-ups demonstrated probably cross the line of what is legally/ethically justified.  

I have seen demonstrations where the instructor applies joint locks hard and fast and then continues grinding them on while his uke grimaces in pain and taps as fast as he can. Some of those probably involve uke play-acting the same way the attackers were in this video. With others, I suspect the instructor is just being an ******* and inflicting unnecessary pain and risking unnecessary injury. I don't have a lot of patience for that,


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Eh, I've seen situations like what you are complaining about, but I don't think this video is a good example. As elder999 notes, it's really a demo for advertising purposes. The strikes are mostly pulled and/or deliberately off-target while the "attacker" play-acts getting beat down. It's like a scripted movie fight scene.
> 
> There can be some validity in actually training this way occasionally. If you want your students to be psychologically prepared to continue pressing the attack when they have the advantage rather than backing off when their opponent looks in trouble, then it doesn't hurt to sometimes practice following through until the "attacker" is thoroughly defeated. Personally, I wouldn't do this sort of practice all the time.  For one thing, it can build up a false sense of confidence that can be shattered when the student encounters an attacker who does not go down so easily and who stays in the fight.  Also, as Chris mentioned, some of the follow-ups demonstrated probably cross the line of what is legally/ethically justified.
> 
> I have seen demonstrations where the instructor applies joint locks hard and fast and then continues grinding them on while his uke grimaces in pain and taps as fast as he can. Some of those probably involve uke play-acting the same way the attackers were in this video. With others, I suspect the instructor is just being an ******* and inflicting unnecessary pain and risking unnecessary injury. I don't have a lot of patience for that,



The video as an example. 

I don't know how beneficial training multiple finishing moves really is though. You train to avoid and counter that is the meat of what you are learning. The rest is just show.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> The video as an example.
> 
> I don't know how beneficial training multiple finishing moves really is though. You train to avoid and counter that is the meat of what you are learning. The rest is just show.



Some folks (like myself) don't start out with much in the way of "killer instinct" and may have the natural tendency to back off when they see an opponent look hurt. This could be a serious mistake in a self-defense situation. Maybe you only got the initial advantage because the bad guy wasn't expecting a strong counterattack and if you allow him to recover you may not get the advantage again.

As I said, I don't think most people need to train that way most of the time. It's just an occasional option for those who need it. I guess it does make an entertaining demo for those who are into such things, though.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 25, 2014)

I don't have a problem with the contact in this video. I was raised on that stuff. However, I think one should avoid constantly dropping your arms to your side in the heat of battle. Where do you find these vids?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Some folks (like myself) don't start out with much in the way of "killer instinct" and may have the natural tendency to back off when they see an opponent look hurt. This could be a serious mistake in a self-defense situation. Maybe you only got the initial advantage because the bad guy wasn't expecting a strong counterattack and if you allow him to recover you may not get the advantage again.
> 
> As I said, I don't think most people need to train that way most of the time. It's just an occasional option for those who need it. I guess it does make an entertaining demo for those who are into such things, though.




Arent you training to back off when you get hit though? Rather than defend and counter.


----------



## hussaf (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Sparring you can defend yourself. There are different dynamics in play.



regarding contact.  He barely touched the guy and that guy was clearly acting for the video.  They are trying to make a sensational video to get views on YouTube.  These faux street demos aren't really something I care for, but I don't begrudge them their desire to make their school look "deadly street."


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I don't have a problem with the contact in this video. I was raised on that stuff. However, I think one should avoid constantly dropping your arms to your side in the heat of battle. Where do you find these vids?



I have some boring night shifts.

Yeah I was raised on that stuff as well. The issue I have is a recent thing. Especially the sub's. You defiantly don't need to crank a sub in a demo.


----------



## K-man (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Arent you training to back off when you get hit though? Rather than defend and counter.


More in the context of the demo you are just covering up and trying not to get pummelled. A little bit of psychology comes into play here. In the ring you have 'consensual' violence. Each is trying to attack the other within a given rule set. On the street your assailant has already picked you as his victim. Normally, he will only attack someone if he believes he had a distinct advantage and is 100% certain of success, in his own mind.  So when he attacks, he is not expecting much resistance, if any. Krav is a full on explosion of violence in response to an attack and unless you are expecting it, I would suggest most people would be more inclined to be defending themselves and not countering. 
:asian:


----------



## geezer (Oct 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> It's always impressive to watch a bigger guy beat the crap out of a smaller guy in a demonstration.....



