# TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?



## speedking668

Hi everyone

I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.

I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido. 

Could someone give me some clarity on this?

The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions. 

My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.

My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

First, welcome to MT.

Second, don't believe everything you read.  People have all kinds of opinions, and nearly none of them have any idea what they are talking about.

Martial arts training is good.  Much better than not having any training.  TKD is like any other legitimate art - you get out of it what you put into it.  Some people are more gifted than others.  Hard work pays dividends.  Train hard, practice harder.  If you apply yourself, your skills may be of use to you if you should find yourself in need of them.  Or not - luck of the draw sometimes.

The best way to protect your family is to not be where trouble is likely to be found.   The number of street fights I've been in since leaving the military and law enforcement is zero; and I'm 56 now.  I still train, and yes, for self-defense, but the best thing you can do to avoid fights is to stay the heck out of bars and nightclubs and avoid bad areas if you can.


----------



## ShortBridge

You're going to get a whole flood of responses on this, buckle up. I think mine may be a little different than everyone else's or I wouldn't bother posting it. At the end of the day, I'm just some guy on the internet with an opinion, like everyone else, you'll have to make up your own mind.

First, I think the overly-bantered concepts of "on the street" and "protect my family" are almost throw-away concepts in the martial arts community. Your streets are likely different than my streets. You are likely different than me. When martial artists, especially this generation of martial artists talk about "the real world" it seems to be a notion of after-school fights. Two or more people agree to meet someplace and duke it out. This was reality for me 40 years ago, but it looks nothing like my reality (or likely yours) now. Think about what you are really concerned about as you go about trying to answer that question for yourself. When you hear or read someone say "on the street" or "for real" ask yourself what they mean and how closely it matches your reality. Better yet, get really in tune with your answer and stop listening to everyone else who thinks they know better.

"Protecting your family", (something I personally relate to) is something else entirely. This is much more complex and involves a whole bunch of variables that I don't even want to start trying to outline here. But, it goes way beyond punching and kicking and grappling.

So, next I want to ask, why did you chose TKD? If you're questioning your choice and looking to other arts to make up for perceived deficiencies after one lesson, I think you may have chosen impulsively. I spent a year doing TKD in the 80s, which doesn't make me an expert on it, but if you are only 1 lesson in and you're planning on mastering not only it, but also a supplemental system to achieve your goals, then I think you're setting yourself up to fail. If you were years into it, I might give you different advice, but I'm never in favor of beginners trying to cobble together something better than what they are studying.

It is necessary to buy into what you are studying for it to have a chance of working. Maybe TKD would support your goal, I don't know nearly enough about you and your goals to say, but if you doubt it, you either need to put that doubt aside, put your head down and train or you need to stop and assess alternatives.

If you were coming to me inquiring about my system, though, I would be asking you leading questions about what you are really trying to prepare yourself for and my advice to you would be to first get clear on that, then understand your options, then make a choice and don't second guess it for a few years while you train enough to reassess.


----------



## speedking668

Thank you for your reply, I do understand that avoiding the situation is first priority however sometimes it just can not be helped.


I have very basic boxing and wing chun.

I have never used my legs so this is the first time.

I am enjoying TKD and I do plan to add Judo or JJJ. Just to be more effective in a real life situation, I just see so much negativity towards TKD that it makes me think sometimes am i wasting my time?

You are right the streets are different, for example we dont have guns here, at most it would be a knife even that would be unlikely.

I'm more focused towards becoming self aware of real life situations, regardless of what they would mean.

The main reason for TKD is having the ability to become more flexible and developing leg striking power and basic technique. 

The reason for JJJ or JUDO is for close encounters and essentially neutralizing the opponent without a striking attack to some extent.


----------



## CB Jones

Bill Mattocks said:


> The number of street fights I've been in since leaving the military and law enforcement is zero; and I'm 56 now.



Maybe your reputation just proceeds you.


----------



## ShortBridge

By the way, if you're really interested in becoming an expert on "protecting your family", a good starting point is THIS POST by @Bill Mattocks


----------



## speedking668

Thanks, but most of that is irrelevant to me based on my geographic location, well all weather based issues ie floods.

I think most of that is covered, but what isn't covered is the outside of my home, hence the pursuit.


----------



## ShortBridge

speedking668 said:


> Thanks, but most of that is irrelevant to me based on my geographic location, well all weather based issues ie floods.
> 
> I think most of that is covered, but what isn't covered is the outside of my home, hence the pursuit.



Okay, that's good news. I don't know how big your family is or how old your children might be, but generally, when you are out with them, do you know where the exits are? Do they know what to do if you are physically threatened? My wife used to grab my hand or arm and squeeze it when she sensed danger. I have since convinced her that the worst thing she can do is to tie one of my hands up. The best thing she can do is get away from where we are and to a pre-determined meeting place. As soon as I don't need to protect her anymore, I can plan my escape to safety. If she freezes in place, I need to stay and potentially fight. My son is 9, we have similar agreements, though since he is younger, they aren't quite as sophisticated.

I've been doing martial arts for...I don't want to count right now, but decades. My notion of my family's safety is not to put them behind me while I engage in a fist fight, except as a very last resort. It would not be different if my style was TKD or BJJ or something else. Distance from danger is safety. Coordinating that with your family is vital and you're not likely to get that from TKD class or Karate class or anything else.

So, let's come back to your original question, what are you trying to develop? The ability to win a fight? What type of fight? One of my students is Vietnamese and says fights in his city in Vietnam almost always involve knives. That isn't true of Seattle, where he lives now, so his concept is different depending on which city he is inat the time. What are you trying to prepare yourself for?

If it's a general notion, rather than a specific notion, then it's tough to assess specific systems or classes against it.


----------



## Paul_D

speedking668 said:


> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?


Devils Advocate:-  Your TKD is not defending you.  You are.  People defend themselves with TKD, AIkido, MMA and just about any art you wish to name.  People also fail to defend themselves with TKD, Aikido, MMA and just about any other art you wish to name.  So how do we know if it the fault of the system or the practitioner?


----------



## speedking668

What am i trying to develop?

I am trying to develop confidence and having the ability to win a fight if needed. We dont have guns here although we could run in to knives, but majority of the time people are unarmed. 

@Paul_D That is true, i do understand that it's the user of the art more so.


----------



## wab25

The art that will be most effective for you, is the art that you train in most regularly. WabSuperfu-jitsu (not to be confused with WabSuperfu-jitsiu, WabSuperfu-jutsu or WabSuperFiu-jitsu...) may be the worlds deadliest, most effective art. But, if you don't train in it regularly, it won't matter.

Yeah, people say bad things about TKD online. I don't believe there exists an art that has not been bad mouthed and called out online. (with the notable exception of WabSuperfu-jitsu... no one has talked bad about it...) So, I wouldn't worry about it. Is this an instructor, class and art that you are willing to train regularly? If so, that will be the art that is most effective for you.


----------



## MA_Student

Glad axiom isn't here still he'd have loved this....

Anyway firstly if you enjoy it then really that's all that matters any training is better than no training. Also don't be so paranoid about attack. Have you ever been attacked before? If not theres no reason to believe it'll happen if it has still no reason to believe it will happen again. There's nothing wrong with training for self defence but you have to enjoy it if it's more like a job then you just will be making yourself miserable. Just do what you want to do and have fun


----------



## drop bear

speedking668 said:


> What am i trying to develop?
> 
> I am trying to develop confidence and having the ability to win a fight if needed. We dont have guns here although we could run in to knives, but majority of the time people are unarmed.
> 
> @Paul_D That is true, i do understand that it's the user of the art more so.



OK. Let's jus keep it simple. Does anybody fight anybody full contact in your club?

Do they tend to win these fights?


----------



## Earl Weiss

speedking668 said:


> Thank you for your reply, I do understand that avoiding the situation is first priority however sometimes it just can not be helped.
> 
> 
> .


IMO Awareness is first priority. This facilitates avoidance.


----------



## Earl Weiss

If I were to encounter anyone who made a statement to the effect that "TKD is........." I would first ask them to define TKD.  (Not simply translate Tae Kwon Do, but what they believe the system does or does not include.)  Before any meaningful discussion takes place people must agree on how terms are defined.


----------



## Anarax

speedking668 said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.
> 
> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?
> 
> The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions.
> 
> My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.
> 
> My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.



It's difficult to get a clear reading on a martial arts school after just one lesson, unless something glaring stood out during the session. It's not style alone that determines your ability to protect yourself, but the quality of your training. The whole X style if an ineffective style because it's X style isn't a valid point. I've been to great and horrible Kung Fu schools, it was the training culture of the schools that determines the quality of training you will receive. If *that *particular TKD school is of low quality that doesn't mean they all are. It's difficult finding a great martial arts school in general, I've always tried to look for high quality training over style.


----------



## DaveB

speedking668 said:


> What am i trying to develop?
> 
> I am trying to develop confidence and having the ability to win a fight if needed. We dont have guns here although we could run in to knives, but majority of the time people are unarmed.
> 
> @Paul_D That is true, i do understand that it's the user of the art more so.



The thing that will make the difference as to whether or not you can effectively defend yourself is HOW you train.

This is partly down to your teacher, but mostly it is down to you.

Firstly the speed of your strikes determine whether they will land and the power determines whether they will stop your opponent.

To that end you must push yourself every training session - speed comes from continuous movement power from focussed movement. You must also focus on conditioning your body. 

Your defence will depend on your ability to spot and react to strikes and other attacks. 

So after your one-stop drills are familiar get your partner to stand in a natural posture at pub distance and throw his punch with a bit more curve.
ASAP get your drill partners punching to take your head off, and if you don't stop them in time make them keep coming with a second and third and forth punch....

Doing this kind of thing will help you understand more natural fighting mechanics and what space and time your own movements must fit into.

In other words build on your class instruction until you are working at a level where failure results in injury... but don't rush it; stay where you are able but push yourself.

Remember: Stronger, faster, harder.

And give yourself at least two years before you pick up another martial art. All you will do is slow your progress in both.


----------



## speedking668

Thank you dave some good info, however why would another martial art slow the progress for example if i took something like judo/ JJ


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

MA_Student said:


> Glad axiom isn't here still he'd have loved this....


He's not? I skimmed over the last 43 page thread and must have missed that!


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

speedking668 said:


> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.


One thing that bothers me about the WTF schools (and by that I mean spar as per WTF rules) is that techniques may be shown, but not explained as being for tournaments where punches to the head are not allowed.

For example, footwork where you cross your feet may be good for kicking, but may be dangerous if a person can do a quick punch to the head or go for a takedown.

Some things I see I say "ooh, I don't like that". For example, a one step technique where you fall to the ground or turn your back to the opponent make me think "not for me".

So in brief I tend to ask "do you like this technique for self defense"? That's when the truth comes out of the mouths IMO.


----------



## DaveB

speedking668 said:


> Thank you dave some good info, however why would another martial art slow the progress for example if i took something like judo/ JJ



All martial arts have their own basic movements, distances, core responses etc. Training is largely about in ingraining those traits and habits. Trying to learn two different skill sets simultaneously confuses the brain and makes learning harder.

It's almost always better to wait until you are proficient at one specialist art and then to allow your improved balance and coordination speed up the learning of a second art than to try to learn two from scratch.

The obvious exception to this is an integrated training program as one might find in mma. But that is a different thing than learning judo for two hours one day then tkd for two hours another day.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> And give yourself at least two years before you pick up another martial art. All you will do is slow your progress in both.



Because style doesn't matter?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> All martial arts have their own basic movements, distances, core responses etc. Training is largely about in ingraining those traits and habits. Trying to learn two different skill sets simultaneously confuses the brain and makes learning harder.
> 
> It's almost always better to wait until you are proficient at one specialist art and then to allow your improved balance and coordination speed up the learning of a second art than to try to learn two from scratch.
> 
> The obvious exception to this is an integrated training program as one might find in mma. But that is a different thing than learning judo for two hours one day then tkd for two hours another day.


I don't agree with this. I've trained with too many people who trained multiple arts, and both paths seem to be reasonable. Brain confusion is a part of the learning process. It will probably take longer to learn the first art if it is learned alongside the second, but it won't double the learning time. And in some cases, waiting until the first art is ingrained makes it difficult to get the core concepts of the second art (like transitioning from Shotokan's angles to Aikido's curves), making the second art take considerably longer to integrate.

It's a pretty individual thing. Some folks prefer to dig deep into the first art before adding another. Others do better with the variety of multiple arts.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Because style doesn't matter?



Was my description of how to train for effective skill style specific? 
Because that was really the more relevant thing I've said in this thread if you want to lose that argument again.

More useful to the thread poster might be to correct my suggestions on gaining effective skill if its incorrect.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Because style doesn't matter?



Because learning matters. 
The way you throw punches in Wing Chun is not the same as the way you throw punches if you're studying TKD. It may be faster to learn how it's done in A before you worry about how it's done in B. Not always, and not for everybody, but certainly for a significant portion of students.
Personally I don't care if someone wants to study multiple arts at the same time. If it slows down their progress, that's their business, not mine. They'll be promoted when they're ready, regardless of how long it takes.


----------



## JR 137

speedking668 said:


> Thank you dave some good info, however why would another martial art slow the progress for example if i took something like judo/ JJ


It depends.  If you’ve got 3 nights per week to train, you can either dedicate all 3 nights to one art, or split them, doing say 2 TKD and 1 Judo.  No different than if you did basketball 2 nights and soccer 1 night.  You’re not going to progress in either as quickly as you would if you did one all three nights.

If you can train every day and each dojo is open opposite nights, then it would slow you down much if at all.

All IMO.


----------



## JowGaWolf

speedking668 said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.
> 
> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?
> 
> The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions.
> 
> My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.
> 
> My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.


 If your main goal is to use TKD as a self-defense then you need to make the head instructor aware of your goal so that you can get the training you need in order to use TKD in that manner.   If you don't tell the head instructor then you'll probably learn Olympic TKD


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Was my description of how to train for effective skill style specific?
> Because that was really the more relevant thing I've said in this thread if you want to lose that argument again.
> 
> More useful to the thread poster might be to correct my suggestions on gaining effective skill if its incorrect.



Its incorrect.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> Because learning matters.
> The way you throw punches in Wing Chun is not the same as the way you throw punches if you're studying TKD. It may be faster to learn how it's done in A before you worry about how it's done in B. Not always, and not for everybody, but certainly for a significant portion of students.
> Personally I don't care if someone wants to study multiple arts at the same time. If it slows down their progress, that's their business, not mine. They'll be promoted when they're ready, regardless of how long it takes.



The way I throw jabs is different to the way I throw crosses. Different power generation. Different footwork. But for some reason I can learn both at once.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> The way I throw jabs is different to the way I throw crosses. Different power generation. Different footwork. But for some reason I can learn both at once.



You really do love the strawman argument, don't you? Did I say you couldn't learn two things at once, or did I specifically say you could?
Of course, the actually issue here is not entirely different strikes, but the same strike done by different systems. The way we teach a given kick may not be exactly the same as how it's taught in a CMA. Try to do both at the same time, and you may well find yourself doing the CMA version in my class. Which may well mean your progress in TKD will be slower than someone who sticks with a single art.
But you knew that already, I'm sure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The way I throw jabs is different to the way I throw crosses. Different power generation. Different footwork. But for some reason I can learn both at once.


I think learning two systems from a single source/instructor (or two techniques with significant differences like your jab and cross) makes it easier to learn them in tandem, because the explanations will make more sense together. This is the case with most systems that include both striking and grappling, and with a lot of MMA training, I suspect. Of course, that can often happen (more or less by accident) even with two different, unrelated instructors. The real issue with learning two at once is when both instructors are really strict about some of the conflicting principles, and have very different ways of explaining things (which can mask the similarities that make it easier to learn both).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> You really do love the strawman argument, don't you? Did I say you couldn't learn two things at once, or did I specifically say you could?
> Of course, the actually issue here is not entirely different strikes, but the same strike done by different systems. The way we teach a given kick may not be exactly the same as how it's taught in a CMA. Try to do both at the same time, and you may well find yourself doing the CMA version in my class. Which may well mean your progress in TKD will be slower than someone who sticks with a single art.
> But you knew that already, I'm sure.


This would be the part that would be most confusing, is where there's overlap that's close, but not close enough, and the instructors are each focused on teaching their approach. Trying to learn two conflicting approaches to a roundhouse kick at the same time, for instance, would confuse the heck outta me.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think learning two systems from a single source/instructor (or two techniques with significant differences like your jab and cross) makes it easier to learn them in tandem, because the explanations will make more sense together. This is the case with most systems that include both striking and grappling, and with a lot of MMA training, I suspect. Of course, that can often happen (more or less by accident) even with two different, unrelated instructors. The real issue with learning two at once is when both instructors are really strict about some of the conflicting principles, and have very different ways of explaining things (which can mask the similarities that make it easier to learn both).



My jab cross example is about how quickly you can adopt two conflicting principles. Just nobody notices because you learn them both at once.

When you are with instructor A. You do instructor A method. When you are with instructor B. You do B. method.

If you were to say do muay thai and TKD. you can throw light deceptive kicks and then throw hard thai kicks. Which becomes harder for him to predict what is coming out.

I mean we have seen Steve Vick. The two modules work. Even to the point the guy is switching stances and changing systems mid fight. Again because going from a jab to a cross is a change in system.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> My jab cross example is about how quickly you can adopt two conflicting principles. Just nobody notices because you learn them both at once.
> 
> When you are with instructor A. You do instructor A method. When you are with instructor B. You do B. method.
> 
> If you were to say do muay thai and TKD. you can throw light deceptive kicks and then throw hard thai kicks. Which becomes harder for him to predict what is coming out.
> 
> I mean we have seen Steve Vick. The two modules work. Even to the point the guy is switching stances and changing systems mid fight. Again because going from a jab to a cross is a change in system.


The issue with the kicks is learning two very similar ones, where the instructors want it done the way they teach. So, for instance, one is teaching a kick that turns the hip over. The other teaches the same kick without the hip turned over. That would almost certainly make learning that one technique harder in both styles, if it's being learned at the same time, because you're trying to develop two competing habits at once. It wouldn't make it impossible, of course, and it might only add 25% to the overall learning curve at any given point (so, 25% behind where you'd be on one if learning them separately - not sure we'd ever be able to measure it without a large-scale randomized study with controls). So, it would make it more difficult, but probably not a major problem for most folks.

As I said earlier, it's probably pretty individual. Some folks need to stay on a single detail for a long time. Some folks thrive on more variety. Most folks are in the middle somewhere, I expect.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> This would be the part that would be most confusing, is where there's overlap that's close, but not close enough, and the instructors are each focused on teaching their approach. Trying to learn two conflicting approaches to a roundhouse kick at the same time, for instance, would confuse the heck outta me.