Nobody seemed to pick up on this comment. Well maybe it's a little off topic, but it's something that bugs me too. Like all those demos by Joseph Simonet and Addy Hernandez. Well I admit that Addy had a bit to do with why I watched them (it certainly wasn't Joseph's WC skills) but why not have Addy beat up on Joseph?

Here's a funny one:


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2014)

K-man said:


> More in the context of the demo you are just covering up and trying not to get pummelled. A little bit of psychology comes into play here. In the ring you have 'consensual' violence. Each is trying to attack the other within a given rule set. On the street your assailant has already picked you as his victim. Normally, he will only attack someone if he believes he had a distinct advantage and is 100% certain of success, in his own mind.  So when he attacks, he is not expecting much resistance, if any. Krav is a full on explosion of violence in response to an attack and unless you are expecting it, I would suggest most people would be more inclined to be defending themselves and not countering.
> :asian:



But you are training not to be a victim on the street. Countering while being wailed on will raise your ability. Dealing with somone who counters will raise your ability.

Compliant drills are to get your technique right. The guy isn't fighting back to give you that extra time to perfect what you are doing. And not so much to get as fast and aggressive as you can. Because anybody can be fast and aggressive if the other guy does not fight back.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Arent you training to back off when you get hit though? Rather than defend and counter.



The training in this case is just for one person. The "attacker" is playing a part for his partner's sake. It's not like sparring where both partners are getting benefit from the exercise. (I suppose this is another reason to not train that way all the time.)


----------



## drop bear (Oct 25, 2014)

geezer said:


> Nobody seemed to pick up on this comment. Well maybe it's a little off topic, but it's something that bugs me too. Like all those demos by Joseph Simonet and Addy Hernandez. Well I admit that Addy had a bit to do with why I watched them (it certainly wasn't Joseph's WC skills) but why not have Addy beat up on Joseph?
> 
> Here's a funny one:



Yeah that has to be demo suicide doesn't it?


The kick defence one that sparked this thread. And the dude had like 20 kilos on the other guy. And then knee spiked him in the leg. I will see if I can hunt it down.





2:20


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 26, 2014)

Right.



drop bear said:


> Demos in general. Not resisted is my issue with realism. Not the pace at which a compliant drill is done.



Here's a mind-twist for you&#8230; resistance isn't realistic.

Get your head around that one&#8230; 



drop bear said:


> Sparring you can defend yourself. There are different dynamics in play.



So, if you acknowledge that, why aren't you acknowledging what those different dynamics (and the reasons for them) when you look at other training/demonstration methods? This ain't sparring&#8230; and it's not meant to be, or pretending to be.

Seriously, different contexts require different methods&#8230; I highly recommend you start to realise that, Dogberry&#8230; (sorry, Horatio was already taken&#8230



Hanzou said:


> It's always impressive to watch a bigger guy beat the crap out of a smaller guy in a demonstration.....



To be honest, the entire clip comes across to me as a thuggish display of power without any real sense of personal control or restraint&#8230; but when it comes to the size of the individuals involved, I don't have much of an issue. The instructor is who the instructor is&#8230; and maybe it's only these guys (who happen to be a bit smaller than him) who are at the senior level to act as "attackers"&#8230; I mean, it's not like a WWE wrestler is taking on a 10 year old kid here&#8230; the size disparity isn't that huge.



drop bear said:


> The video as an example.



The video as/is an example of what? It's not an example of the criticisms you cited&#8230; so what is it an example of? 



drop bear said:


> I don't know how beneficial training multiple finishing moves really is though. You train to avoid and counter that is the meat of what you are learning. The rest is just show.



"To avoid and counter" might be the "meat" of what you're doing, but that in no way whatsoever means that it's the primary method of anything else&#8230; as I stated earlier, the primary tactical application here is to overwhelm&#8230; not to avoid and counter. What you do is just that&#8230; what you do. It's not the best, the be-all end-all, the only, the proven, or anything else. It's just one of many approaches. I heartily recommend you realise that other systems have other ideas, which might run counter to your understanding, and accept that just because you don't do something, that doesn't make it wrong, bad, or anything else.

In other words, get over this idea that what you do is the only way to do things.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Some folks (like myself) don't start out with much in the way of "killer instinct" and may have the natural tendency to back off when they see an opponent look hurt. This could be a serious mistake in a self-defense situation. Maybe you only got the initial advantage because the bad guy wasn't expecting a strong counterattack and if you allow him to recover you may not get the advantage again.
> 
> As I said, I don't think most people need to train that way most of the time. It's just an occasional option for those who need it. I guess it does make an entertaining demo for those who are into such things, though.



To be honest, it's quite a large part of the training of a realistic self defence system&#8230; so some systems will train like that far more than "occasionally"&#8230; for their benefit.



drop bear said:


> Arent you training to back off when you get hit though? Rather than defend and counter.



No. You're looking at entirely the wrong thing&#8230; stop thinking that all systems are training for the same context, or that the sports-style context you're familiar with is the reality outside of that.



drop bear said:


> But you are training not to be a victim on the street.



That's not the person who's doing the "training"&#8230; they're the training partner.

Look, I'll try to put this in terms you can understand&#8230; when running through punching combinations with someone holding pads, are you concerned about the pad-man not avoiding the punches, or counter-punching (outside of as required in specific drills)? In a real way, the "attacker" here is more like a guy holding pads&#8230; not a sparring partner.



drop bear said:


> Countering while being wailed on will raise your ability.



Whose ability, though? The guy who's not training?

The point is that you're still looking at the wrong side of things, and expecting it to match something that it's not.



drop bear said:


> Dealing with somone who counters will raise your ability.



What makes you think that that's not dealt with? You've seen a clip of one tactical approach&#8230; which is to overwhelm&#8230; but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to saying what the training is actually like&#8230; unless, of course, you think that all training forms must cover all the bases (here's a hint&#8230; not only is that impossible, it's downright undesired).



drop bear said:


> Compliant drills are to get your technique right. The guy isn't fighting back to give you that extra time to perfect what you are doing. And not so much to get as fast and aggressive as you can. Because anybody can be fast and aggressive if the other guy does not fight back.



Read what's been said, open yourself up to understanding that what you're watching isn't anything to do with anything you know about, and see if you can see the answers to these comments&#8230; because you're still missing, well, everything.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry you are wrong.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> The training in this case is just for one person. The "attacker" is playing a part for his partner's sake. It's not like sparring where both partners are getting benefit from the exercise. (I suppose this is another reason to not train that way all the time.)



Yeah you are trying to give the guy a specific feed to get his brain around a concept. I don't feel it is all that useful as an exercise in murderising people. And taken too far that is what it seems to become.

In fact drills in general are generally better slowing people down than speeding them up.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Sorry you are wrong.



Er&#8230; what? 

Mate, if you're going to quote me, just quote the part you want to respond to&#8230; or, if that was a response to the whole thing, then I stand by it&#8230; you really don't have a clue what you're looking at, or talking about. But, of course, if you want to clarify what you feel I'm wrong about, go ahead&#8230; I have no issue hearing a dissenting opinion.



drop bear said:


> Yeah you are trying to give the guy a specific feed to get his brain around a concept. I don't feel it is all that useful as an exercise in murderising people. And taken too far that is what it seems to become.
> 
> In fact drills in general are generally better slowing people down than speeding them up.



To be honest, it's comments like this that have me (and others) doubting you get what any of this form of training is about&#8230; or what drills training is about&#8230; or, well, anything that doesn't have you living out a cage-fighter fantasy of toughness and "real fightering"&#8230; and I really do mean "fantasy".


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

Here we go a kick boxing version.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmApNWVzYac


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 26, 2014)

Version of what?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Er&#8230; what?
> 
> Mate, if you're going to quote me, just quote the part you want to respond to&#8230; or, if that was a response to the whole thing, then I stand by it&#8230; you really don't have a clue what you're looking at, or talking about. But, of course, if you want to clarify what you feel I'm wrong about, go ahead&#8230; I have no issue hearing a dissenting opinion.
> 
> ...




Sorry still wrong.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 26, 2014)

Okay&#8230; so you have absolutely no back-up, yeah? 