I mean If you were to go to a next level martial artist like Saenchai we would learn that overlap.






This multi style coupling is hard but you are a better martial artist if you can master it.


----------



## Balrog

speedking668 said:


> I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?


I would suggest that you stop reading things written by people who don't know what they are talking about.

Taekwondo is highly effective for self defense.  So is aikido.  So is ANY martial art that teaches you situational awareness and from which you gain confidence.  Bad guys profile for victims.  They look for people who don't appear confident, and especially for people who are not aware of their surroundings.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Its incorrect.


Maybe, but it wasn't style specific, so your lame attemlt to strawman me into contradicting my established beliefs has failed.

So now please elaborate... surely you've had enough time to come up with something?
About what was I incorrect?

Edit: my opinion on duel training was just that and only refers to raw beginners.
I concede it's not true for everyone and even if I'm right it is more fun.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Maybe, but it wasn't style specific, so your lame attemlt to strawman me into contradicting my established beliefs has failed.
> 
> So now please elaborate... surely you've had enough time to come up with something?
> About what was I incorrect?
> 
> Edit: my opinion on duel training was just that and only refers to raw beginners.
> I concede it's not true for everyone and even if I'm right it is more fun.



It wasn't style specific but you can't train two styles at once? Because training different styles effect the style you train.

MMMMMMM..........

Anyway look at the posts above.


----------



## Flatfish

Based on my own experiences I would say it really depends on how your TKD school trains. The school I attended, we did olympic style sparring and compliant self defense techniques (joint locks etc). We did not spend a lot of time working on punches. So I would say we did not train in a way that was particularly useful for a SD situation apart maybe from the kicks. But again all these things are in TKD, it depends on whether they are being taught and practiced effectively. I have since started grappling and learned just how darn difficult it is to to a joint lock when the other person doesn't want you to do it.

As far as some of the other aspects go that were mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I myself am unlikely to get into a "Street" situation, we live in a good neighborhood, I rarely go to the city at night, m job doesn' t take me sketchy places etc. OTOH my daughter will be in her teens soon, high school, then college etc where she might get into some unfortunate situations. So I am very happy that she is training and hope she'll keep it up.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> I mean If you were to go to a next level martial artist like Saenchai we would learn that overlap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This multi style coupling is hard but you are a better martial artist if you can master it.


I love watching Saenchai. He almost brings a bit of Capoeira feel to Muay Thai. He definitely understands malandragem.

I guess that footage is from seminars where he spars some of the participants? That would be an awesome opportunity.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Balrog said:


> Taekwondo is highly effective for self defense.


You have to specify what type of Taekwondo is effective for self-defense because TKD tricking was never made for the purpose of self-defence.  Olympic TKD also falls into that category of not being designed for self-defense.


----------



## JowGaWolf

drop bear said:


> I mean If you were to go to a next level martial artist like Saenchai we would learn that overlap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This multi style coupling is hard but you are a better martial artist if you can master it.


Thanks for the video.  I smiled through the entire video. This is what I wish people could see and understand about Martial Arts in general and about sparring.  It's not some blood sport where everyone is dying on the mat. Sparring and competition are 2 different levels of intensity.  There was a lot of control shown in this video.  You could tell that Saenchai only threw what his thought his opponent could safely defend against and when he was wrong he tapped gloves with his sparring partner.

There was a lot of laughing and people just enjoying the friendly competition and a chance of a life time.  This is definitely the side of martial arts that I wish more people could see.


----------



## Balrog

JowGaWolf said:


> You have to specify what type of Taekwondo is effective for self-defense because TKD tricking was never made for the purpose of self-defence.  Olympic TKD also falls into that category of not being designed for self-defense.


Tricking (also called XMA) isn't martial arts.  It's dance routines.  Taekwondo is taekwondo.  If one styles spars under different rules than another, that doesn't mean the art is not useful for self-defense.


----------



## Flatfish

Balrog said:


> Taekwondo is taekwondo.  If one styles spars under different rules than another, that doesn't mean the art is not useful for self-defense.



You're right, not the art but if the style/dojang doesn't teach the 'right' way, the SD is going to have some really big gaps (see my earlier post above)


----------



## JowGaWolf

Balrog said:


> Tricking (also called XMA) isn't martial arts.  It's dance routines.  Taekwondo is taekwondo.  If one styles spars under different rules than another, that doesn't mean the art is not useful for self-defense.


  The art isn't in question.  It's how the art is trained.  Not all martial arts are taught with a self-defense focus.  For example,  Tai Chi is Tai Chi  but not everyone trains Tai Chi with a self-defense focus.  So if you want to learn Tai Chi as a self-defense then you must let the head instructor know so that they can either teach you in that manner or let you know that you need to train with someone else.   

Olympic TKD is TKD, but it has a problem with always having the hands down.   This is not self defense.   If XMA does martial arts techniques then it is a Martial Art. If they do front kicks, side kicks, punches, elbows, then those are the same things that are done in TKD or Karate.
For example, there are some martial arts techniques in her performance, but they aren't trained for self-defenese.  It would be no different than people who do kung fu forms for 30 years and still can't fight.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Flatfish said:


> You're right, not the art but if the style/dojang doesn't teach the 'right' way, the SD is going to have some really big gaps (see my earlier post above)


My first time searching for a Tai Chi class. I had to ask the head instructor if they taught Tai Chi as a fighting system or for only health.   During that time (many years ago) I checked with 3 or 4 schools in my area and none of them trained Tai Chi with a self-defense focus.  I later learned that I had to go to a kung fu school in order to learn Tai Chi as a fighting system.  It's all Tai Chi but it's not taught the same when it's only Tai Chi for health.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

Tony Dismukes said:


> I love watching Saenchai. He almost brings a bit of Capoeira feel to Muay Thai. He definitely understands malandragem.
> 
> I guess that footage is from seminars where he spars some of the participants? That would be an awesome opportunity.


The twist lick & roundhouse at 3:41 is interesting. I'll have to keep that in mind for sparring and for a different drill.


----------



## JR 137

It’s the way TKD is trained, not TKD itself.  As an example...

My father and his brothers were TKD black belts in Beirut, Lebanon in the mid 60s-late 70s.  One of my uncles decided to start again here in NY in the mid 90s.

They all said they practiced the high, spinning and flashy kicks in class, but they never did them during sparring; they did them to develop flexibility, coordination, agility, etc.; they were never taught as actual fighting kicks.

When my uncle started sparring, he kept his kicks at rib height.  He was constantly told to try to kick his partners’ head.  Then he was repeatedly asked “why are you throwing punches?  Punches don’t score points.”  His response of “I’m not here to score points” didn’t go over very well.  He stuck around long enough to pass his black belt test (in 2 years).   He liked the exercise and time away from his wife and kids twice a week.

His black belt was the final straw.  He paid for the “black belt plan” where you pay one price and train until you pass without any fees.  After he passed his black belt test, the school wanted $250 for the belt.  Apparently the fine print said the test was covered, but the belt itself is $250.  When they “reminded” him of that, he told them to keep the belt, as he wasn’t there for the belt itself anyway.

All TKD doesn’t operate this way.  It’s all about how it’s trained.  And there’s nothing wrong with training for the sole purpose of competing.  The problem arises when the prospective student is looking for one thing, and the school is teaching something else.  And when the school isn’t up front about what’s actually being taught and done.

TKD is an excellent SD art when the teacher and the students have SD as a priority.  Same can be said for practically every art.


----------



## Balrog

JowGaWolf said:


> If XMA does martial arts techniques then it is a Martial Art. If they do front kicks, side kicks, punches, elbows, then those are the same things that are done in TKD or Karate.


XMA is not a martial art, no matter what they call it.  I've seen modern dance routines that do what we call martial arts moves.  I've seen XMA.  Same thing.


----------



## TigerHeart

Balrog said:


> XMA is not a martial art, no matter what they call it.  I've seen modern dance routines that do what we call martial arts moves.  I've seen XMA.  Same thing.



The video that JowGaWolf posted, this woman shows too many high kicks, high strikes and high blocks are far too high.  This is not really a traditional martial art.


----------



## Balrog

TigerHeart said:


> The video that JowGaWolf posted, this woman shows too many high kicks, high strikes and high blocks are far too high.  This is not really a traditional martial art.


Thank you for agreeing with me.


----------



## TrueJim

What, the internet has finally stopped using Tiffany Larsen's infamous Koryo as its "impractical poomsae" example? 






I kid.   I have a lot of respect for the athleticism shown here.


----------



## TigerHeart

Balrog said:


> Thank you for agreeing with me.


I'm not a martial art expert, but I'm saying XMA is still a martial art.  It is just modernized and not traditional.


----------



## Balrog

TigerHeart said:


> I'm not a martial art expert, but I'm saying XMA is still a martial art.  It is just modernized and not traditional.


Sorry, you're wrong.  XMA is NOT a martial art by any stretch of the imagination.  At best, it is modern dance combined with some gymnastics.  If someone depended on XMA training to defend themselves, they would be slaughtered.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I don't agree with this. I've trained with too many people who trained multiple arts, and both paths seem to be reasonable. Brain confusion is a part of the learning process. It will probably take longer to learn the first art if it is learned alongside the second, but it won't double the learning time. And in some cases, waiting until the first art is ingrained makes it difficult to get the core concepts of the second art (like transitioning from Shotokan's angles to Aikido's curves), making the second art take considerably longer to integrate.
> 
> It's a pretty individual thing. Some folks prefer to dig deep into the first art before adding another. Others do better with the variety of multiple arts.


First, I agree mostly.  I would actually take it further.  I think the entire idea of confusion is very overstated.  Provided that the skills are being applied in some context so that you are building real skill, you will be fine. People learn multiple languages at the same time, multiple jobs at the same time, all kinds of things.  They go to college and take classes that are completely disparate and do just fine.  Or take classes that are closely related, and also do just fine.  Learn multiple sports at the same time.  And when there's a physical component, it's even easier. 

The most overlooked aspect (which I run into all the time when coaching and developing new managers) is the importance of having a solid framework.  A solid foundation can be the framework, which is what we hear a lot.  If you have a solid foundation to build the skills on, you will be fine.  In this case, the you are bringing a framework with you from previous experience.   The key, though, is that one can be provided to you by the school or system.  What I mean is, you can learn a style and then build on it as a core.  Or you can learn discrete styles all at the same time, but organized for you in a framework.  An MMA school is an example of this.  You can learn wrestling in high school, then BJJ, then Boxing or Muay Thai.  Or you can learn wrestling, BJJ, and Muay Thai all discretely and also connected within the framework of MMA transitions and drills. 

Either approach can work really well, but each has strengths and weaknesses.  If well rounded skills and integration are the goal, you might actually be better off learning everything all at once.  The risk of not doing so is specialization.  Damian Maia, a world class athlete by any measure, is never going to be a world class striker or wrestler, for example.   I believe that had he integrated his learning earlier, his BJJ might be slightly less advanced, but his other skills would be markedly improved.


----------



## Steve

Balrog said:


> Sorry, you're wrong.  XMA is NOT a martial art by any stretch of the imagination.  At best, it is modern dance combined with some gymnastics.  If someone depended on XMA training to defend themselves, they would be slaughtered.


Not necessarily true.   I'd put my money on the gymnast in most street fights, even against a trained martial artist (depending on the style).  They are strong, fast and athletic.  Same goes for ninja warriors.  They aren't learning to fight in the MMA sense, but they are also strong, fast and very athletic.  Since we're talking self defense and not fighting, I believe they'd do very well.  If you put them up against a trained fighter, their chances are about the same as anyone else's.

Edit:  And just to add, I'm using the term "fighter" in the context it's usually defined around here.  I hope it's not controversial to state that most martial arts styles do not train fighters.  They train martial artists, which is not the same thing.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> It wasn't style specific but you can't train two styles at once? Because training different styles effect the style you train.
> 
> MMMMMMM..........
> 
> Anyway look at the posts above.



Sigh.. typical Drop Bear.

You've clearly forgotten the reasoning that supported the position I take.

Why would the time it takes to learn different movements or unfix ingrained habits have anything to do with core skills that are independent of style??

You keep wanting to argue but don't want to address the argument.

You had one worthwhile point which took you forever to figure out and I agreed with it. Different style mechanics may make one more or less efficient than another fighter. I simply contest that if the core skills are mastered and the art in question is trained enough, it won't make enough of a difference to be worth mentioning.

Now I can't prove this and you cant prove otherwise so we agree to disagree and that's fine.

All your other attempts to poke holes in my argument just show up how much trouble you have holding more than a headline in mind.


----------



## Martial D

Balrog said:


> I would suggest that you stop reading things written by people who don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Taekwondo is highly effective for self defense.  So is aikido.  So is ANY martial art that teaches you situational awareness and from which you gain confidence.  Bad guys profile for victims.  They look for people who don't appear confident, and especially for people who are not aware of their surroundings.



So they say, but I am not so sure this is true. A lot of the time people that get assaulted are the ones that carry themselves as if they are dangerous, but are not. Generally its young guys spoiling for a fight that take any sign of confidence as aggression.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Sigh.. typical Drop Bear.
> 
> You've clearly forgotten the reasoning that supported the position I take.
> 
> Why would the time it takes to learn different movements or unfix ingrained habits have anything to do with core skills that are independent of style??
> 
> You keep wanting to argue but don't want to address the argument.
> 
> You had one worthwhile point which took you forever to figure out and I agreed with it. Different style mechanics may make one more or less efficient than another fighter. I simply contest that if the core skills are mastered and the art in question is trained enough, it won't make enough of a difference to be worth mentioning.
> 
> Now I can't prove this and you cant prove otherwise so we agree to disagree and that's fine.
> 
> All your other attempts to poke holes in my argument just show up how much trouble you have holding more than a headline in mind.



So then that argument means you can train two styles at once because the core skills are similar? Or you can't train two styles because the styles produce different results.

I mean it is not really proving anything more than showing that you are not making much sense here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Martial D said:


> So they say, but I am not so sure this is true. A lot of the time people that get assaulted are the ones that carry themselves as if they are dangerous, but are not. Generally its young guys spoiling for a fight that take any sign of confidence as aggression.


I haven't seen a lot of evidence to support this, except where the other person was presenting an aggressive air.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I haven't seen a lot of evidence to support this, except where the other person was presenting an aggressive air.


It happened to Jean Claude Van Damme in kickboxer.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> So then that argument means you can train two styles at once because the core skills are similar? Or you can't train two styles because the styles produce different results.
> 
> I mean it is not really proving anything more than showing that you are not making much sense here.



You took half of an argument from an entirely different discussion and without any context tried to jam it into the middle of this discussion. Of course it doesn't make sense.

You haven't even understood the difference between specific advice on training for effective ability (the non style specific guidance on how to own his training aka the thing I asked if you disagree with) and general advice on training (ie the comment about training one style to begin with, aka the thing you insist on talking about).

There is not one thing that you have raised that you actually seem to have followed, so how could any of it make sense to you?



drop bear said:


> So then that argument means you can train two styles at once because the core skills are similar? Or you can't train two styles because the styles produce different results.



Niether: My suggestion was that the process of learning two distinct skill sets might confuse him in the early stages of training because the basic movements and ideas are different and unlike learning both skills in the one class, two distinct classes will push more information with no details on bridging the two sets of concepts.

So you are confusing a comment about the beginnings of learning something, with an argument about the end ability to use that thing.

And while I stand by my advice I accept that it is not true for everyone. Also I agreed with you that overcoming said learning difficulties and blending different skill sets will make you a better martial artist.

In other words this issue is not one I'm so wedded to that I care to argue over it. 

And while I'm happy to argue about the irrelevance of fighting style, I do need you to at least have a worthwhile point and not simply rely on this perpetual state of confusion brought on by your inability to retain context.


----------



## TrueJim

Balrog said:


> XMA is not a martial art, no matter what they call it.  I've seen modern dance routines that do what we call martial arts moves.  I've seen XMA.  Same thing.



Playing devil's advocate...

The word "martial" means "pertaining to war" -- so technically no art is truly a _martial_ art unless it's training you specifically for military combat. But of course, that definition is narrower than common usage. 

Over time, the phrase "martial art" has expanded: nowadays many people use the phrase in its "pop culture" sense, to mean any art that "trains you in how to fight."

But even that expanded definition leaves out a lot of things that most would certainly consider to be martial arts! Is practicing with a 3-section staff or sai really training you for a fight, seriously? How about archery or fencing...are those things training you for self-defense? How about training that focuses on just WT-style sparring, or how about tai chi practiced just for fitness -- are those activities training you to fight? 

Personally, I like this definition: a martial art is an art whose _historical roots_ derive from military combat. Personally, I think this is the only definition that makes sense. Any other definition excludes things that most people would clearly consider to be a martial art. 

Under that definition, XMA is a martial at.


----------



## speedking668

I think I'm going to stick with TKD and around 6 months in to it start learning judo or JJ. I'd imagine by that time I would have most of the basics covered and can then add in throws, takedowns etc


----------



## JR 137

Balrog said:


> XMA is not a martial art, no matter what they call it.  I've seen modern dance routines that do what we call martial arts moves.  I've seen XMA.  Same thing.


What does the “MA” stand for in XMA?



Yeah... I know.


----------



## Balrog

TrueJim said:


> Playing devil's advocate...
> 
> The word "martial" means "pertaining to war" -- so technically no art is truly a _martial_ art unless it's training you specifically for military combat. But of course, that definition is narrower than common usage.
> 
> Over time, the phrase "martial art" has expanded: nowadays many people use the phrase in its "pop culture" sense, to mean any art that "trains you in how to fight."
> 
> But even that expanded definition leaves out a lot of things that most would certainly consider to be martial arts! Is practicing with a 3-section staff or sai really training you for a fight, seriously? How about archery or fencing...are those things training you for self-defense? How about training that focuses on just WT-style sparring, or how about tai chi practiced just for fitness -- are those activities training you to fight?
> 
> Personally, I like this definition: a martial art is an art whose _historical roots_ derive from military combat. Personally, I think this is the only definition that makes sense. Any other definition excludes things that most people would clearly consider to be a martial art.
> 
> Under that definition, XMA is a martial at.


Under no definition possible is XMA a martial art.  To me, if one trains in a martial art, one should be able to defend oneself in a physical encounter.  Someone who does XMA would get a mudhole stomped in their butt.  It's a dance routine.  Movie-fu is another term I've heard used for it, and not in a complimentary way.


----------



## Balrog

JR 137 said:


> What does the “MA” stand for in XMA?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... I know.


My ***.  Well, it might as well.  
Abe Lincoln's philosophy applies here:
*How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.*


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TrueJim said:


> Personally, I like this definition: a martial art is an art whose _historical roots_ derive from military combat.


I'll just add "...or self-defense." Only because there are styles (I think Western boxing is one) that don't have distinct roots in military combat, but were developed around personal defense.


----------



## TrueJim

Balrog said:


> Under no definition possible is XMA a martial art.



Well clearly this cannot be true, since I just provided a definition in which XMA is included! 

It would be more accurate to say: under no definition _that you like_ does XMA qualify. 



Balrog said:


> To me, if one trains in a martial art, one should be able to defend oneself in a physical encounter.



There are two things wrong with this definition: it excludes some things that are martial arts, and it includes some things that are not. 

1. Simply going to the gym on a regular basis improves anybody's chances of being able to defend themselves. But we don't call "going to the gym" a martial art. 

2. Lots of martial arts don't improve a person's ability to defend themselves. Archery is a good example.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Balrog said:


> Under no definition possible is XMA a martial art.  To me, if one trains in a martial art, one should be able to defend oneself in a physical encounter.  Someone who does XMA would get a mudhole stomped in their butt.  It's a dance routine.  Movie-fu is another term I've heard used for it, and not in a complimentary way.


They'd get stomped if they attempted to use their tricking, but they are certainly getting more fit and agile. So they are almost certainly better able to defend than they were before training XMA, and probably no less so than someone who trains only and specifically for light-touch point sparring.


----------



## TrueJim

Balrog said:


> *How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.*



Or as they say in the AI world...

"A cat is an animal with four legs."

"Then what do you call a three-legged cat?"


----------



## TrueJim

gpseymour said:


> They'd get stomped if they attempted to use their tricking, but they are certainly getting more fit and agile. So they are almost certainly better able to defend than they were before training XMA, and probably no less so than someone who trains only and specifically for light-touch point sparring.



My experience in actual self-defense situations is anecdotal, but in my experience being physically fit is arguably more important even than technique. And even more important than physical fitness is just state-of-mind: thinking clearly and making good, quick decisions. 

We have a 6th dan who tells the story of the only time he ever had to use his "taekwondo" -- a guy with a knife grabbed a lady's purse on the street and started to flee. The 6th dan was wearing a backpack, so he turned his back to the assailant (using the backpack as a shield from the knife) and simply stuck his foot out to trip the purse-snatcher. The purse-snatcher fell, and then the 6th dan sat on him while holding his arm in a lock until the police arrived. The 6th dan jokes about spending decades practicing all kinds of kicks and strikes, but at the end of the day the only technique he's ever "used" is just tripping a guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

TrueJim said:


> My experience in actual self-defense situations is anecdotal, but in my experience being physically fit is arguably more important even than technique. And even more important than physical fitness is just state-of-mind: thinking clearly and making good, quick decisions.
> 
> We have a 6th dan who tells the story of the only time he ever had to use his "taekwondo" -- a guy with a knife grabbed a lady's purse on the street and started to flee. The 6th dan was wearing a backpack, so he turned his back to the assailant (using the backpack as a shield from the knife) and simply stuck his foot out to trip the purse-snatcher. The purse-snatcher fell, and then the 6th dan sat on him while holding his arm in a lock until the police arrived. The 6th dan jokes about spending decades practicing all kinds of kicks and strikes, but at the end of the day the only technique he's ever "used" is just tripping a guy.


Here's my take on this sort of thing: sparring and partner work improves our ability to do this sort of thing (decisions about how to protect, where to place body, how to intercept his leg, etc.), even though it's not techniques we actually practiced. It's using principles, rather than techniques - and that's the highest level of application, IMO.


----------



## Steve

Balrog said:


> Under no definition possible is XMA a martial art.  To me, if one trains in a martial art, one should be able to defend oneself in a physical encounter.  Someone who does XMA would get a mudhole stomped in their butt.  It's a dance routine.  Movie-fu is another term I've heard used for it, and not in a complimentary way.


Is tai chi a martial art?  What about Kyudo?  Your definition of "martial art" isn't as widely accepted as you seem to believe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I posted something about this recently. "Martial art" is a vague term. Most of us agree on the core of it - there are things we'll all agree are obviously martial arts. But we all have our own boundaries drawn around the term, and most of us will have differences with each other. I think if we're honest about it, we can all admit that there are things we aren't even sure whether they meet our own definition or not; I've never heard a definition that didn't leave room for nuanced interpretation.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> I posted something about this recently. "Martial art" is a vague term. Most of us agree on the core of it - there are things we'll all agree are obviously martial arts. But we all have our own boundaries drawn around the term, and most of us will have differences with each other. I think if we're honest about it, we can all admit that there are things we aren't even sure whether they meet our own definition or not; I've never heard a definition that didn't leave room for nuanced interpretation.


I have a generous and broad definition of the term.  Probably more than most.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Hey @Steve , when the hell did we start agreeing on stuff?

That's boring.

SELF DEFENSE!!


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'll just add "...or self-defense." Only because there are styles (I think Western boxing is one) that don't have distinct roots in military combat, but were developed around personal defense.



Seal team 6 uses boxing coaches.

Who Teaches SEAL Team 6 How to Fight? | TIME.com

Boxing used in world war 1.


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> Under no definition possible is XMA a martial art.  To me, if one trains in a martial art, one should be able to defend oneself in a physical encounter.  Someone who does XMA would get a mudhole stomped in their butt.  It's a dance routine.  Movie-fu is another term I've heard used for it, and not in a complimentary way.



Everybody's someone elses ninja.

You say XMA. I say Krav Maga.


----------



## Paul_D

TrueJim said:


> We have a 6th dan who tells the story of the only time he ever had to use his "taekwondo" -- a guy with a knife grabbed a lady's purse on the street and started to flee. The 6th dan was wearing a backpack, so he turned his back to the assailant (using the backpack as a shield from the knife) and simply stuck his foot out to trip the purse-snatcher. The purse-snatcher fell, and then the 6th dan sat on him while holding his arm in a lock until the police arrived. The 6th dan jokes about spending decades practicing all kinds of kicks and strikes, but at the end of the day the only technique he's ever "used" is just tripping a guy.


Unless there is a piece of information that I am missing, I don't see why he "had" to use his TKD.  He chose to help help the lady yes, but he didn't need to or have to.  

Putting yourself in a situation where you could potentially be stabbed for the sake of a strangers handbag (the contents of which could presumably be easily replaced?)
just sounds fool hardy at best and downright stupid at worst.  I'm not potentially dying for the contents of my own bag, let alone someone else's.


----------



## Paul_D

Doing somersaults and backflips is gymnastics.  XMA is no more a Martial Art than painting go faster stripes on my car is a way to make it accelerate more quickly.  It might make it look like it will do, job, but the reality is a different story.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Seal team 6 uses boxing coaches.
> 
> Who Teaches SEAL Team 6 How to Fight? | TIME.com
> 
> Boxing used in world war 1.


I guess I wasn’t clear. I don’t was referring to the roots, not recent usage. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a military group using boxing now. Arguably, the WWI usage qualifies, but boxing has much older roots than that. I think I heard recently that it started as self-defense training. I am no boxing historian so I don’t know how accurate that is.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Everybody's someone elses ninja.
> 
> You say XMA. I say Krav Maga.


What don't youlike about Krav Maga?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I guess I wasn’t clear. I don’t was referring to the roots, not recent usage. I’d be surprised if there wasn’t a military group using boxing now. Arguably, the WWI usage qualifies, but boxing has much older roots than that. I think I heard recently that it started as self-defense training. I am no boxing historian so I don’t know how accurate that is.



I think back in the day sport was self defence. You went to war and you bashed dudes for status.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> What don't youlike about Krav Maga?



When it trains contrived rubbish against compliant partners. 

Internet instructorships dont help either.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> When it trains contrived rubbish against compliant partners.
> 
> Internet instructorships dont help either.


When you say compliant, do you really mean that they demo material that only works on the unskilled? Or do you think krav is routinely trained in a manner where techniques are applied because the teacher directs students not to resist?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> When you say compliant, do you really mean that they demo material that only works on the unskilled? Or do you think krav is routinely trained in a manner where techniques are applied because the teacher directs students not to resist?



Krav is trained in that manner.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Krav is trained in that manner.


None that I have seen.

But then I heard that it's popularity sparked a lot of rapid growth with mixed quality teaching.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> None that I have seen.
> 
> But then I heard that it's popularity sparked a lot of rapid growth with mixed quality teaching.



I am sure the krav you have seen is different.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> I am sure the krav you have seen is different.


Why do you think it is that students would avoid applying resistance to their training of their own accord?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Why do you think it is that students would avoid applying resistance to their training of their own accord?


Most students simply follow the training methods provided in a program.


----------



## Dirty Dog

DaveB said:


> Why do you think it is that students would avoid applying resistance to their training of their own accord?



For many, it's an unconscious or unintentional result of wanting their training partner to succeed. 
If you're working on a release from a wrist grab, for example, and the "attacker" doesn't hold tightly, the release is much easier. Of course, then you don't know if the release worked because you did it right or because they turned loose.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> For many, it's an unconscious or unintentional result of wanting their training partner to succeed.
> If you're working on a release from a wrist grab, for example, and the "attacker" doesn't hold tightly, the release is much easier. Of course, then you don't know if the release worked because you did it right or because they turned loose.


I think there's also a side-effect of some drills. The wrist releases, for instance - when they are taught to a new student, their wrists typically are easily chafed. We want them to get in enough repetitions in that one class, so the partner may start to lighten their grip in an effort to save the wrists (especially if their own wrists are starting to get sore). In some drills, the harder you resist, the harder it is for your partner to be gentle (say, a hip throw drill or a single-leg drill), so you provide light resistance or none at all, so you get a softer fall after a few repetitions. And when a student (especially a newer one) is learning a new technique, that early learning is done with little or no resistance (whichever is more appropriate to what is being learned).

Over time, these become habit. In and of themselves, these examples aren't awful, so long as there's sufficient resisted training, too. But often those habits lessen the resistance given during the resisted training exercises, too.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> I think there's also a side-effect of some drills. The wrist releases, for instance - when they are taught to a new student, their wrists typically are easily chafed. We want them to get in enough repetitions in that one class, so the partner may start to lighten their grip in an effort to save the wrists (especially if their own wrists are starting to get sore). In some drills, the harder you resist, the harder it is for your partner to be gentle (say, a hip throw drill or a single-leg drill), so you provide light resistance or none at all, so you get a softer fall after a few repetitions. And when a student (especially a newer one) is learning a new technique, that early learning is done with little or no resistance (whichever is more appropriate to what is being learned).
> 
> Over time, these become habit. In and of themselves, these examples aren't awful, so long as there's sufficient resisted training, too. But often those habits lessen the resistance given during the resisted training exercises, too.



I agree. When you're first learning a technique, you're doing it slowly, and a non-compliant partner can (and often will, unconsciously) do things to make the technique ineffective. Things which they could not do if the technique were being done at speed.
So a compliant partner can be a good thing at certain stages of training, but a bad thing at others. This isn't always an easy concept for students to grasp.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think there's also a side-effect of some drills. The wrist releases, for instance - when they are taught to a new student, their wrists typically are easily chafed. We want them to get in enough repetitions in that one class, so the partner may start to lighten their grip in an effort to save the wrists (especially if their own wrists are starting to get sore). In some drills, the harder you resist, the harder it is for your partner to be gentle (say, a hip throw drill or a single-leg drill), so you provide light resistance or none at all, so you get a softer fall after a few repetitions. And when a student (especially a newer one) is learning a new technique, that early learning is done with little or no resistance (whichever is more appropriate to what is being learned).
> 
> Over time, these become habit. In and of themselves, these examples aren't awful, so long as there's sufficient resisted training, too. But often those habits lessen the resistance given during the resisted training exercises, too.



Defence against back grabs are generally pretty telling. Because if they are really latched on you are going to have a hell of a time getting them off and the defences seem futile. So they start to do work arounds. 






Here is some compliant drilling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Defence against back grabs are generally pretty telling. Because if they are really latched on you are going to have a hell of a time getting them off and the defences seem futile. So they start to do work arounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some compliant drilling.


Something I try to communicate to students is that some attacks you don't reasonably escape while they are happening (like a rear naked choke that is fully sunk in). You have to defend before they start or frustrate what they hoped to do. A RNC, you have to disrupt it before it gets sunk in, unless you are really good. With a rear bearhug like they were showing, you either disrupt the grip before it clamps down (same principle as the RNC), or you frustrate their attempt to lift (one of the more likely next steps, and probably the most dangerous) or whatever they are trying to do once they grab and look for an opening to change the math. Moving your butt to the side won't work if they are attached, because they'll have your weight. It might if you do it before they close the grip.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Why do you think it is that students would avoid applying resistance to their training of their own accord?



Ultimatley because everybody wants their training to work. And it is frustrating to consistantly fail with a technique.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Something I try to communicate to students is that some attacks you don't reasonably escape while they are happening (like a rear naked choke that is fully sunk in). You have to defend before they start or frustrate what they hoped to do. A RNC, you have to disrupt it before it gets sunk in, unless you are really good. With a rear bearhug like they were showing, you either disrupt the grip before it clamps down (same principle as the RNC), or you frustrate their attempt to lift (one of the more likely next steps, and probably the most dangerous) or whatever they are trying to do once they grab and look for an opening to change the math. Moving your butt to the side won't work if they are attached, because they'll have your weight. It might if you do it before they close the grip.



Well yeah. But a lot of things wont work if that grab is latched on. Even the defences that do work, dont work very well.

But we have to come up with a way it works or otherwise people think their martial arts doesnt work.

Knife vs unarmed, multiple attackers, just a guy who can really punch. All these scenarios people feel they have to get an instant result to.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Defence against back grabs are generally pretty telling. Because if they are really latched on you are going to have a hell of a time getting them off and the defences seem futile. So they start to do work arounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some compliant drilling.



I get the impression that you train beginners by throwing them into an octagon to face a world champion in bare knuckle death match.

Where you saw compliant drills, I saw a bunch of first timers being given a taster session.

I've done a bit of kravesque training and once basic technique was established we turned up the resistance to as close to full as we could get. Maybe I'm unique, and sure, raw noobs might not be confident to do that, but I have always taken increased pressure in drills as the norm.

It seriously beggars belief that anyone who trains regularly would sit with beginner level compliance and resistance.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

DaveB said:


> It seriously beggars belief that anyone who trains regularly would sit with beginner level compliance and resistance.


I don't have any personal experience with Krav Maga, but I've encountered schools for other arts where training never progresses past beginner level compliance and resistance.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> I get the impression that you train beginners by throwing them into an octagon to face a world champion in bare knuckle death match.
> 
> Where you saw compliant drills, I saw a bunch of first timers being given a taster session.
> 
> I've done a bit of kravesque training and once basic technique was established we turned up the resistance to as close to full as we could get. Maybe I'm unique, and sure, raw noobs might not be confident to do that, but I have always taken increased pressure in drills as the norm.
> 
> It seriously beggars belief that anyone who trains regularly would sit with beginner level compliance and resistance.



You got a video? Or are we taking in to account all the evidence we don't have.

When you train with resistance does it look like MMA? Do you ever wonder why that is?

If someone wanted to actually fight they would face an Australian champion. If they were just training for self defence we would go easier on them.

Instructor training.






p4 testing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Most students simply follow the training methods provided in a program.



The grading trap?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You got a video? Or are we taking in to account all the evidence we don't have.
> 
> When you train with resistance does it look like MMA? Do you ever wonder why that is?
> 
> If someone wanted to actually fight they would face an Australian champion. If they were just training for self defence we would go easier on them.
> 
> Instructor training.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p4 testing.


A video? Am I on trial for something??

I'm niether defending Krav nor disagreeing with you. I just find it hard to believe that people who train regularly don't eventually turn up the resistance.

The main problem I see in the videos is that most of their technique sucks. This makes sense from what I understand about KM in that I believe it is often trained through building on base responses and they go straight into drills without much time spent on good ol basics.

The drills themselves seem mostly fine, they just need to turn it up.

Do you believe that you can build effective ability to defend yourself with these types of situational partner drills?

The last thing I'll say is the same thing I always say: bad training is bad training, it is not the same as a bad martial art.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> A video? Am I on trial for something??
> 
> I'm niether defending Krav nor disagreeing with you. I just find it hard to believe that people who train regularly don't eventually turn up the resistance.
> 
> The main problem I see in the videos is that most of their technique sucks. This makes sense from what I understand about KM in that I believe it is often trained through building on base responses and they go straight into drills without much time spent on good ol basics.
> 
> The drills themselves seem mostly fine, they just need to turn it up.
> 
> Do you believe that you can build effective ability to defend yourself with these types of situational partner drills?
> 
> The last thing I'll say is the same thing I always say: bad training is bad training, it is not the same as a bad martial art.



They won't get very far with those drills. It doesn't matter if they turn it up or have precise technique. The technique on a resisting guy is different to the technique on a non resisting guy. When you drill you simulate the resistance. So I do pads I will move as if he is punching back and I do this from having experience with a person who is fighting back.

The videos are trained backwards where they do the drill and then hope it works in real time.

In this sort of training it is the individual not the system because the system is not really having much of an effect.

To have the argument about bad training we would have to show good training or it really is the martial art.


----------



## drop bear

The problem is we all kind of want martial arts to work the way we wish it would.

Size wouldn't matter. We wouldn't need to dedicate time to fitness. Trained guys could just handle untrained guys. Knives and multiple opponents would be able to be handled.

We could just knock out the alpha male and his friends would just run away. Rather than stomping your guts out.

I mean you go to a store and look at weight loss products and see how much time effort and money we will spend avoiding the reality of our situations.

It is no small wonder martial arts is how it is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well yeah. But a lot of things wont work if that grab is latched on. Even the defences that do work, dont work very well.
> 
> But we have to come up with a way it works or otherwise people think their martial arts doesnt work.
> 
> Knife vs unarmed, multiple attackers, just a guy who can really punch. All these scenarios people feel they have to get an instant result to.


Yeah, and all are things that should fail more often than they do in the dojo. Part of what I've been working on is how to train students to the right level of resistance (for their partner, for the exercise at hand, for safety, and for the technique). I find that even my students sometimes fall down when I'm halfway through a technique, and I have to remind them that they shouldn't fall down until I make them - even when we are doing a compliant drill. Some get that better than others, apparently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> It seriously beggars belief that anyone who trains regularly would sit with beginner level compliance and resistance.


It does happen.