This is bordering on trolling now, you realise&#8230;


----------



## K-man (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Yeah you are trying to give the guy a specific feed to get his brain around a concept. I don't feel it is all that useful as an exercise in murderising people. And taken too far that is what it seems to become.
> 
> In fact drills in general are generally better slowing people down than speeding them up.


The thing is what you saw was not a drill. What you saw was an unscripted response to an attack that I am assuming was predetermined. It is, as was said by *Tony Dismukes* above, training for one person. I tried to describe it for you in the training I conducted a week or so ago. The difference between what I did and what you saw in the video was my attacks were unscripted as were my guy's responses. I don't think you took anything I said on board

We have different training philosophies. You train your way and I and others train our way. Neither way is wrong and I would suggest neither way is better unless you want to put the training into context. But there are some crusaders who seem bent on changing the world to their belief, and guess what? It ain't going to happen.  You will change your training as you get older without a doubt. I don't have to because I have been transitioning over the past decade or so. The Gracie interview on the other thread is what I am referring to here.  Perhaps in time you will come to appreciate other people's training without feeling the need to criticise and try to change what they are doing.

This thread started out about bashing your partner and like so many other threads in recent time has descended into the murky depths of one training methodology against another. What a pity we can't celebrate our differences.
:asian:


----------



## K-man (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Here we go a kick boxing version.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmApNWVzYac


OK, so this one is totally different. Here they are training a drill. There is a set attack and a set response. The only hard strike is the kick to the thigh which is incredibly painful after the first one or two. I see no reason for the guy being kicked couldn't wear a thigh guard unless they are working on conditioning as well as the drill. 
:asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 26, 2014)

I am just going to jump in here and say this:
beating on the UKE is almost a right of passage in many schools for the black belt to be. He gets to feel what the technique may really feel like when applied ( be it a punch, throw, etc.). In many schools the UKE knows he is going to get hit (or what ever) hard and he is prepared for it.
Heck he may not like it but I can almost bet that when the day comes that he is demonstrating his uke gets the same treatment if he thinks the uke will someday be a teacher.
It may be an old school tradition that is still being passed down today


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> I am just going to jump in here and say this:
> beating on the UKE is almost a right of passage in many schools for the black belt to be. He gets to feel what the technique may really feel like when applied ( be it a punch, throw, etc.). In many schools the UKE knows he is going to get hit (or what ever) hard and he is prepared for it.
> Heck he may not like it but I can almost bet that when the day comes that he is demonstrating his uke gets the same treatment if he thinks the uke will someday be a teacher.
> It may be an old school tradition that is still being passed down today




That pretty much.


----------



## hussaf (Oct 26, 2014)

As an Uke I prefer it when I get a partner that likes to put a little energy into it and scrap up, whether it's karate, grappling or aikido.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

K-man said:


> The thing is what you saw was not a drill. What you saw was an unscripted response to an attack that I am assuming was predetermined. It is, as was said by *Tony Dismukes* above, training for one person. I tried to describe it for you in the training I conducted a week or so ago. The difference between what I did and what you saw in the video was my attacks were unscripted as were my guy's responses. I don't think you took anything I said on board
> 
> We have different training philosophies. You train your way and I and others train our way. Neither way is wrong and I would suggest neither way is better unless you want to put the training into context. But there are some crusaders who seem bent on changing the world to their belief, and guess what? It ain't going to happen.  You will change your training as you get older without a doubt. I don't have to because I have been transitioning over the past decade or so. The Gracie interview on the other thread is what I am referring to here.  Perhaps in time you will come to appreciate other people's training without feeling the need to criticise and try to change what they are doing.
> 
> ...



It really isn't. It is a couple of posters desperate to take offence rather than have a discussion.

I mean seriously if I don't like some training methods that you do. Why are you so crippled by that? It is childish.


----------



## K-man (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> It really isn't. It is a couple of posters desperate to take offence rather than have a discussion.


I hope that's not me as I believe I am trying to discuss it.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> It really isn't. It is a couple of posters desperate to take offence rather than have a discussion.



Well, I know that's not me. I may not have agreed with your evaluation in the OP, but I didn't "take offen*s*e." 

I mean, dude-it's the internet. I don't even take myself seriously, let alone 95% of what gets posted here....


----------



## K-man (Oct 26, 2014)

elder999 said:


> Well, I know that's not me. I may not have agreed with your evaluation in the OP, but I didn't "take offen*s*e."
> 
> I mean, dude-it's the internet. I don't even take myself seriously, let alone 95% of what gets posted here....


I must be one of the few that keeps in the 5% envelope , and it is difficult at times.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 26, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> I am just going to jump in here and say this:
> beating on the UKE is almost a right of passage in many schools for the black belt to be. He gets to feel what the technique may really feel like when applied ( be it a punch, throw, etc.). In many schools the UKE knows he is going to get hit (or what ever) hard and he is prepared for it.
> Heck he may not like it but I can almost bet that when the day comes that he is demonstrating his uke gets the same treatment if he thinks the uke will someday be a teacher.
> It may be an old school tradition that is still being passed down today





drop bear said:


> That pretty much.



One part of receiving a technique in training is understanding how the technique works and how it feels.  You can't always get that without a degree of discomfort -- sometimes to guide you in knowing "too far", sometimes because you just can't do it without a fair degree of force.  Let me try an example you might get...  I can't teach you a leg sweep without doing some degree of dumping your *** on the ground, unless there's a huge disparity in size.  Sure, I can sweep my 5 year old and carry him down -- but someone close to my size?  I can't do much more than control the crash a bit.  It just won't work unless there's some speed and unbalancing, and when you have that -- there's some thump.

That said -- I do agree there's no need to pointlessly bash your training partners.  Most of us have probably worked with someone along the way who tended to seek out the least experienced students to train with -- and go out of their way to bash them.  Those guys are just bullies.  It's funny; they almost never work with someone who might threaten them...


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

K-man said:


> I hope that's not me as I believe I am trying to discuss it.



That depends. your issue seems to be that I am disagreeing with a method of training after you have explained it. Which I can still do if I still disagree.

It is not a real issue. It is not that I have never done a drill in my life. And I doubt that when I get older I am going to enjoy somone slapping the crap out of me while I compliantly hand them feeds.

It all just starts to get a bit precious.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> One part of receiving a technique in training is understanding how the technique works and how it feels.  You can't always get that without a degree of discomfort -- sometimes to guide you in knowing "too far", sometimes because you just can't do it without a fair degree of force.  Let me try an example you might get...  I can't teach you a leg sweep without doing some degree of dumping your *** on the ground, unless there's a huge disparity in size.  Sure, I can sweep my 5 year old and carry him down -- but someone close to my size?  I can't do much more than control the crash a bit.  It just won't work unless there's some speed and unbalancing, and when you have that -- there's some thump.
> 
> That said -- I do agree there's no need to pointlessly bash your training partners.  Most of us have probably worked with someone along the way who tended to seek out the least experienced students to train with -- and go out of their way to bash them.  Those guys are just bullies.  It's funny; they almost never work with someone who might threaten them...



Yeah a lot of the throws where you catch a kick get like that. And I don't know yeah maybe once. But to deal with it all the time just sucks.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3IQawKo-nEw

This one we would just tell people they will fall down rather than chunk a guy on the deck.

Ironically the biggest culprit in my experience has been wristlocks. Which don't need to be snapped on.


----------



## hussaf (Oct 26, 2014)

I feel like there's a difference between abiding an Uke and having some spirited technique.  I mean, when you are Uke it's kind of implied you are training in a somewhat compliant manner for training purposes...no need to abuse that.  I'm a little confused as to how much this discussion is referencing the Krav Maga video.  that's more like a demo to promote a self defense course, or class, than typical everyday training.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

hussaf said:


> I feel like there's a difference between abiding an Uke and having some spirited technique.  I mean, when you are Uke it's kind of implied you are training in a somewhat compliant manner for training purposes...no need to abuse that.  I'm a little confused as to how much this discussion is referencing the Krav Maga video.  that's more like a demo to promote a self defense course, or class, than typical everyday training.



But it does happen in class.