----------



## DaveB

Back on the thread topic, I just watched a Michael "Venom" Page fight. I don't know his background, but one could argue that he is essentially doing tkd in full contact fighting. Just with more flair.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Back on the thread topic, I just watched a Michael "Venom" Page fight. I don't know his background, but one could argue that he is essentially doing tkd in full contact fighting. Just with more flair.



There are not that many people who can pull off MVP style fighting.

We have a guy who boxes like prince amir. And we beat the piss out of him.

Then look at moontasari. Who is a much better example of TKD in the ufc.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> There are not that many people who can pull off MVP style fighting.
> 
> We have a guy who boxes like prince amir. And we beat the piss out of him.
> 
> Then look at moontasari. Who is a much better example of TKD in the ufc.


Of course few can fight like him. Fight orthodoxy says it shouldn't work so nobody trains to fight like that.

it's why when we do see the highly unorthodox fighters they often come with massive personalities and borderline arrogance. They have had to spend years ignoring people who say their ideas won't work, analysing the how and why until they are experts in their own system as well as the orthodoxy they have trained to overcome.

It takes a lot of vision discipline and self confidence to stand out from the crowd like that.


----------



## TrueJim




----------



## andyjeffries

I completely agree with @TrueJim, I always tell my black belts - don't worry about getting injured while sparring with other black belts (even from other clubs), worry about sparring with white and yellow belts because they're so awkward you'll pick up more injuries there.


----------



## DaveB

andyjeffries said:


> I completely agree with @TrueJim, I always tell my black belts - don't worry about getting injured while sparring with other black belts (even from other clubs), worry about sparring with white and yellow belts because they're so awkward you'll pick up more injuries there.



They shouldn't.

This is a common issue in martial arts schools that we train ourselves to overlook, but low grades should not be able to lay a finger on black belt grades. 

It usually happens when training focusses too much on technique; a throwback to the Japanese culture of endlessly seeking perfection.

Awkward untrained opponents hitting you means your core skills need improving. 

The core skills are the skills that come into play in fighting: spotting atracks before and during early launch, maintaining or controlling distance, coordinating hands to meet incoming attacks etc etc.

These can only be worked on in fluid partner training where speed and power are incrementally increased. In other words transition from technique focussed solo work to partner based fight simulation with a focus on building skills and attributes.

Many schools rely solely on sparring to build these skills, which is ok, but if you only spar once a week for 20 minutes and 80% of that is centred on trying to "win" against your club mates, it won't be enough.


----------



## WaterGal

DaveB said:


> They shouldn't.
> 
> This is a common issue in martial arts schools that we train ourselves to overlook, but low grades should not be able to lay a finger on black belt grades.
> 
> It usually happens when training focusses too much on technique; a throwback to the Japanese culture of endlessly seeking perfection.
> 
> Awkward untrained opponents hitting you means your core skills need improving.



In my experience, it usually happens because of "the rules".  That is, the experienced students are using good control and following the sparring rules to a T. They're guarding the legal striking targets, moving around, watching for good strikes, blah blah blah. The beginner student, on the other hand, is flailing around throwing any hit they can manage to execute without much regard for where it lands.  So the experienced student is guarding their head and chest, and then the beginner tries for one of those targets, totally misses, and roundhouse kicks the experienced student in the elbow, hurting both themself and the other person in the process. 

Now, should the higher belt person be watching for a strike to any part of their body during sparring, even if it's a non-scoring or illegal move in their style of sparring?  That's a valid question, and one that I'm sure we can debate for a million years.


----------



## drop bear

TrueJim said:


>



Dan Kelly is a prime example.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> They shouldn't.
> 
> This is a common issue in martial arts schools that we train ourselves to overlook, but low grades should not be able to lay a finger on black belt grades.
> 
> It usually happens when training focusses too much on technique; a throwback to the Japanese culture of endlessly seeking perfection.
> 
> Awkward untrained opponents hitting you means your core skills need improving.
> 
> The core skills are the skills that come into play in fighting: spotting atracks before and during early launch, maintaining or controlling distance, coordinating hands to meet incoming attacks etc etc.
> 
> These can only be worked on in fluid partner training where speed and power are incrementally increased. In other words transition from technique focussed solo work to partner based fight simulation with a focus on building skills and attributes.
> 
> Many schools rely solely on sparring to build these skills, which is ok, but if you only spar once a week for 20 minutes and 80% of that is centred on trying to "win" against your club mates, it won't be enough.



There is no shouldn't. That is exactly the sort of expectation that takes a school away from honest assessment.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> There is no shouldn't. That is exactly the sort of expectation that takes a school away from honest assessment.



How so?


----------



## DaveB

WaterGal said:


> In my experience, it usually happens because of "the rules".  That is, the experienced students are using good control and following the sparring rules to a T. They're guarding the legal striking targets, moving around, watching for good strikes, blah blah blah. The beginner student, on the other hand, is flailing around throwing any hit they can manage to execute without much regard for where it lands.  So the experienced student is guarding their head and chest, and then the beginner tries for one of those targets, totally misses, and roundhouse kicks the experienced student in the elbow, hurting both themself and the other person in the process.
> 
> Now, should the higher belt person be watching for a strike to any part of their body during sparring, even if it's a non-scoring or illegal move in their style of sparring?  That's a valid question, and one that I'm sure we can debate for a million years.



If they are participating in a sport then no. If they are participating in a martial art then yes. And no thats not a judgement, my Tkd yrs were much more sport than ma.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is no shouldn't. That is exactly the sort of expectation that takes a school away from honest assessment.


I don’t think so. In this case, it’s just a statement (that I don’t necessarily agree with) of what outcome the poster predicts. It doesn’t state what people should do. I shouldn’t be able to submit a BJJ black belt in the ground under most circumstances. I don’t think that expectation takes away any capacity for assessment.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> How so?



You get guys who are naturally


gpseymour said:


> I don’t think so. In this case, it’s just a statement (that I don’t necessarily agree with) of what outcome the poster predicts. It doesn’t state what people should do. I shouldn’t be able to submit a BJJ black belt in the ground under most circumstances. I don’t think that expectation takes away any capacity for assessment.


It happens. Mighty mouse is a white belt. Wilson reis is a bjj black belt champion.
Wilson Reis | BJJ Heroes






There is no shouldn’t there just is.


----------



## dvcochran

speedking668 said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.
> 
> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?
> 
> The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions.
> 
> My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.
> 
> My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.



I have worked out in many styles of TKD, ITF included, but my primary TKD background is Moo Duk Kwan & WTF. WTF particularly gets a bad rap because it is an Olympic sport and it has a lot of market value making it the king of the hill in the business/profit aspect of the MA world exponentially. TKD schools that are teaching only WTF elements usually do lack in self defense skills unless/until you are naturally flexible and athletic. It is, and always has been an out fighting style. As far as endurance, cardio, and getting over physically fit it is the best system I have experienced. Too many "instructors" have earned a BB and then are leaned on the help keep their Dojang running. Too often they are just not ready and a lot gets lost in the learning process. It has been said many times, sparring is an integral of any good MA program. Especially in TKD, a lot of sparring is about overcoming the fear of getting/giving contact. Very different of what usually happens in a self defense situation. That is why any good school who promotes teaching physical self defense should have a completely different "set" of practice for self defense, practiced with resistance as safely as possible. Theory just doesn't work here. I know of too many school of various styles that just do not know any of these elements. Assuming you are an adult this should be clearly evident and something your instructor(s) should easily be able to explain to you if they are worth their salt.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> Dan Kelly is a prime example.



Video. I mean he just shouldn't survive striking with anyone. But he just does.

Daniel Kelly vs Steve Montgomery Full Fight UFC 193 [2] MMA Video


----------



## Dirty Dog

dvcochran said:


> I have worked out in many styles of TKD, ITF included, but my primary TKD background is Moo Duk Kwan & WTF.



Impossible, since there is no such thing as WTF TKD. The WTF is a sports governing body; they have no curriculum, nor do they award rank, nor are there any WTF schools (only National Governing Bodies to supervise Olympic trials). Perhaps you mean Kukkiwon TKD?
Who did you train with in the Moo Duk Kwan?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You get guys who are naturally
> 
> It happens. Mighty mouse is a white belt. Wilson reis is a bjj black belt champion.
> Wilson Reis | BJJ Heroes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no shouldn’t there just is.


That's why I used myself as an example. My ground game should be pretty easily handle-able by a BJJ BB under normal conditions. If said BB has been hit a few times, conditions may change.

"Should" isn't a bad word - it's a statement of most likely outcome. It only becomes problematic if I hold back so I don't embarrass a BJJ BB, because I shouldn't submit him.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Impossible, since there is no such thing as WTF TKD. The WTF is a sports governing body; they have no curriculum, nor do they award rank, nor are there any WTF schools (only National Governing Bodies to supervise Olympic trials). Perhaps you mean Kukkiwon TKD?
> Who did you train with in the Moo Duk Kwan?


Calm down, man.  Jesus Christ.  7 posts in and you're blasting the guy. 

@dvcochran Welcome to MT.  This is a friendly forum, mostly.  It doesn't look like you've been over to the Meet and Greet area.  why don't you go over and tell us a little about yourself?  Where you train and such.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> That's why I used myself as an example. My ground game should be pretty easily handle-able by a BJJ BB under normal conditions. If said BB has been hit a few times, conditions may change.
> 
> "Should" isn't a bad word - it's a statement of most likely outcome. It only becomes problematic if I hold back so I don't embarrass a BJJ BB, because I shouldn't submit him.


Was it Renzo Gracie or Royce who said that when you punch a black belt, he becomes a brown belt.  Punch him again and he's a purple belt.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Was it Renzo Gracie or Royce who said that when you punch a black belt, he becomes a brown belt.  Punch him again and he's a purple belt.


I hadn't heard that. I suspect that's true of a lot of us.


----------



## Steve

Found the actual quote.  It was Carlson Gracie: 

*“Punch a black belt in the face, he becomes a brown belt. Punch him again, purple...”*
— Carlson Gracie


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Calm down, man.  Jesus Christ.  7 posts in and you're blasting the guy.
> 
> @dvcochran Welcome to MT.  This is a friendly forum, mostly.  It doesn't look like you've been over to the Meet and Greet area.  why don't you go over and tell us a little about yourself?  Where you train and such.



Calm down yourself, Steve. Stating a fact is hardly "blasting" anyone. Neither is asking a question about what appears to be a commonality in our lineage.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Calm down yourself, Steve. Stating a fact is hardly "blasting" anyone. Neither is asking a question about what appears to be a commonality in our lineage.


Okay buddy.  Easy.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You get guys who are naturally
> 
> It happens. Mighty mouse is a white belt. Wilson reis is a bjj black belt champion.
> Wilson Reis | BJJ Heroes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no shouldn’t there just is.



You didn't finish your sentence, but I'm pretty sure you are wrong.


----------



## Ironbear24

Train it hard and you will become able to handle yourself just fine.


----------



## Ironbear24

By hard I mean live practice. Sparring, drills ect.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's why I used myself as an example. My ground game should be pretty easily handle-able by a BJJ BB under normal conditions. If said BB has been hit a few times, conditions may change.
> 
> "Should" isn't a bad word - it's a statement of most likely outcome. It only becomes problematic if I hold back so I don't embarrass a BJJ BB, because I shouldn't submit him.



which happens. There is this expectation. Which is why I dont agree with the philosophy. If I get manhandled by a low belt. Then that happened. It is not a thing. It is just the reality of honest training.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Found the actual quote.  It was Carlson Gracie:
> 
> *“Punch a black belt in the face, he becomes a brown belt. Punch him again, purple...”*
> — Carlson Gracie



I don't understand what he means by this.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I don't understand what he means by this.


Lol.  Let me punch you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> which happens. There is this expectation. Which is why I dont agree with the philosophy. If I get manhandled by a low belt. Then that happened. It is not a thing. It is just the reality of honest training.


It does happen, more often with instructors. It’s more about an expectation of infallibility than an expectation of being able to outclass.

Edit: Knife defenses are a good example.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> which happens. There is this expectation. Which is why I dont agree with the philosophy. If I get manhandled by a low belt. Then that happened. It is not a thing. It is just the reality of honest training.


So you didn't read my post then.

My point was a pasting from a raw beginner means you as the bb have work to do.

I am advocating self analysis and correctional training. "Should" is a requirement of any standard....

like "should spar regularly".


----------



## JR 137

DaveB said:


> So you didn't read my post then.
> 
> My point was a pasting from a raw beginner means you as the bb have work to do.
> 
> I am advocating self analysis and correctional training. "Should" is a requirement of any standard....
> 
> like "should spar regularly".


I’m pretty sure what he’s saying is your “should spar regularly” statement needs to be changed to “MUST spar regularly” and the like.  When “should” is stated, it implies it’s ok if the person doesn’t; when “must” is stated, there’s no excuses. 

I think I’ve been getting better at reading drop bear-ese.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> I’m pretty sure what he’s saying is your “should spar regularly” statement needs to be changed to “MUST spar regularly” and the like.  When “should” is stated, it implies it’s ok if the person doesn’t; when “must” is stated, there’s no excuses.
> 
> I think I’ve been getting better at reading drop bear-ese.


That wasn’t what I took from it, though you may have the right of it. I took DB’s post as pointing to the “should” that creeps into some dojos, that leads people to not question and to not give full attempts against their instructor, so they won’t embarrass him.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Lol.  Let me punch you.



I'm serious, I find his statement odd. Any context about it?

As for punching me....it's quite the popular club you would be joining, by all means have at it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Buka said:


> I don't understand what he means by this.


For a lot of grapplers, their skills dissolve when you hit them.


----------



## Steve

Buka said:


> I'm serious, I find his statement odd. Any context about it?
> 
> As for punching me....it's quite the popular club you would be joining, by all means have at it.


It's a clever way of saying that as you begin to feel yiur control of a situation slipping away, you panic and as a result, your technique suffers.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> For a lot of grapplers, their skills dissolve when you hit them.


People.  Not grapplerrs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> People.  Not grapplerrs.


True. The point I was making about grapplers is that they are less likely (on average) to have been exposed to the experience of being punched than strikers or striker/grapplers. Take a BJJer who has been exposed to that, and they will dissolve less than someone being exposed to it the first time.


----------



## inkypaws

speedking668 said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.
> 
> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?
> 
> The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions.
> 
> My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.
> 
> My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.



I know this is responding to an old post, but the info of both is still there to read for however comes along after regardless of original dates. Beauty of older style forums vs more modern social media.
My first class I learned how to stop an attack from behind. Tuck chin, side step and elbow them with fist facing up (to prevent hitting funny bone) to middle of attackers chest. 
That alone answered your question that I also had at the time. 
Next class I learned how to kick an attacker in the knee to throw them off, then told to run. 
Classes have been downhill a bit since, but my discount first months fee was earned pretty well in those two first classes, now I think about it. 
I never leave home without my stun gun either (legal in my area) I think to myself I would probably be too shaken to release all the saftey steps to actually use it, in process of potential attack, give up and use my newbie TKD moves instead. Heck who knows how a person would react, in goodness forbid, they get attacked. Use what ever you can to defend yourself. Even if its something you saw in a movie. If it works, it worked.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

speedking668 said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.
> 
> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?
> 
> The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions.
> 
> My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.
> 
> My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.



Boils down to what your specific goals are in training.  If it's for sport, competition, socialization etc then the bulk of available TKD is sufficient.  If SD is your goal then you'll need to seek out (unless you've already found it at your current school) a TKD school that focuses on SD.  And I mean real SD and not a sport-TKD school that just pays lip service to SD or has a SD sign above the trophy case.  SD is it's own unique animal and the training/teaching methodology is quite different from the typical sport focuses arts.

Judo is sport.  It was designed to be sport.  According to Pat 'Dermott' O'Neill who was in his era the highest ranked non-Japanese Judo player in the world...Judo is useless unless the enemy is wearing a Gi.  

As far as Japanese Ju Jutsu or any other martial art for that matter it is the same as the TKD statement I made above.  What is the focus of the school in question?  And more importantly, what is the level of experience of the instructor?  An instructor that is a sports champion isn't necessarily a good teacher of SD in the same vein as an instructor of good, solid SD is not necessarily a good teacher for competitions.  

So in short, base your questions on what experience your instructor has, the focus of the school and the methodology of instruction.  

Qualifications of self-defense?

Self-defense training methodology

Martial Warrior - Self-defense


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kong Soo Do said:


> Boils down to what your specific goals are in training.  If it's for sport, competition, socialization etc then the bulk of available TKD is sufficient.  If SD is your goal then you'll need to seek out (unless you've already found it at your current school) a TKD school that focuses on SD.  And I mean real SD and not a sport-TKD school that just pays lip service to SD or has a SD sign above the trophy case.  SD is it's own unique animal and the training/teaching methodology is quite different from the typical sport focuses arts.
> 
> Judo is sport.  It was designed to be sport.  According to Pat 'Dermott' O'Neill who was in his era the highest ranked non-Japanese Judo player in the world...Judo is useless unless the enemy is wearing a Gi.
> 
> As far as Japanese Ju Jutsu or any other martial art for that matter it is the same as the TKD statement I made above.  What is the focus of the school in question?  And more importantly, what is the level of experience of the instructor?  An instructor that is a sports champion isn't necessarily a good teacher of SD in the same vein as an instructor of good, solid SD is not necessarily a good teacher for competitions.
> 
> So in short, base your questions on what experience your instructor has, the focus of the school and the methodology of instruction.
> 
> Qualifications of self-defense?
> 
> Self-defense training methodology
> 
> Martial Warrior - Self-defense


I can agree with everything except the O'Neill quote. Most of Judo is easily adapted to no-gi, some of it requires no adaptation, and most of the groundwork in traditional Judo works quite well without a gi.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I can agree with everything except the O'Neill quote. Most of Judo is easily adapted to no-gi, some of it requires no adaptation, and most of the groundwork in traditional Judo works quite well without a gi.



I don't like how people tout that the focus is different. You set an objective. Then test your gear to see if your system works to fulfill that.

This is how TKD basically works.

And let's break this down to one unlikely move. The tornado kick.

(Quick side note here the criteria of self defence basically fits the criteria of assault. Motive ability delivery system. But that is another thing)

Now the tornado kick as much as it shouldn't work, knocks people out. The reason we know this is because we can see it.

Now we don't have to make up a bunch of logic to support this. You are either knocking fools out with it or you are not.

It won't mystically work or fail because you are in a street or a ring. The same circumstances that make the technique work. Make the technique work everywhere.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Kong Soo Do said:


> According to Pat 'Dermott' O'Neill who was in his era the highest ranked non-Japanese Judo player in the world...Judo is useless unless the enemy is wearing a Gi.