Even this video he is just wracking on those locks. Sorta. It almost looks like he is doing the lock a bit wrong to get more speed.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i00jr1e8Mhg

How much is acting and how much is grind?
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R7HiR9hr7V0


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 26, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> I am just going to jump in here and say this:
> beating on the UKE is almost a right of passage in many schools for the black belt to be. He gets to feel what the technique may really feel like when applied ( be it a punch, throw, etc.). In many schools the UKE knows he is going to get hit (or what ever) hard and he is prepared for it.
> Heck he may not like it but I can almost bet that when the day comes that he is demonstrating his uke gets the same treatment if he thinks the uke will someday be a teacher.
> It may be an old school tradition that is still being passed down today



Hazing is also an old school tradition that is still being passed down. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

i know what our techniques feel like when they're really applied. Punches, kicks, knees, throws, arm locks, chokes, pins ... I've had all of them done to me, hard, in sparring, drills, and competition. I don't need to have them done full force to me while I'm being a compliant uke and not defending myself. When I'm teaching, I try my best to watch out for the safety of my uke and not use him as a punching bag to show how badass I am.


----------



## K-man (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But it does happen in class.
> 
> Even this video he is just wracking on those locks. Sorta. It almost looks like he is doing the lock a bit wrong to get more speed.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i00jr1e8Mh



Despite the fact that Alain Cohan is an expert, I cringe at what he is doing here. Nothing to do with hurting his partner, which he is not, but a technique that is flawed unless you can move extraordinarily fast. As to wracking on locks. We can apply locks with total softness but the result is the same, it looks as if you are beating up on your partner.



drop bear said:


> How much is acting and how much is grind?
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R7HiR9hr7V0


Ok this is now getting to the silly stage. In one breath Aikido is being criticised for being woosy  then for being too hard. In the Aikido demo you have two advanced practitioners performing standard aikido moves in a realistic way. It is much the same as we train in Aikido and similar techniques are taught in Krav. To my mind neither video shows Uke being abused. In the Aikido clip, Uke is being an excellent partner. 
:asian:


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But it does happen in class.
> 
> Even this video he is just wracking on those locks. Sorta. It almost looks like he is doing the lock a bit wrong to get more speed.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i00jr1e8Mhg
> ...



1st video: the instructor is going faster than I think is necessary to demonstrate the technique, but I don't think he was anywhere close to really hurting or injuring his training partner. I mostly avoid drilling those particular wrist locks that fast because accidents can happen (and I've got bad wrists so I prefer not having them done on me that fast ). However in this case I think his uke had good enough wrists so he wasn't being unduly abused.

2nd video: I don't think that was instruction or regular training. It looked like a demo with the intention of showing off how fast the instructor could move. The uke in the gun disarm sections was definitely not being hurt. The uke in the handcuffing section might have been having a rough time, but I suspect he was playing it up for the demo.


----------



## K-man (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> That depends. your issue seems to be that I am disagreeing with a method of training after you have explained it. Which I can still do if I still disagree.
> 
> It is not a real issue. It is not that I have never done a drill in my life. And I doubt that when I get older I am going to enjoy somone slapping the crap out of me while I compliantly hand them feeds.
> 
> It all just starts to get a bit precious.


Did you actually watch the video?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FGk_urw1_hA


----------



## hussaf (Oct 26, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But it does happen in class.
> 
> Even this video he is just wracking on those locks. Sorta. It almost looks like he is doing the lock a bit wrong to get more speed.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i00jr1e8Mhg
> ...



yeah that's why I hate showy demos .  I mean, I have friends that run schools and I respect them, but they do that showy crap and I just don't like it.  Definitely not making a personal judgment, but when you have sleeveless gi tops and "Let the bodies hit the floor" playing in the background while you showingly slam on locks...I just don't like it.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

K-man said:


> Despite the fact that Alain Cohan is an expert, I cringe at what he is doing here. Nothing to do with hurting his partner, which he is not, but a technique that is flawed unless you can move extraordinarily fast. As to wracking on locks. We can apply locks with total softness but the result is the same, it looks as if you are beating up on your partner.
> 
> 
> Ok this is now getting to the silly stage. In one breath Aikido is being criticised for being woosy  then for being too hard. In the Aikido demo you have two advanced practitioners performing standard aikido moves in a realistic way. It is much the same as we train in Aikido and similar techniques are taught in Krav. To my mind neither video shows Uke being abused. In the Aikido clip, Uke is being an excellent partner.
> :asian:



Woosy as being too hard to a compliant partner? Sorry that seems pretty consistent to the theme that the training is unnecessary and unrealistic.