Masahiko Kimura, Ronda Rousey, Karo Parisyan, Dong Hyun Kim, Fedor Emelianenko, Rick Hawn and others would beg to disagree.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> Masahiko Kimura, Ronda Rousey, Karo Parisyan, Dong Hyun Kim, Fedor Emelianenko, Rick Hawn and others would beg to disagree.



Plus the Japanese parliament are a bit keen for judo from time to time as well.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

drop bear said:


> Plus the Japanese parliament are a bit keen for judo from time to time as well.


They're wearing suits. Close enough to a gi.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> I don't like how people tout that the focus is different. You set an objective. Then test your gear to see if your system works to fulfill that.
> 
> This is how TKD basically works.
> 
> And let's break this down to one unlikely move. The tornado kick.
> 
> (Quick side note here the criteria of self defence basically fits the criteria of assault. Motive ability delivery system. But that is another thing)
> 
> Now the tornado kick as much as it shouldn't work, knocks people out. The reason we know this is because we can see it.
> 
> Now we don't have to make up a bunch of logic to support this. You are either knocking fools out with it or you are not.
> 
> It won't mystically work or fail because you are in a street or a ring. The same circumstances that make the technique work. Make the technique work everywhere.



This is absolutely true, but the issues SD focus deals with are the other stuff: is the ground suitable for a tornado kick?
How can I make distance on this guy who is getting in my face since he's not the same weight class and a shove may not cut it?
If I shove him first will there be legal ramifications?
What if he catches my kick which is illegal under our rules?
etc etc etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I don't like how people tout that the focus is different. You set an objective. Then test your gear to see if your system works to fulfill that.
> 
> This is how TKD basically works.
> 
> And let's break this down to one unlikely move. The tornado kick.
> 
> (Quick side note here the criteria of self defence basically fits the criteria of assault. Motive ability delivery system. But that is another thing)
> 
> Now the tornado kick as much as it shouldn't work, knocks people out. The reason we know this is because we can see it.
> 
> Now we don't have to make up a bunch of logic to support this. You are either knocking fools out with it or you are not.
> 
> It won't mystically work or fail because you are in a street or a ring. The same circumstances that make the technique work. Make the technique work everywhere.


I think O’Neill was talking about the way competition Judo trains, which depends heavily on the go as a tool (both your opponent’s and your own). I just don’t think it’s all that hard to make the shift in the training.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

gpseymour said:


> I can agree with everything except the O'Neill quote. Most of Judo is easily adapted to no-gi, some of it requires no adaptation, and most of the groundwork in traditional Judo works quite well without a gi.



Perhaps today.  O'Neill was in the WWII era so his quote needs to be taken in context.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

Tony Dismukes said:


> Masahiko Kimura, Ronda Rousey, Karo Parisyan, Dong Hyun Kim, Fedor Emelianenko, Rick Hawn and others would beg to disagree.



Again, needs to be taken into context of the era in which O'Neill lived.  There is a reason that the highest ranked non-Japanese Judoka dismissed Judo as viable for a combative.  Can Judo be morphed so that some of it is useful for SD?  Sure.  But SD isn't the original purpose/goal/methodology of Judo.  Now one can reverse engineer Judo back to AJJ which can be quite useful for SD providing that's what it's geared towards.


----------



## drop bear

Tony Dismukes said:


> They're wearing suits. Close enough to a gi.



That is why they are wearing suits. Just in case someone needs to get judoed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kong Soo Do said:


> Perhaps today.  O'Neill was in the WWII era so his quote needs to be taken in context.


I think my training was more similar to the WWII era than what goes on in many dojos today (often less focus on the ground work today than I experienced). My instructor was of that era (and pretty traditional), and we used the gi heavily in throws, locks, and chokes. But all that was easy to translate to NOT grabbing the gi so often.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kong Soo Do said:


> Again, needs to be taken into context of the era in which O'Neill lived.  There is a reason that the highest ranked non-Japanese Judoka dismissed Judo as viable for a combative.  Can Judo be morphed so that some of it is useful for SD?  Sure.  But SD isn't the original purpose/goal/methodology of Judo.  Now one can reverse engineer Judo back to AJJ which can be quite useful for SD providing that's what it's geared towards.


Kodokan Judo had (has?) a self-defense set as part of the curriculum. And most of the core throws and locks are what they were decades ago (if a bit progressed). I suspect he was referring to the way it was taught/trained, rather than the capacity. That’s the only way it makes sense to me.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> This is absolutely true, but the issues SD focus deals with are the other stuff: is the ground suitable for a tornado kick?
> How can I make distance on this guy who is getting in my face since he's not the same weight class and a shove may not cut it?
> If I shove him first will there be legal ramifications?
> What if he catches my kick which is illegal under our rules?
> etc etc etc.



See the only difference is really the last one. And even that changes via rule sets. So they can catch in ours if they want.

All these other factors occur everywhere.

You can't throw a tornado kick anywhere if you slip over or don't have the space.

If you can't push a guy backwards. You can't push him backwards.

These mechanics just occur. Suggesting there are these impossible street physics just isn't real.

They generate like a superstition. And quite often have as much validity.


----------



## Kong Soo Do

gpseymour said:


> I think my training was more similar to the WWII era than what goes on in many dojos today (often less focus on the ground work today than I experienced). *My instructor was of that era (and pretty traditional), and we used the gi heavily in throws, locks, and chokes*. But all that was easy to translate to NOT grabbing the gi so often.



It's only easy to translate, under stress/duress, if you've trained that way consistently.  If a student uses the gi heavily in training it is not reasonable to expect them to do something else in the heat of a confrontation.  How you train is how you react under stress.  As I've discussed before, L.E. training and military circles have know this for decades which is why training has had to adapt.  If the Judo training didn't rely on a gi, or any specific clothing for that matter and if it was trained with a methodology of an actual attack with a violent aggressor rather than match with an opponent then it could be a useful tool.  Same with any martial art of course.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Kong Soo Do said:


> It's only easy to translate, under stress/duress, if you've trained that way consistently.  If a student uses the gi heavily in training it is not reasonable to expect them to do something else in the heat of a confrontation.  How you train is how you react under stress.  As I've discussed before, L.E. training and military circles have know this for decades which is why training has had to adapt.  If the Judo training didn't rely on a gi, or any specific clothing for that matter and if it was trained with a methodology of an actual attack with a violent aggressor rather than match with an opponent then it could be a useful tool.  Same with any martial art of course.


Agreed. That’s why I think he’s talking about the training, rather than the techniques.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> See the only difference is really the last one. And even that changes via rule sets. So they can catch in ours if they want.
> 
> All these other factors occur everywhere.
> 
> You can't throw a tornado kick anywhere if you slip over or don't have the space.
> 
> If you can't push a guy backwards. You can't push him backwards.
> 
> These mechanics just occur. Suggesting there are these impossible street physics just isn't real.
> 
> They generate like a superstition. And quite often have as much validity.



Except that they don't occur in a sport only environment. When have you ever trained tkd on wet grass.

And yes the ruleset makes a big difference, but that's also the point. Not every ma is mma. And even mma isn't real life.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Except that they don't occur in a sport only environment. When have you ever trained tkd on wet grass.
> 
> And yes the ruleset makes a big difference, but that's also the point. Not every ma is mma. And even mma isn't real life.


Nothing is the same as real life except real life, and the thing about real life is that it's never the same twice.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Nothing is the same as real life except real life, and the thing about real life is that it's never the same twice.



Agreed. So while sport training is great, and a permissive rule set a great simulator for certain things, it is pretty plain that the nature of sport, where matches and environment are kept as fair and free from obstacles as possible, has it's limitations if your goals are self defence.


----------



## skribs

At the same time, nobody trains to better read people during a fight than sports fighters.  Most of the "traditional XYZ grand master fights MMA fighter" videos I've seen online feature a traditional martial artist who hasn't been punched in 30 years, and as soon as the MMA fighter gets one hit in, it's over.  The sports fighters are more conditioned to hitting, being hit, and having things not go according to plan.

Taekwondo is particularly restrictive on the sport side, so it probably translates less to an actual fight.  However, that's just the sport of Taekwondo.  Any TKD school I've ever been to has taught techniques and tactics not allowed in the sport, which are to be used in the street.


----------



## drop bear

Kong Soo Do said:


> Again, needs to be taken into context of the era in which O'Neill lived.  There is a reason that the highest ranked non-Japanese Judoka dismissed Judo as viable for a combative.  Can Judo be morphed so that some of it is useful for SD?  Sure.  But SD isn't the original purpose/goal/methodology of Judo.  Now one can reverse engineer Judo back to AJJ which can be quite useful for SD providing that's what it's geared towards.



Story based.

I will stick with a self defence system that can make its own case based on evidence.

If ballet, yoga, aromatherapy were out there on YouTube winning fights on the street. That would be the system I would be looking at.

"Designed for" is a marketing tool.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Except that they don't occur in a sport only environment. When have you ever trained tkd on wet grass.
> 
> And yes the ruleset makes a big difference, but that's also the point. Not every ma is mma. And even mma isn't real life.



I have fought guys on wet grass. You don't slip over because you tried a tornado kick. You slip over because it is slippery. I have slipped over throwing punches.

 I slipped over once because I was trying to double leg a guy in a street fight and one of my friends pushed me from behind. Because he was also trying to bash the guy.

I have slipped over in the gym as well. So am I training for the street or sport there?

Where exactly does this script you are using come from?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Agreed. So while sport training is great, and a permissive rule set a great simulator for certain things, it is pretty plain that the nature of sport, where matches and environment are kept as fair and free from obstacles as possible, has it's limitations if your goals are self defence.



Pretty much has to be the starting point though. Or some sort of practical and functional method of finding out the difference between what should happen and what does happen.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> I have fought guys on wet grass. You don't slip over because you tried a tornado kick. You slip over because it is slippery. I have slipped over throwing punches.
> 
> I slipped over once because I was trying to double leg a guy in a street fight and one of my friends pushed me from behind. Because he was also trying to bash the guy.
> 
> I have slipped over in the gym as well. So am I training for the street or sport there?
> 
> Where exactly does this script you are using come from?



You're more likely to slip when you're spinning around on one foot than when you're standing on 2 feet.

I've been kicked in the head with my guard up.  Does that mean I shouldn't keep my guard up because I can still get kicked anyway?


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> You're more likely to slip when you're spinning around on one foot than when you're standing on 2 feet.
> 
> I've been kicked in the head with my guard up.  Does that mean I shouldn't keep my guard up because I can still get kicked anyway?



If it was evidence of the street. Then that one incident would define your training.

Even if it didn't happen.


----------



## JR 137

Sport MA, including MMA has its inherent flaws.  So does non-sport MA.  So does a blended MA, if you will, like say Kyokushin where it is bare knuckle and hard contact regardless of if the practitioner is competing or not.

Everything has its flaws.  It’s on the practitioner to weight the inherent flaws vs benefits to determine if the path he’s chosen is the one that’ll get him where he’s looking to go.

Anything that has true resistance is an asset, regardless of if that resistance is from competition or partners.  The amount of asset is subject to debate though.  Even tap-tap point fighting has resistance, in that the opponent is going along with you and letting you have your way with him.  Point fighting has its inherent flaws, but it’s still got the aspects of not letting you think you can walk up and punch anyone in the face and knock them out at will.  At least it teaches you you’re going to get hit back, even if the allowable contact is very unrealistically light, you can still put two and two together.

The key is resistance.  Within reason and with appropriate progression, the more the better.


----------



## JR 137

skribs said:


> At the same time, nobody trains to better read people during a fight than sports fighters.  Most of the "traditional XYZ grand master fights MMA fighter" videos I've seen online feature a traditional martial artist who hasn't been punched in 30 years, and as soon as the MMA fighter gets one hit in, it's over.  The sports fighters are more conditioned to hitting, being hit, and having things not go according to plan.
> 
> Taekwondo is particularly restrictive on the sport side, so it probably translates less to an actual fight.  However, that's just the sport of Taekwondo.  Any TKD school I've ever been to has taught techniques and tactics not allowed in the sport, which are to be used in the street.


Is it just me, or is it always XYZ Grandmaster is 80 years old and MMA fighter is a 20-something year old active competitor?  Skews the odds a bit.  And if it’s a 20-30 something year old grandmaster, they’re pretty much guaranteed to be a fraud.

But yeah, if you don’t actually hit and get hit, you’re not going to fare well when someone’s willing to actually hit you and get hit.  More so theory vs practice at work than anything else IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JR 137 said:


> Is it just me, or is it always XYZ Grandmaster is 80 years old and MMA fighter is a 20-something year old active competitor?  Skews the odds a bit.  And if it’s a 20-30 something year old grandmaster, they’re pretty much guaranteed to be a fraud.
> 
> But yeah, if you don’t actually hit and get hit, you’re not going to fare well when someone’s willing to actually hit you and get hit.  More so theory vs practice at work than anything else IMO.


Some of that comes from the myth in TMA that the older, wiser practitioners are the most deadly. I wish that were true. I'm probably more able to do damage than I was at 30, certainly more than I was at 20. But in 10 years, I likely won't be capable of what I can do today - I'm probably near the zenith of my fighting ability right now. If you matched me up against someone who trained (seriously) for MMA, I'd have problems, because I don't train that hard. My training at 30 was probably similarly intense, but with less resistance. My training now is definitely softer, mostly out of necessity.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Agreed. So while sport training is great, and a permissive rule set a great simulator for certain things, it is pretty plain that the nature of sport, where matches and environment are kept as fair and free from obstacles as possible, has it's limitations if your goals are self defence.


  All training has limitations, as does all application.  The answer isn’t to give up on application.  If you aren’t a cop, bouncer or assassin, sport is a terrific application of skill.   Shoot, even if you are a cop or a bouncer, it’s a great way to build skill.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Nothing is the same as real life except real life, and the thing about real life is that it's never the same twice.



Except for Ground Hog Day...


----------



## Paul_D

DaveB said:


> Agreed. So while sport training is great, and a permissive rule set a great simulator for certain things, it is pretty plain that the nature of sport, where matches and environment are kept as fair and free from obstacles as possible, has it's limitations if your goals are self defence.


You'd think it would be pretty plain yes, but guess what 



skribs said:


> At the same time, nobody trains to better read people during a fight than sports fighters.


Are you trying to suggest that you wile have time to read people during a SD encounter ?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> I have fought guys on wet grass. You don't slip over because you tried a tornado kick. You slip over because it is slippery. I have slipped over throwing punches.
> 
> I slipped over once because I was trying to double leg a guy in a street fight and one of my friends pushed me from behind. Because he was also trying to bash the guy.
> 
> I have slipped over in the gym as well. So am I training for the street or sport there?
> 
> Where exactly does this script you are using come from?


Experience.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> Are you trying to suggest that you wile have time to read people during a SD encounter ?


In some of them, yes.


----------



## Paul_D

gpseymour said:


> In some of them, yes.


Skribs answered that without moving his lips


----------



## TrueJim

Dirty Dog said:


> Except for Ground Hog Day...



...and Edge of Tomorrow!


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Experience.


Do you see that drop bear was describing actual experience with self defense on wet grass and you’re completely ignoring it?


----------



## Steve

TrueJim said:


> ...and Edge of Tomorrow!


The irony of referencing make believe movies as a response to a comment about real life is not lost on me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Do you see that drop bear was describing actual experience with self defense on wet grass and you’re completely ignoring it?


Yeah, but he has a tie-dyed gi and wants some shiny kickboxing pants. I don't think we can trust his experience, Steve.


----------



## Paul_D

TrueJim said:


> ...and Edge of Tomorrow!


and Edge of Tomorrow!


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> Is it just me, or is it always XYZ Grandmaster is 80 years old and MMA fighter is a 20-something year old active competitor?  Skews the odds a bit.  And if it’s a 20-30 something year old grandmaster, they’re pretty much guaranteed to be a fraud.
> 
> But yeah, if you don’t actually hit and get hit, you’re not going to fare well when someone’s willing to actually hit you and get hit.  More so theory vs practice at work than anything else IMO.




Unless it is boxing.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Do you see that drop bear was describing actual experience with self defense on wet grass and you’re completely ignoring it?



I haven't ignored anything, I just had nothing I felt I needed to add.
The real world examples he gave didnt actually answer my question. Rather they confirmed my point that sport only training, particularly where tkd is concerned, has gaps in the body of knowledge one might want for self defence. 

Drop Bear's need to proclaim sport as the be all and end all of martial arts amounted to a "yeah, but.." with the usual allusion to some traditionalist dogma as the only possible source for dissenting opinions. 

 If you look a bit further back youll see i haven't particularly disagreed with either of you. I just add a qualifier that it seems one or both of you are not happy with.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> I haven't ignored anything, I just had nothing I felt I needed to add.
> The real world examples he gave didnt actually answer my question. Rather they confirmed my point that sport only training, particularly where tkd is concerned, has gaps in the body of knowledge one might want for self defence.
> 
> Drop Bear's need to proclaim sport as the be all and end all of martial arts amounted to a "yeah, but.." with the usual allusion to some traditionalist dogma as the only possible source for dissenting opinions.
> 
> If you look a bit further back youll see i haven't particularly disagreed with either of you. I just add a qualifier that it seems one or both of you are not happy with.


Okay.  I apologize for doubting you.   How many times have you fought in wet grass? Is this something you do often?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, but he has a tie-dyed gi and wants some shiny kickboxing pants. I don't think we can trust his experience, Steve.



Fear not the man who owns a thousand GI,s.

Fear the man who gets his GI tie dyed.

"Plato"


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> Fear not the man who owns a thousand GI,s.
> 
> Fear the man who gets his GI tie dyed.
> 
> "Plato"


I’ve tie dyed a few Gi for friends.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Okay.  I apologize for doubting you.   How many times have you fought in wet grass? Is this something you do often?


The keyword of my question to DB was "trained".

My point was that the years of sport tkd training I did were all centred around a safe obstacle free environment, against a single opponent with no kicking below the waist or punching to the face etc etc. When i sparred with a wing chun training friend in his garden one morning I suddenly found myself unable to use my entire tkd arsenal because the ground was too slippery. I had to call back on my SD oriented Shotokan training. 

Other than that, in the 10 years I spent policing north London streets there were a couple of occasions of needing to fight someone on wet ground, as well as rocky ground, as well as obstacle filled small spaces, as well as times when grappling with one person on the ground meant being vulnerable to attack from others.... etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> The keyword of my question to DB was "trained".
> 
> My point was that the years of sport tkd training I did were all centred around a safe obstacle free environment, against a single opponent with no kicking below the waist or punching to the face etc etc. When i sparred with a wing chun training friend in his garden one morning I suddenly found myself unable to use my entire tkd arsenal because the ground was too slippery. I had to call back on my SD oriented Shotokan training.
> 
> Other than that, in the 10 years I spent policing north London streets there were a couple of occasions of needing to fight someone on wet ground, as well as rocky ground, as well as obstacle filled small spaces, as well as times when grappling with one person on the ground meant being vulnerable to attack from others.... etc.


This reminds me that it has been too long since I trained kicks on a bad surface. I’ve changed some of my kicks, and need to see how they work on poor footing. Thanks for the reminder.


----------



## JR 137

gpseymour said:


> This reminds me that it has been too long since I trained kicks on a bad surface. I’ve changed some of my kicks, and need to see how they work on poor footing. Thanks for the reminder.


Go to the local bowling alley, rent some bowling shoes, and start practicing your kicks on a lane.  You’ll probably get several minutes of practice in, then you’d get some time to actually use those skills.  It’s a win-win.    Unless of course the employee calls for some backup.  Then again, you’ll get some multiple attacker training in too.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> The keyword of my question to DB was "trained".
> 
> My point was that the years of sport tkd training I did were all centred around a safe obstacle free environment, against a single opponent with no kicking below the waist or punching to the face etc etc. When i sparred with a wing chun training friend in his garden one morning I suddenly found myself unable to use my entire tkd arsenal because the ground was too slippery. I had to call back on my SD oriented Shotokan training.
> 
> Other than that, in the 10 years I spent policing north London streets there were a couple of occasions of needing to fight someone on wet ground, as well as rocky ground, as well as obstacle filled small spaces, as well as times when grappling with one person on the ground meant being vulnerable to attack from others.... etc.


When I read your post above, I don’t see a training issue.   I see the value of experience.   Training isn’t the answer to ecerything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> When I read your post above, I don’t see a training issue.   I see the value of experience.   Training isn’t the answer to ecerything.


He pointed out he has experience. I wouldn't expect most folks to set aside their own experience in favor of someone else's, unless there is something significantly different that meets a need.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> He pointed out he has experience. I wouldn't expect most folks to set aside their own experience in favor of someone else's, unless there is something significantly different that meets a need.


Right.  Exactly.  It’s not a training issue.  There’s more than one way to skin a cat.  It’s an indication of the value of experience.   Ehat am I missing?  Did I give the impression that I’m disregarding @DaveB experi nice?   My intent is the opposite.   It sounds like his experience filled the gap left by training pretty handily.


----------



## skribs

Paul_D said:


> Are you trying to suggest that you wile have time to read people during a SD encounter ?



I'm talking about reading shoulders, reading eyes, seeing what an unpredictable opponent is doing.

Many ball players (i.e. football, baseball, etc) say the game "slows down" as you get more experience.  What's really happening is they're building neural pathways to speed up the information flow when they see something.  So a rookie batter may be trying to figure out what every ball that's coming at him is, but an experienced batter may be able to tell at a quick glance what pitch is coming and bat accordingly.  

Experience can be the difference between "that punch came out of nowhere" and seeing the same punch coming miles away.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Right.  Exactly.  It’s not a training issue.  There’s more than one way to skin a cat.  It’s an indication of the value of experience.   Ehat am I missing?  Did I give the impression that I’m disregarding @DaveB experi nice?   My intent is the opposite.   It sounds like his experience filled the gap left by training pretty handily.


Looking back at my post, I'm not sure what my point was, Steve.


----------



## Paul_D

skribs said:


> I'm talking about reading shoulders, reading eyes, seeing what an unpredictable opponent is doing.


Ok, thanks for the clarification.

QUOTE="skribs, post: 1875451, member: 31615"]
Experience can be the difference between "that punch came out of nowhere" and seeing the same punch coming miles away.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but I would say experience in regard to SD would mean you strike preemptively.  if you are waiting to the point where they are throwing pucnehs then your SD skills are severally lacking.


----------



## skribs

Paul_D said:


> Perhaps, but I would say experience in regard to SD would mean you strike preemptively.  if you are waiting to the point where they are throwing pucnehs then your SD skills are severally lacking.



Depends on local laws and the situation.


----------



## drop bear

Paul_D said:


> Ok, thanks for the clarification.
> 
> QUOTE="skribs, post: 1875451, member: 31615"]
> Experience can be the difference between "that punch came out of nowhere" and seeing the same punch coming miles away.


Perhaps, but I would say experience in regard to SD would mean you strike preemptively.  if you are waiting to the point where they are throwing pucnehs then your SD skills are severally lacking.[/QUOTE]

You can't just say everything has to be done your way because self defence.

And not just because it is one big reason not to take self defence instruction seriously.

So what happens if he was just asking for the time?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You can't just say everything has to be done your way because self defence.
> 
> And not just because it is one big reason not to take self defence instruction seriously.
> 
> So what happens if he was just asking for the time?


Agreed. I'd love to hit first in every SD situation. But to do that, I'd have to deal with a certain number of "false positives". Cops don't use that term, though, they call it something like "assault".


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> Go to the local bowling alley, rent some bowling shoes, and start practicing your kicks on a lane.  You’ll probably get several minutes of practice in, then you’d get some time to actually use those skills.  It’s a win-win.    Unless of course the employee calls for some backup.  Then again, you’ll get some multiple attacker training in too.



I have slipped over in the gym. Where do these people get these perfect training environments?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I have slipped over in the gym. Where do these people get these perfect training environments?


We've all slipped in the training environment. I slip a lot more on grass (even dry) and gravel.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I'd love to hit first in every SD situation. But to do that, I'd have to deal with a certain number of "false positives". Cops don't use that term, though, they call it something like "assault".



And if you want to mess with a guy who has all his plans built around a preemptive strike.

Hang back and use range and footwork. Wait until they get desperate and let them walk in to your shot.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We've all slipped in the training environment. I slip a lot more on grass (even dry) and gravel.



So where does the "you could slip over" argument apply?

I can slip over in training. I can slip over in a fight. Some surfaces are slippery. 

You are getting to a fairly advanced form of self defence tactics where picking and choosing your ground in that manner makes the difference. 

And I think it is a big nuanced system that could quite honestly be better spent learning to break skulls with your fist. Just from a bang for buck point of view.

(By the way I have done it. Not run into traffic after a guy. Fighting people in choke points. Waiting until I am on grass before I take people down. But they are not these massive fight changers.)


----------



## JR 137

drop bear said:


> I have slipped over in the gym. Where do these people get these perfect training environments?


Beats the hell out of me.  I’m looking for that perfect training environment too.  Hopefully we all go to that great dojo in the sky when it’s our time.  Until then, I keep looking.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> Beats the hell out of me.  I’m looking for that perfect training environment too.  Hopefully we all go to that great dojo in the sky when it’s our time.  Until then, I keep looking.



At least until then when I have to dodge the fan while sparring or be careful I don't get thrown out a first story window.

I am at least learning applicable street.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So where does the "you could slip over" argument apply?
> 
> I can slip over in training. I can slip over in a fight. Some surfaces are slippery.
> 
> You are getting to a fairly advanced form of self defence tactics where picking and choosing your ground in that manner makes the difference.
> 
> And I think it is a big nuanced system that could quite honestly be better spent learning to break skulls with your fist. Just from a bang for buck point of view.
> 
> (By the way I have done it. Not run into traffic after a guy. Fighting people in choke points. Waiting until I am on grass before I take people down. But they are not these massive fight changers.)


It's about percentages, not absolutes. There are things I won't try when my knee is being particularly bitchy. There are things I won't try when I'm training on hard floors. There are things I won't try on uneven or slippery surfaces. I could do all of those things in those situations, but their reliability goes way down or their trade-off changes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> or be careful I don't get thrown out a first story window.


This is less scary in the US - we count from the ground floor. Still a defenestration in any case, but less falling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> (By the way I have done it. Not run into traffic after a guy. Fighting people in choke points. Waiting until I am on grass before I take people down. But they are not these massive fight changers.)


I missed this part. Agreed, they are not massive game changers. But a lot of folks don't actually think about them - moreso than I'd have expected. Many students don't stop throws if they are about to throw someone off the mats or into a wall unless someone yells at them. For some reason, it takes some people a lot of time to develop that situational awareness. That's why we focus on it in SD training.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> So where does the "you could slip over" argument apply?
> 
> I can slip over in training. I can slip over in a fight. Some surfaces are slippery.
> 
> You are getting to a fairly advanced form of self defence tactics where picking and choosing your ground in that manner makes the difference.
> 
> And I think it is a big nuanced system that could quite honestly be better spent learning to break skulls with your fist. Just from a bang for buck point of view.
> 
> (By the way I have done it. Not run into traffic after a guy. Fighting people in choke points. Waiting until I am on grass before I take people down. But they are not these massive fight changers.)



It's not about picking where you fight.  It's about picking techniques based on where you fight.

As far as "you could slip", if I threw you two footballs, one dry and the other coated in cattle birthing agent, which one are you more likely to catch?  I mean, you can drop the dry one, so you must have an equal chance of catching them, right?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> coated in cattle birthing agent


What the hell???


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> What the hell???



On an episode of mythbusters they were testing how slippery banana peels are (i.e. the myth that if you step on a banana peel you would slip).  So they did an agility course with the slippery variable being a control run (nothing slippery on the track), a run with hundreds of banana peels, and a run with cattle birthing agent.  Jamie goes "I just happen to have some cattle birthing agent lying around, so we'll use that."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> On an episode of mythbusters they were testing how slippery banana peels are (i.e. the myth that if you step on a banana peel you would slip).  So they did an agility course with the slippery variable being a control run (nothing slippery on the track), a run with hundreds of banana peels, and a run with cattle birthing agent.  Jamie goes "I just happen to have some cattle birthing agent lying around, so we'll use that."


Not something most of us ever get to say.


----------



## skribs

I think it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> It's not about picking where you fight.  It's about picking techniques based on where you fight.
> 
> As far as "you could slip", if I threw you two footballs, one dry and the other coated in cattle birthing agent, which one are you more likely to catch?  I mean, you can drop the dry one, so you must have an equal chance of catching them, right?



Does my technique change for each ball?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Does my technique change for each ball?


No, but your decision about what to do with each might. If I know a ball is greased, I'd be less likely to try to catch it, more likely to let it hit the ground and smother it there. I'd be less likely to run with it (too easy to fumble), and more likely to take a knee as soon as I have it. I'd be less likely to try to field it if it looks like it's going out of bounds or will go into the end zone for a touchback. Technique doesn't change, but tactics (including which techniques I use) does.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, but your decision about what to do with each might. If I know a ball is greased, I'd be less likely to try to catch it, more likely to let it hit the ground and smother it there. I'd be less likely to run with it (too easy to fumble), and more likely to take a knee as soon as I have it. I'd be less likely to try to field it if it looks like it's going out of bounds or will go into the end zone for a touchback. Technique doesn't change, but tactics (including which techniques I use) does.



Which comes back to this mental elasticity thing I was trying to suggest in another thread.

Unfortunately I think street sport differences as it is generally discussed is the reverse of this.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I missed this part. Agreed, they are not massive game changers. But a lot of folks don't actually think about them - moreso than I'd have expected. Many students don't stop throws if they are about to throw someone off the mats or into a wall unless someone yells at them. For some reason, it takes some people a lot of time to develop that situational awareness. That's why we focus on it in SD training.



In sport that would be called ring craft.

But situational concerns pretty much are the primary differences in the street sport debate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> In sport that would be called ring craft.
> 
> But situational concerns pretty much are the primary differences in the street sport debate.


Agreed. And I suspect folks who are ring-trained are more situationally aware than folks who are trained without either ring craft or specific situational training. SD training often goes a bit beyond, to actually training on different surfaces to give some direct exposure to the principles. Done right, it _likely _(no real way to measure it, so we'll never have a "certainly" there) produces a bit better application of the principles outside the ring than basic ring craft, but by a margin, not by orders of magnitude.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Which comes back to this mental elasticity thing I was trying to suggest in another thread.
> 
> Unfortunately I think street sport differences as it is generally discussed is the reverse of this.


I'm not sure I caught the meaning of the last sentence, DB.

But, yeah, it's about elasticity. Train for a few differences, and you become better able to handle the ones you didn't get around to training for. Uneven surfaces provide some application to stairs (and vice-versa). Gravel provides some application to wet grass. A corner gives some application to a narrow hallway, etc.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I caught the meaning of the last sentence, DB.
> 
> But, yeah, it's about elasticity. Train for a few differences, and you become better able to handle the ones you didn't get around to training for. Uneven surfaces provide some application to stairs (and vice-versa). Gravel provides some application to wet grass. A corner gives some application to a narrow hallway, etc.



Well it think you can just get too concerned about your specific circumstance. And because people who teach street have a vested interest in these differences being fundamental. 

Suddenly they think there are all these specialized methods that are required to fight under all these specialized circumstances.

For example not being able to use TKD on wet grass and so having to switch to shotokan.

Two systems because the surface is a bit hinky?

Not practical from a self defence point of view.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> For example not being able to use TKD on wet grass and so having to switch to shotokan.
> 
> Two systems because the surface is a bit hinky?
> 
> Not practical from a self defence point of view.



There’s a big difference between not being able to use a small portion of Tae Kwon Do and not being able to use Tae Kwon Do. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well it think you can just get too concerned about your specific circumstance. And because people who teach street have a vested interest in these differences being fundamental.
> 
> Suddenly they think there are all these specialized methods that are required to fight under all these specialized circumstances.
> 
> For example not being able to use TKD on wet grass and so having to switch to shotokan.
> 
> Two systems because the surface is a bit hinky?
> 
> Not practical from a self defence point of view.


I can’t speak to TKD, but in all the arts I’m familiar enough with to comment, it would be a matter to selecting techniques, not selecting systems. And selecting techniques is what we do all the time - we pick the techniques that fit the situation. 

You’re over-generalizing “people who teach for the street”. That’s never useful.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. And I suspect folks who are ring-trained are more situationally aware than folks who are trained without either ring craft or specific situational training. SD training often goes a bit beyond, to actually training on different surfaces to give some direct exposure to the principles. Done right, it _likely _(no real way to measure it, so we'll never have a "certainly" there) produces a bit better application of the principles outside the ring than basic ring craft, but by a margin, not by orders of magnitude.


Here is the thing.   Most of the time, guys who talk about training in the grass are doing so as an alternative to “sport”training.  It’s generally what follows a statement like, “so, are you ever going to have wet grass in the cage?”

My belief is that without some kind of application, training in the grass won’t be particularly helpful.  In other words, if you don’t actuall fight, you won’t really be at a point to understand fighting on a wet surface.

If you aren’t a cop, bouncer, or other professionally violent person, and don’t compete, chances are good you have more fundamental gaps in your skills than fighting on wet grass.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I can’t speak to TKD, but in all the arts I’m familiar enough with to comment, it would be a matter to selecting techniques, not selecting systems. And selecting techniques is what we do all the time - we pick the techniques that fit the situation.
> 
> You’re over-generalizing “people who teach for the street”. That’s never useful.



As a trend. 

When people talk about the street at all it is generalising. Slipping on wet grass or likley responses from bad guys is generalising.

There might not be grass. It might be grippy. If it is slippery you still moght not slip over. I mean why suddenly pull this card now?


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> There’s a big difference between not being able to use a small portion of Tae Kwon Do and not being able to use Tae Kwon Do.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I was refering to this specifically. But it is not uncommon.
*
My point was that the years of sport tkd training I did were all centred around a safe obstacle free environment, against a single opponent with no kicking below the waist or punching to the face etc etc. When i sparred with a wing chun training friend in his garden one morning I suddenly found myself unable to use my entire tkd arsenal because the ground was too slippery. I had to call back on my SD oriented Shotokan training. *

Shoes vs no shoes this comes up. Having the exact training knife you carry. Those sorts of things.

For ring fighting you may get about 10 seconds if you are lucky to get a feel for the surface you are competing on. You get given a set of gloves you have never worn before and just expected to get on with it.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Here is the thing.   Most of the time, guys who talk about training in the grass are doing so as an alternative to “sport”training.  It’s generally what follows a statement like, “so, are you ever going to have wet grass in the cage?”
> 
> My belief is that without some kind of application, training in the grass won’t be particularly helpful.  In other words, if you don’t actuall fight, you won’t really be at a point to understand fighting on a wet surface.
> 
> If you aren’t a cop, bouncer, or other professionally violent person, and don’t compete, chances are good you have more fundamental gaps in your skills than fighting on wet grass.



On concrete (The ground is lava) is the big kicker. Because you don't really want to be throwing people in training. So the environment might be realistic. But then you cut corners in your fundementals.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I can’t speak to TKD, but in all the arts I’m familiar enough with to comment, it would be a matter to selecting techniques, not selecting systems. And selecting techniques is what we do all the time - we pick the techniques that fit the situation.
> 
> You’re over-generalizing “people who teach for the street”. That’s never useful.



i mean just to back this up. You are over generalising grass.

And.FLAMINGO.






Not wet enough?






not enough birthing agent?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Here is the thing.   Most of the time, guys who talk about training in the grass are doing so as an alternative to “sport”training.  It’s generally what follows a statement like, “so, are you ever going to have wet grass in the cage?”
> 
> My belief is that without some kind of application, training in the grass won’t be particularly helpful.  In other words, if you don’t actuall fight, you won’t really be at a point to understand fighting on a wet surface.
> 
> If you aren’t a cop, bouncer, or other professionally violent person, and don’t compete, chances are good you have more fundamental gaps in your skills than fighting on wet grass.


Sparring with intent on grass is possible. I’ve spent more time drilling on it. Having trained on grass, I can say with certainty that it improved my fighting ability. As with any training, the more live at least part of it gets, the more you learn. I know your view on “application”, and we differ fundamentally, so I won’t drag us back down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> As a trend.
> 
> When people talk about the street at all it is generalising. Slipping on wet grass or likley responses from bad guys is generalising.
> 
> There might not be grass. It might be grippy. If it is slippery you still moght not slip over. I mean why suddenly pull this card now?


That’s the opposite of generalizing. And there’s nothing sudden about it. I’ve trained on varied surfaces (on my own and in class) off and on for the last 30 years. Sometimes for pleasure, sometimes for the experimce, sometimes for both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> i mean just to back this up. You are over generalising grass.
> 
> And.FLAMINGO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not wet enough?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not enough birthing agent?


What have any of those to do with my statements?


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Sparring with intent on grass is possible. I’ve spent more time drilling on it. Having trained on grass, I can say with certainty that it improved my fighting ability. As with any training, the more live at least part of it gets, the more you learn. I know your view on “application”, and we differ fundamentally, so I won’t drag us back down that rabbit hole.