 And if you don't want your style bashed don't set up those arguments. It wasn't about aikido's and kravs woosynes until you made it.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 26, 2014)

K-man said:


> Did you actually watch the video?
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FGk_urw1_hA




Bits of it. I don't have twenty minutes of YouTube waffle left in my account. But the training he is talking about is resisted not compliant as far as I understand. And getting caught in a sub by a guy who can do it and so is not wracking it on. And you tapping a bit early because you are humble enough to know when you are caught is a different context.


----------



## K-man (Oct 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> But it does happen in class.
> 
> Even this video he is just wracking on those locks. Sorta. It almost looks like he is doing the lock a bit wrong to get more speed.
> http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i00jr1e8Mhg
> ...





drop bear said:


> Woosy as being too hard to a compliant partner? Sorry that seems pretty consistent to the theme that the training is unnecessary and unrealistic.
> 
> And if you don't want your style bashed don't set up those arguments. It wasn't about aikido's and kravs woosynes until you made it.


No wussy as being ineffective, I should have corrected the spelling. 

Um, I thought it was you who posted the Krav OP then added the two videos above, one Krav one Aikido. I don't believe I have done anything to warrant style bashing. You were the one complaining about the content.



drop bear said:


> Bits of it. I don't have twenty minutes of YouTube waffle left in my account. But the training he is talking about is resisted not compliant as far as I understand. And getting caught in a sub by a guy who can do it and so is not wracking it on. And you tapping a bit early because you are humble enough to know when you are caught is a different context.


No. Nothing about that at all. The training they are talking about is the training you can do as you get older. One of the guys they were talking about was John Boyd who was still training up to his death at about 65. The other was their grandfather who was still training into his 90s. As they said, your training changes as you get older or you just give up. I pointed out that my training had changed but you believe yours won't have to, or have you discovered the fountain of youth?


----------



## drop bear (Oct 27, 2014)

K-man said:


> No wussy as being ineffective, I should have corrected the spelling.
> 
> Um, I thought it was you who posted the Krav OP then added the two videos above, one Krav one Aikido. I don't believe I have done anything to warrant style bashing. You were the one complaining about the content.
> 
> No. Nothing about that at all. The training they are talking about is the training you can do as you get older. One of the guys they were talking about was John Boyd who was still training up to his death at about 65. The other was their grandfather who was still training into his 90s. As they said, your training changes as you get older or you just give up. I pointed out that my training had changed but you believe yours won't have to, or have you discovered the fountain of youth?




Wussy as in training to beat up a compliant partner. And wussy as being trained to be a compliant partner. Is still consistent with that argument. There is nothing hard or clever about standing there and getting beat up on. That is part of my point. You have decided to raise the point that krav and akido are wussy while also being unnecessarily violent. And you are right. That is the argument. If you stand there and I break your arm neither of us have gained any fighting skill from that. It does nothing to harden us.

And yes that is style bashing if you are suggesting those two styles rely on that method but you opened that door I just walked through it.


Drills are not for that. Demos are not for that.

When I hit 90 I am pretty sure that I won't want some guy cranking submissions on me while I stand there as some sort of punching bag.


----------



## ballen0351 (Oct 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Wussy as in training to beat up a compliant partner. And wussy as being trained to be a compliant partner. Is still consistent with that argument. There is nothing hard or clever about standing there and getting beat up on. That is part of my point. You have decided to raise the point that krav and akido are wussy while also being unnecessarily violent. And you are right. That is the argument. If you stand there and I break your arm neither of us have gained any fighting skill from that. It does nothing to harden us.
> 
> And yes that is style bashing if you are suggesting those two styles rely on that method but you opened that door I just walked through it.
> 
> ...


Man you cry about everything.  Your posting demo video after demo video, nobody is hurt, nobodys going to the hospital, nobody is being "beat on".  Its all part of the demo to show how a technique works.  It makes for a pretty unimpressive demo if everyone goes 1/4 speed.  Nobody is being "Violent" its a demo.  Perhaps you dont understand the purpose


----------