Not exactly what I meant.   I meant to say that if you don’t know how to fight on dry grass, training on wet grass won’t help.  This sounds like common sense, I know.

My view on application is just real life. Once I figure out how to explain it, it will also seem like common sense to reasonable people.  It will click for you, someday.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Not exactly what I meant. I meant to say that if you don’t know how to fight on dry grass, training on wet grass won’t help. This sounds like common sense, I know.


It is...or should be. Not sure how I missed that in your previous posts.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What have any of those to do with my statements?



That slipping on wet grass doesnt always happen.


It was a generalization.

Which aparently is never useful.

The whole conversation is built on the generalization that people will slip on wet grass throwing flash kicks.

But it seems generalising  is only bad when I do it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> That slipping on wet grass doesnt always happen.
> 
> 
> It was a generalization.
> 
> Which aparently is never useful.
> 
> The whole conversation is built on the generalization that people will slip on wet grass throwing flash kicks.
> 
> But it seems generalising  is only bad when I do it.


Where did I say slipping in wet grass always happens? 

There is a difference between generalizing and over-generalizing. One is a useful way to encompass a range of similarities. The other ignores important distinctions, like claiming “people who teach street” teach specialized systems or techniques for different surfaces.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Where did I say slipping in wet grass always happens?
> 
> There is a difference between generalizing and over-generalizing. One is a useful way to encompass a range of similarities. The other ignores important distinctions, like claiming “people who teach street” teach specialized systems or techniques for different surfaces.



When did I say self defence people always whatever.

There is no difference in what you did and what I did.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> When did I say self defence people always whatever.
> 
> There is no difference in what you did and what I did.



Here is your statement. 



drop bear said:


> Well it think you can just get too concerned about your specific circumstance. And because people who teach street have a vested interest in these differences being fundamental.
> 
> Suddenly they think there are all these specialized methods that are required to fight under all these specialized circumstances.
> 
> For example not being able to use TKD on wet grass and so having to switch to shotokan.
> 
> Two systems because the surface is a bit hinky?
> 
> Not practical from a self defence point of view.



I said (in different words) that wet grass is slippery. You are presenting a false equivalency, bordering one “whataboutism”.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Here is your statement.
> 
> 
> 
> I said (in different words) that wet grass is slippery. You are presenting a false equivalency, bordering one “whataboutism”.



Well wet grass isn't really that slippery. As people can still stick flying kicks while standing on it.

Which is the argument for training applicable moves for the street. That you would slip over performing these not wet grass functional moves.

Which is the point I was essentially making. In that self defence focused training focuses more on these issues than they need to.

 And it works in their favor to do so because it gives them a niche market. That martial arts that focus on working in the environment it is trained in don't have.


So let's not say all self defence instruction has this issue. But you certainty do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well wet grass isn't really that slippery. As people can still stick flying kicks while standing on it.


I never claimed it was ice. My assertion (easily testable and verifiable) is that wet grass is considerably more slippery than the dojo surfaces I've trained on, with the exception of sweaty wood floors.



> Which is the argument for training applicable moves for the street. That you would slip over performing these not wet grass functional moves.


It is _an_ argument, not _the_ argument. It has merit, but doesn't override all other considerations.



> Which is the point I was essentially making. In that self defence focused training focuses more on these issues than they need to.


Just how much does my training focus on it?




> And it works in their favor to do so because it gives them a niche market. That martial arts that focus on working in the environment it is trained in don't have.


The marketing does tend to lean more on these sorts of things than necessary. That's a valid point.



> So let's not say all self defence instruction has this issue. But you certainty do.


I return to my prior question. Just how much do I focus on this?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I never claimed it was ice. My assertion (easily testable and verifiable) is that wet grass is considerably more slippery than the dojo surfaces I've trained on, with the exception of sweaty wood floors.
> 
> 
> It is _an_ argument, not _the_ argument. It has merit, but doesn't override all other considerations.
> 
> 
> Just how much does my training focus on it?
> 
> 
> 
> The marketing does tend to lean more on these sorts of things than necessary. That's a valid point.
> 
> 
> I return to my prior question. Just how much do I focus on this?



Considerably more slippery than something that is less slippery unless you are training on something slippery?

Does that sound similar to my argument that people slip over? Which I made about the original argument.

I mean this was the reason why tornado kicks that while they may work in training or in the ring. Won't work on the street. Or that the kick could be caught or there wouldn't be room. All sorts of generalizations.

Now you didn't make that one. But you have certainly jumped on it.

I don't know how much you focus on it. But you have taken this side of the argument.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Considerably more slippery than something that is less slippery unless you are training on something slippery?


Yep.



> Does that sound similar to my argument that people slip over? Which I made about the original argument.


It does, and I agreed with your sentiment there. I happen to find it useful to introduce some slippery surfaces (as well as some uneven surfaces) into training, so people can experience the differences on their own, rather than having to take my word for it. You know, so they aren't relying on stories.



> I mean this was the reason why tornado kicks that while they may work in training or in the ring. Won't work on the street. Or that the kick could be caught or there wouldn't be room. All sorts of generalizations.


It is, in fact, one reason a tornado kick might not work. It wouldn't be my first thought - I just prefer simpler mechanics - and it doesn't preclude their use. In fact, if I was evaluating a tornado kick for use in the street, one thing I'd do is train it on something slippery. Again, to get some actual evidence to work with.



> Now you didn't make that one. But you have certainly jumped on it.


If you say so. It's a reasonable assertion, but one I can't support or counter, since I don't know any tornado kicks.



> I don't know how much you focus on it. But you have taken this side of the argument.


Actually, the "side of the argument" I've taken is that it's useful to train on variable surfaces (on purpose) to test what changes there, rather than guessing. You assumed my argument was that this would produce an entirely different approach. In fact, there are some things I'd avoid on slippery surfaces. Why? Because I find them unreliable when I practice them on slippery surfaces. Again, based on evidence.

But, as you've done several times in the past, you're trying really hard to twist my argument into something you can bash. If you stick to my actual argument, you might give me some good food for thought (as you often do). When you counter an argument I'm not even making, that's not much use.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Yep.
> 
> 
> It does, and I agreed with your sentiment there. I happen to find it useful to introduce some slippery surfaces (as well as some uneven surfaces) into training, so people can experience the differences on their own, rather than having to take my word for it. You know, so they aren't relying on stories.
> 
> 
> It is, in fact, one reason a tornado kick might not work. It wouldn't be my first thought - I just prefer simpler mechanics - and it doesn't preclude their use. In fact, if I was evaluating a tornado kick for use in the street, one thing I'd do is train it on something slippery. Again, to get some actual evidence to work with.
> 
> 
> If you say so. It's a reasonable assertion, but one I can't support or counter, since I don't know any tornado kicks.
> 
> 
> Actually, the "side of the argument" I've taken is that it's useful to train on variable surfaces (on purpose) to test what changes there, rather than guessing. You assumed my argument was that this would produce an entirely different approach. In fact, there are some things I'd avoid on slippery surfaces. Why? Because I find them unreliable when I practice them on slippery surfaces. Again, based on evidence.
> 
> But, as you've done several times in the past, you're trying really hard to twist my argument into something you can bash. If you stick to my actual argument, you might give me some good food for thought (as you often do). When you counter an argument I'm not even making, that's not much use.



Except this is about you bashing my argument in regards to making generalisations.

Which is what I am countering at the moment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Except this is about you bashing my argument in regards to making generalisations.
> 
> Which is what I am countering at the moment.


And you did make a sweeping generalization that ascribed (without evidence) an attitude and approach to everyone in a population. You compared that to me saying wet grass is slippery. Not even close to the same thing.


----------



## JR 137

I can trump all of you wet grass and concrete guys.  Anyone train in a lake, barefoot, with some sharp rocks on the bottom?

Didn’t think so.

But I do...



 
Makes me so much more realistic than you 

And yes, I’ve trained on wet grass too...


 

(Mic drop)


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And you did make a sweeping generalization that ascribed (without evidence) an attitude and approach to everyone in a population. You compared that to me saying wet grass is slippery. Not even close to the same thing.



Is all wet grass slippery? Have you provided evidence?

It is exactly the same thing.

And where did I say everyone in a population? 

Are you trying really hard to twist my argument?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Is all wet grass slippery? Have you provided evidence?
> 
> It is exactly the same thing.
> 
> And where did I say everyone in a population?
> 
> Are you trying really hard to twist my argument?


Sigh. Go ahead and spar. You can take all the shots you want at arguments I didn't make, man. It won't get you any points, won't make you any smarter or more informed, and won't help anyone else, either. I think this rabbit hole has reached bottom.


----------



## New Instructor

speedking668 said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I took my first TKD ITF lesson yesterday, I really enjoyed it.
> 
> I do have however have some concerns, I'm always reading how TKD is simply too impractical for the street as a defense art and it's one of the arts to be avoided along with Aikido.
> 
> Could someone give me some clarity on this?
> 
> The place I just joined has the TKD and also has Street awareness incorporated in to the sessions.
> 
> My initial thought was to take TKD and also do either JUDO/JJJ along side with it.
> 
> My main goal is to be able to protect my family if a dangerous situation were to occur.



  I have heard the same thing. Most people that make those kind of statements are uneducated and don't know what they are talking about. From what I have studied I can tell you that TKD is  dry much good for self defence. 
    Every Martial Art has people that are not a good e?ample to go by when it comes to technique of any kind weather it be basics or Self Defence. Just be aware of where you get your information. Some people are just out to give other martial arts a bad name. I know at my school we actually an outage the students to study multiple arts.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Sigh. Go ahead and spar. You can take all the shots you want at arguments I didn't make, man. It won't get you any points, won't make you any smarter or more informed, and won't help anyone else, either. I think this rabbit hole has reached bottom.



You did exactly what I did. Having some sort of sook about it is not going to change that.

You started this nonsense. Then engaged in it for what? 2 pages. And then complain that it is somehow my fault?

Plenty of times a conversion with you just gets silly and I will just leave it alone. 

So this one I didn't. So what? It is just conversation. Don't get so caught up in winning.


----------



## skribs

New Instructor said:


> I have heard the same thing. Most people that make those kind of statements are uneducated and don't know what they are talking about. From what I have studied I can tell you that TKD is  dry much good for self defence.
> Every Martial Art has people that are not a good e?ample to go by when it comes to technique of any kind weather it be basics or Self Defence. Just be aware of where you get your information. Some people are just out to give other martial arts a bad name. I know at my school we actually an outage the students to study multiple arts.



I would also argue that many Taekwondo schools focus exclusively on things that are not self defense.  Taekwondo can mean a number of things, from art (primarily traditional poomsae), acrobatics (such as tricking or advanced jumping kicks), sport (olympic-style sparring), and self-defense.  

I could open up a school* and teach only forms, and people could learn balance and get good exercise, but if I don't teach any practical application then I AM teaching Taekwondo, but I'm a terrible self defense school.  I could open a school* and teach olympic-style sparring and take my students to a dozen tournaments every year, and we might be an awesome sports team, but if I'm not teaching fighting in situations where you can be kicked below the belt, punched in the head, or grabbed, I'm probably a terrible self defense school.  I could open a school* and teach gymtaek, with kicks that start with numbers and flips and twists thrown in, and we would look awesome on a dance floor, but it would be a terrible self defense school.  All of these could teach great Taekwondo, specialized - but great at that specialty.  These would all be Taekwondo schools that are not lacking in teaching, but are terrible self defense schools, because that's not the discipline being taught.

On the other hand, I could open up a school* and teach only self defense, eschewing forms, eschewing fighting where there's too many rules to be realistic, and eschewing any techniques that are only good for showing off and have no practical application, and have a good self defense school using traditional Taekwondo self defense techniques.  It would be just as much Taekwondo as any of the schools in the last paragraph, but it would also be a great self defense school.

*Of course, if I open up a school, it's not going to be a great anything.  I'm nowhere near proficient enough as a martial artist or instructor to open up my own school.  This is a what-if scenario of if I was at a Master level, I could open up a school with a dedication to a specific aspect of Taekwondo, and it would excel in that aspect.


----------



## New Instructor

If your fortunate enough to study under Instructors that hold rank in many styles and values practical application, I would stick with them.


----------



## WaterGal

JR 137 said:


> I can trump all of you wet grass and concrete guys.  Anyone train in a lake, barefoot, with some sharp rocks on the bottom?
> 
> Didn’t think so.
> 
> But I do...
> View attachment 21128
> Makes me so much more realistic than you



Oh man, so you must be the reason that my liability insurance company feels they have to specify, in writing, that they don't cover training in lakes or oceans.


----------



## skribs

WaterGal said:


> Oh man, so you must be the reason that my liability insurance company feels they have to specify, in writing, that they don't cover training in lakes or oceans.


So you don't have the coverage to be a strange lady lying in ponds distributing swords?

I guess we need to find a new system of government then.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> So you don't have the coverage to be a strange lady lying in ponds distributing swords?
> 
> I guess we need to find a new system of government then.


No insurance for watery tarts.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> When I read your post above, I don’t see a training issue.   I see the value of experience.   Training isn’t the answer to ecerything.


Except that it wasn't experience that filled the gap, the skills I applied in those situations were from my SD based training.

Experience helped me to avoid fights, not win them.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Except that it wasn't experience that filled the gap, the skills I applied in those situations were from my SD based training.
> 
> Experience helped me to avoid fights, not win them.


You say that experience didn't fill the gap, but going back and reading your post again, it seems like the opposite is true.  I don't think this is worth arguing about.  I just think you and I are seeing the same thing and coming to different conclusions.  I would say that experience will both help you win fights and avoid them.  10 years of beating the mean streets of London sounds a lot like experience to me.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> You did exactly what I did. Having some sort of sook about it is not going to change that.
> 
> You started this nonsense. Then engaged in it for what? 2 pages. And then complain that it is somehow my fault?
> 
> Plenty of times a conversion with you just gets silly and I will just leave it alone.
> 
> So this one I didn't. So what? It is just conversation. Don't get so caught up in winning.


No idea What you two are arguing about but it's definitely Drop Bear's fault.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> No idea What you two are arguing about but it's definitely Drop Bear's fault.



Better to be the bad guy than the victim.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Better to be the bad guy than the victim.


Best to be neither, brother.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Better to be the bad guy than the victim.



Even better to be the good guy.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Best to be neither, brother.



Yeah sort of. I think people confuse being a good guy. With rationalising why they technically were one. Even though their actions hurt people.

If I have to be the bad guy I don't try to make it out that it was good. If I was to justify myself it would be that it was worth it.


----------



## DaveB

DaveB said:


> No idea What you two are arguing about but it's definitely Drop Bear's fault.


Ok I'm caught up now. DB is doing his thing where he substitutes argument for obstinance and obtusity.

I trained tkd in a university sports hall, either with mats or without. It was never slippery.  We never trained for any eventuality other than what would occur within the rules of a tkd tournament.

I learned a great deal about fighting and extrapolated that knowledge for use with hands and in other areas of free fighting, but nothing about that environment was similar to when I trained outside in the forest.

Same with boxing, Thai boxing, karate, Tiger crane kungfu etc etc etc.


drop bear said:


> Better to be the bad guy than the victim.


So where do you place being the village idiot?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Ok I'm caught up now. DB is doing his thing where he substitutes argument for obstinance and obtusity.
> 
> I trained tkd in a university sports hall, either with mats or without. It was never slippery.  We never trained for any eventuality other than what would occur within the rules of a tkd tournament.
> 
> I learned a great deal about fighting and extrapolated that knowledge for use with hands and in other areas of free fighting, but nothing about that environment was similar to when I trained outside in the forest.
> 
> Same with boxing, Thai boxing, karate, Tiger crane kungfu etc etc etc.
> 
> So where do you place being the village idiot?



Doesn't matter. The slippery grass thing was a lie. You can stick kicks on wet grass fine.

Showed a video of someone doing it.

Maybe it was just you. Not your training.

I mean I sparred today kicked a guy into the bags and went him as he bounced off and almost got swept by two other guys rolling.

Mental elasticity and dealing with the unexpected is very important in being successful in competition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Doesn't matter. The slippery grass thing was a lie. You can stick kicks on wet grass fine.
> 
> Showed a video of someone doing it.
> 
> Maybe it was just you. Not your training.
> 
> I mean I sparred today kicked a guy into the bags and went him as he bounced off and almost got swept by two other guys rolling.
> 
> Mental elasticity and dealing with the unexpected is very important in being successful in competition.


A single example, by the way, is anecdotal evidence.

Wet grass is slipperier than many surfaces. It's not impossible to kick on, but if someone's kicks (like my round kicks, probably) need more traction than it provides, then it is too slippery for those kicks. I'm certain someone with smoother kicks than mine would have different math than I do. How do I know my kicks aren't a good idea there? I tried them out - got some evidence.


----------



## skribs

gpseymour said:


> A single example, by the way, is anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Wet grass is slipperier than many surfaces. It's not impossible to kick on, but if someone's kicks (like my round kicks, probably) need more traction than it provides, then it is too slippery for those kicks. I'm certain someone with smoother kicks than mine would have different math than I do. How do I know my kicks aren't a good idea there? I tried them out - got some evidence.



There's also a difference between grass that's covered in dew, and grass on soggy ground that's absorbed all the water it can.

In risk assessment, there are two factors you must consider:  the likelihood or frequency of an adverse event happening, and the damage that event can cause.

As the surface becomes more slippery, you are more likely to slip.  You can use your technique to counter that, but it will often come at the cost of speed and power.  You see this in sports: gridiron football players playing on soggy grass or on snow can't cut as hard, and they can't gain as much power with their legs.  The other factor is the damage an event can cause.  Slipping on wet grass isn't too bad, until the other guy sits on you and starts pummeling.  Slipping on asphalt is going to be worse than slipping on the mat, even if it's less likely.

As you evaluate what does and doesn't work in self defense, you have to consider the environment.  Are there hazards?  Are there weapons you (or your adversary) can use?  These aren't considerations in the highly controlled sport of Taekwondo sparring.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> A single example, by the way, is anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Wet grass is slipperier than many surfaces. It's not impossible to kick on, but if someone's kicks (like my round kicks, probably) need more traction than it provides, then it is too slippery for those kicks. I'm certain someone with smoother kicks than mine would have different math than I do. How do I know my kicks aren't a good idea there? I tried them out - got some evidence.



You can't roundhouse kick on grass and you think that is an issue with roundhouse kicks?


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> These aren't considerations in the highly controlled sport of Taekwondo sparring.



Really?






people need to look and asses what is. Not just believe what they think should be.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> Really?
> people need to look and asses what is. Not just believe what they think should be.



OK... so let's see what relationship these examples have to sparring....

10 - They're infants. Really? That's supposed to be an example of TKD sparring in general?
9 - Gynastics, not TKD, and nothing whatsoever to do with sparring.
8 - Not sparring and pretty much Silly Buggers, but he did succeed in the break despite the wall breaking.
7 - Not sparring.
6 - Not sparring.
5 - Not sparring.
4 - Not sparring.
3 - Not sparring.
2 - Not sparring.
1 - Not sparring. And another example of gymnastics, not TKD sparring.

So was there a point you were trying to make? Did you actually watch the video before you posted it?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You can't roundhouse kick on grass and you think that is an issue with roundhouse kicks?


No, it's an issue with my roundhouse kicks. Maybe read my post (where I said someone with better kicks would have different math).


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> OK... so let's see what relationship these examples have to sparring....
> 
> 10 - They're infants. Really? That's supposed to be an example of TKD sparring in general?
> 9 - Gynastics, not TKD, and nothing whatsoever to do with sparring.
> 8 - Not sparring and pretty much Silly Buggers, but he did succeed in the break despite the wall breaking.
> 7 - Not sparring.
> 6 - Not sparring.
> 5 - Not sparring.
> 4 - Not sparring.
> 3 - Not sparring.
> 2 - Not sparring.
> 1 - Not sparring. And another example of gymnastics, not TKD sparring.
> 
> So was there a point you were trying to make? Did you actually watch the video before you posted it?



So the guys in the TKD uniforms were not doing TKD. they were doing gymnastics?

The point is real life happens everywhere. People slip over, make mistakes and have to address real world problems everywhere there is a real world.

And this includes training.

Real life doesn't just happen on grass.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, it's an issue with my roundhouse kicks. Maybe read my post (where I said someone with better kicks would have different math).



Ok. But my basic premis is that you can actually do the kick to some sort of usable level.

That was my origional point.

Doing grass specific self defence on grass is not going to help you if you just cant do the technique. 

So I am not sure how the fact that you cant do roundhouse kicks is relevent.

I mean I cant do tornado kicks. But that is not an issue with the environment so it doesnt factor.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> So the guys in the TKD uniforms were not doing TKD. they were doing gymnastics?
> 
> The point is real life happens everywhere. People slip over, make mistakes and have to address real world problems everywhere there is a real world.
> 
> And this includes training.
> 
> Real life doesn't just happen on grass.


You posted the video in response to a post that specifically referred to the controlled sport of TKD sparring.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Ok. But my basic premis is that you can actually do the kick to some sort of usable level.
> 
> That was my origional point.
> 
> Doing grass specific self defence on grass is not going to help you if you just cant do the technique.
> 
> So I am not sure how the fact that you cant do roundhouse kicks is relevent.
> 
> I mean I cant do tornado kicks. But that is not an issue with the environment so it doesnt factor.


Yes, and I never said grass makes kicks impossible. I said a slippery surface (like wet grass) changes things, and should change some of your choices. Just like there are things I won't choose to do when my knee is being bitchy. You've somehow lost the thread of what you started griping about.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> So the guys in the TKD uniforms were not doing TKD. they were doing gymnastics?



That is correct. I can do TKD in street clothes. They can do gymnastics in a dobak.
When you post the video in response to a statement about the very controlled (and limited) world of Olympic sparring, it's not unreasonable to expect the response to have something to do with the very controlled (and limited) world of Olympic sparring.
Unless you're suggesting that people suddenly halt a match or a fight to go break boards? Or do handsprings?
I didn't think so.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You posted the video in response to a post that specifically referred to the controlled sport of TKD sparring.



Fine. slipping over during the highly controlled sport of sparring then.






Same point buy the way. real life still happens during sparring.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> That is correct. I can do TKD in street clothes. They can do gymnastics in a dobak.
> When you post the video in response to a statement about the very controlled (and limited) world of Olympic sparring, it's not unreasonable to expect the response to have something to do with the very controlled (and limited) world of Olympic sparring.
> Unless you're suggesting that people suddenly halt a match or a fight to go break boards? Or do handsprings?
> I didn't think so.



What olympic sparring?

TKD. sparring.

And I am pretty sure they were TKD guys not gymnasts dressed up.

What is your definition of highly controlled by the way?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What olympic sparring?
> 
> TKD. sparring.
> 
> And I am pretty sure they were TKD guys not gymnasts dressed up.
> 
> What is your definition of highly controlled by the way?


I think the term "highly controlled" was to refer to the environment and rules. That's how I read it, anyway.


----------



## Dirty Dog

drop bear said:


> What olympic sparring?



That is what skribs does. He's been very clear about that.



> TKD. sparring.



No such thing. Or rather, it's so broad a term as to be meaningless. There are at least a dozen different rulesets used by various branches of TKD and various times. 



> And I am pretty sure they were TKD guys not gymnasts dressed up.



What they were doing is gymnastics. 
Unless you're trying to claim people do handsprings during a fight?
I didn't think so.



> What is your definition of highly controlled by the way?



Pretty much what they were doing in that video. Very restricted target areas, very limited number of techniques, judges who stop the match at the slightest provocation...


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I think the term "highly controlled" was to refer to the environment and rules. That's how I read it, anyway.



OK two things.

 If I can kick a person and knock them out. I can use that as a tool in self defence. It doesn't matter if it is an accepted self defence tool or not.


And if you get to suggest street vs sport and controlled environments.

I assume I get to suggest intoxicated attackers not wearing head gear who have never dealt with a TKD kick his life.


----------



## drop bear

Dirty Dog said:


> That is what skribs does. He's been very clear about that.
> 
> No such thing. Or rather, it's so broad a term as to be meaningless. There are at least a dozen different rulesets used by various branches of TKD and various times.



If he wanted to say Olympic sparring then he should have said. Otherwise broader is better for me.

I am an advocate of sparring different rule sets anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> OK two things.
> 
> If I can kick a person and knock them out. I can use that as a tool in self defence. It doesn't matter if it is an accepted self defence tool or not.
> 
> 
> And if you get to suggest street vs sport and controlled environments.
> 
> I assume I get to suggest intoxicated attackers not wearing head gear who have never dealt with a TKD kick his life.


Okay. Go ahead.

I'm not sure why you are so worked up over the idea that we select what works in the environment we're in - you've mentioned that yourself. As for practicing on different surfaces helping - it's how you can find out what will and won't work there (you know, without guessing). My round kicks have gotten clunky, so it's not surprising they aren't dependable on wet grass. I have put some work in to improve them, but haven't been on a slippery surface since then.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If I can kick a person and knock them out. I can use that as a tool in self defence. It doesn't matter if it is an accepted self defence tool or not.


I forgot to respond to this. I'm not sure what your point was. I've made no mention of "accepted self defense tools".


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I forgot to respond to this. I'm not sure what your point was. I've made no mention of "accepted self defense tools".



Except the original argument was this.

"The keyword of my question to DB was "trained".

My point was that the years of sport tkd training I did were all centred around a safe obstacle free environment, against a single opponent with no kicking below the waist or punching to the face etc etc. When i sparred with a wing chun training friend in his garden one morning *I suddenly found myself unable to use my entire tkd arsenal because the ground was too slippery*. I had to call back on my SD oriented Shotokan training.

Other than that, in the 10 years I spent policing north London streets there were a couple of occasions of needing to fight someone on wet ground, as well as rocky ground, as well as obstacle filled small spaces, as well as times when grappling with one person on the ground meant being vulnerable to attack from others.... etc."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Except the original argument was this.
> 
> "The keyword of my question to DB was "trained".
> 
> My point was that the years of sport tkd training I did were all centred around a safe obstacle free environment, against a single opponent with no kicking below the waist or punching to the face etc etc. When i sparred with a wing chun training friend in his garden one morning *I suddenly found myself unable to use my entire tkd arsenal because the ground was too slippery*. I had to call back on my SD oriented Shotokan training.
> 
> Other than that, in the 10 years I spent policing north London streets there were a couple of occasions of needing to fight someone on wet ground, as well as rocky ground, as well as obstacle filled small spaces, as well as times when grappling with one person on the ground meant being vulnerable to attack from others.... etc."


Okay, I'm still not sure where the term "accepted SD technique" is coming in. He never said he couldn't use stuff because it wasn't designed for SD. He said he couldn't use his sport-oriented TKD because it wasn't working in the situation. That might be a problem with TKD, or might be a problem with his TKD. For him, in the situation at that moment, the two are the same. Someone with TKD experience would probably be equipped to talk about whether the way the techniques are trained/used for sport makes it harder to translate them to less dependable surfaces.

The concept that started out here was that training for sport can end up developing technique in a way that doesn't work on other surfaces. Mind you, the same is true for SD-oriented training, if that training is limited to the dojo, for the very same reasons. It's pretty easy to step outside and work on grass, gravel, pavement, etc. from time to time, and it gives an opportunity to find out (when the cost of finding out is pretty low) what is and is not problematic when you aren't in that training environment.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay. Go ahead.
> 
> I'm not sure why you are so worked up over the idea that we select what works in the environment we're in - you've mentioned that yourself. As for practicing on different surfaces helping - it's how you can find out what will and won't work there (you know, without guessing). My round kicks have gotten clunky, so it's not surprising they aren't dependable on wet grass. I have put some work in to improve them, but haven't been on a slippery surface since then.



Here is the logic.

If I knock guys consistently out with a tornado kick in the gym. That is fine. But I am unlikely to have to do self defence in a gym setting. So I would need to choose more appropriate methods for self defence.

Now I could just go out on the grass and throw a tornado kick.(which I have done) and the grass doesn't adversely effect me more than anything in the gym. 

So I can be reasonably sure that if I can effect the same conditions in self defence as I can with a successful kick in the gym there is a good chance that kick will work.

That is the argument for training on different surfaces.

That is not the argument being used here though.

And without being clear about where you stand. You are contributing to what is again going to be this silly idea that you cannot verify a technique without having used it in self defence and so will just have to rely on someone's say so.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I'm still not sure where the term "accepted SD technique" is coming in. He never said he couldn't use stuff because it wasn't designed for SD. He said he couldn't use his sport-oriented TKD because it wasn't working in the situation. That might be a problem with TKD, or might be a problem with his TKD. For him, in the situation at that moment, the two are the same. Someone with TKD experience would probably be equipped to talk about whether the way the techniques are trained/used for sport makes it harder to translate them to less dependable surfaces.
> 
> The concept that started out here was that training for sport can end up developing technique in a way that doesn't work on other surfaces. Mind you, the same is true for SD-oriented training, if that training is limited to the dojo, for the very same reasons. It's pretty easy to step outside and work on grass, gravel, pavement, etc. from time to time, and it gives an opportunity to find out (when the cost of finding out is pretty low) what is and is not problematic when you aren't in that training environment.



Being able to handle a non optimal surface is also important in sport.

This idea that sports training is conducted in some sort of vacuum is not correct. Or even that some sort of super sterilized environment is optimal let alone practical.


----------



## drop bear

Actually that makes my life a lot easier.



Your argument of a sterile gym is a fallacy. At best a generalisation.

So without that. Where does this wet grass argument even go?


----------



## JR 137

WaterGal said:


> Oh man, so you must be the reason that my liability insurance company feels they have to specify, in writing, that they don't cover training in lakes or oceans.


What about rivers?  Ponds?    Insurance companies will look for every loophole when it comes time to pay, so you might as well too 

If we had an ocean nearby, we’d go there instead.  Closest is probably about 3 hours drive away, so we go to the lake every year.  Nakamura (our organization’s founder) most likely carried it over from his Kyokushin days.

Nakamura’s dojo does their annual beach training at Far Rockaway Beach (I can’t say that without hearing the Ramones song in my head) in NYC.  Other Seido dojos with ocean access do as well.

We do the training in the water similar to the way class would be run, but there’s the whole element of kicking the sand at each other, doing basics in the water, and sparring in the water.  We go for about an hour and a half. Rain or shine, except for lightning.  Gis get pretty heavy in the water. We wear t-shirts, but Nakamura’s dojo goes full gi.  Afterward we have a picnic in the pavilion that overlooks the lake, and everyone’s family is invited.  It’s one of the best karate days of the year. 

Nakamura also holds a special class at one of the parks in NYC after the first accumulating snowfall.  I can’t imagine training in snow barefoot and in a gi for 30 minutes or however long they go for.  I think he’s recently allowed shoes during it though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Here is the logic.
> 
> If I knock guys consistently out with a tornado kick in the gym. That is fine. But I am unlikely to have to do self defence in a gym setting. So I would need to choose more appropriate methods for self defence.
> 
> Now I could just go out on the grass and throw a tornado kick.(which I have done) and the grass doesn't adversely effect me more than anything in the gym.
> 
> So I can be reasonably sure that if I can effect the same conditions in self defence as I can with a successful kick in the gym there is a good chance that kick will work.
> 
> That is the argument for training on different surfaces.
> 
> That is not the argument being used here though.
> 
> And without being clear about where you stand. You are contributing to what is again going to be this silly idea that you cannot verify a technique without having used it in self defence and so will just have to rely on someone's say so.


Oy, now you're crossing arguments with other arguments. I'm not even sure if some of what you posted was meant to be a comment on my posts, or a generic comment about the topic.

You don't like me getting input from folks who use the stuff in the field ("just stories"). You don't like me sparring with resistance (in more than one thread, you've appeared convinced I can't possibly be doing that right). You don't like me working from videos to get evidence (you just pick a video that shows it's not always that way, and claim that makes the first video irrelevant). And now you don't like me testing technique on various surfaces to get an idea of how those surfaces affect technique.

Just what the hell? Seriously.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Being able to handle a non optimal surface is also important in sport.
> 
> This idea that sports training is conducted in some sort of vacuum is not correct. Or even that some sort of super sterilized environment is optimal let alone practical.


Sports training environment is pretty similar to dojo training environment for SD schools. It doesn't have the variability you can get by simply stepping outside. I've never claimed working on variable surfaces wouldn't be useful for sport - just useful in a different way, I'd think. In both cases, it's at least partly about mental elasticity. In one case, it's directly about testing techniques to see what changes based upon a few different surfaces/environments. For sport, I don't think going outside (assuming indoor competition, of course) is directly applicable in that way, but surely there's some variability from venue to venue, so working different surfaces would be useful.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Oy, now you're crossing arguments with other arguments. I'm not even sure if some of what you posted was meant to be a comment on my posts, or a generic comment about the topic.
> 
> You don't like me getting input from folks who use the stuff in the field ("just stories"). You don't like me sparring with resistance (in more than one thread, you've appeared convinced I can't possibly be doing that right). You don't like me working from videos to get evidence (you just pick a video that shows it's not always that way, and claim that makes the first video irrelevant). And now you don't like me testing technique on various surfaces to get an idea of how those surfaces affect technique.
> 
> Just what the hell? Seriously.



I think you are trying to twist my arguments there. You can test your techniques on any surface you want.

i mean i said i could do it i said i have done it in the post you replied to.

Here.
*
Now I could just go out on the grass and throw a tornado kick.(which I have done) and the grass doesn't adversely effect me more than anything in the gym.

So I can be reasonably sure that if I can effect the same conditions in self defence as I can with a successful kick in the gym there is a good chance that kick will work.
*
So not sure what you are complaining about.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Sports training environment is pretty similar to dojo training environment for SD schools. It doesn't have the variability you can get by simply stepping outside. I've never claimed working on variable surfaces wouldn't be useful for sport - just useful in a different way, I'd think. In both cases, it's at least partly about mental elasticity. In one case, it's directly about testing techniques to see what changes based upon a few different surfaces/environments. For sport, I don't think going outside (assuming indoor competition, of course) is directly applicable in that way, but surely there's some variability from venue to venue, so working different surfaces would be useful.



The question isn't whether you go outside the gym. It is whether the feedback from in the gym is relevant.

We do step outside as part of sports training.  Plenty of people do.

Even TKD people do it.

Amazing I would have thought they would just keep falling over.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I think you are trying to twist my arguments there. You can test your techniques on any surface you want.
> 
> i mean i said i could do it i said i have done it in the post you replied to.
> 
> Here.
> *
> Now I could just go out on the grass and throw a tornado kick.(which I have done) and the grass doesn't adversely effect me more than anything in the gym.
> 
> So I can be reasonably sure that if I can effect the same conditions in self defence as I can with a successful kick in the gym there is a good chance that kick will work.
> *
> So not sure what you are complaining about.


Look back at your own posts, then. You spent time poking at the idea of training on grass. Did you have a point at all?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The question isn't whether you go outside the gym. It is whether the feedback from in the gym is relevant.
> 
> We do step outside as part of sports training.  Plenty of people do.
> 
> Even TKD people do it.
> 
> Amazing I would have thought they would just keep falling over.


Okay, so now you are going back to some discussion not even relevant to the posts you made earlier, for all I can tell.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Look back at your own posts, then. You spent time poking at the idea of training on grass. Did you have a point at all?



Yeah three points. Just sometimes it takes me a few goes to get the concept concise.

One. The argument that a gym or a dojo is a sterilized world where real life doesn't happen is a fallacy. Arguing from that idea makes any logic from there basically wrong.

Two. People have a vested intrest in beating up the difference between the gym/dojo and everywhere else because it makes their own methods seem more relevant than they are.

Three. You are too sensitive to have real conversations about these topics properly and so don't really get these concepts. Because sometimes they are just ego destroying hard truths. And it sucks to have to face that.

So while a good self defence system would carefully work the nuances between what works for them in a controlled environmemt using basically labratory testing and well thought out hypothesis. people don't. Either because they just don't have the grounding to understand what they are doing or are to biased by self intrest to care what sort of result they get.

And that of course the combination of these factors puts out so much misinformation that trying to wade through the bias and the BS. can be quite challenging.

And so back to TKD. yes it can work in self defence provided it works to its strengths and reduces its weaknesses. None of which is its inability to function on wet grass.

That is just made up.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> Yeah three points. Just sometimes it takes me a few goes to get the concept concise.
> 
> One. The argument that a gym or a dojo is a sterilized world where real life doesn't happen is a fallacy. Arguing from that idea makes any logic from there basically wrong.
> 
> ...
> 
> And so back to TKD. yes it can work in self defence provided it works to its strengths and reduces its weaknesses. None of which is its inability to function on wet grass.
> 
> That is just made up.



The discussion of wet grass was more aimed at a question about halfway through the thread, which was regarding kicks like the tornado kick or a spinning hook kick, and that as the ground gets more slippery, the risk of injury when falling becomes greater, or the rules change (i.e. in Olympic TKD you can't grab your opponent's legs) you're going to have to change which techniques you would want to use.  This sub-discussion is not about Taekwondo in general, but specifically about the more energetic techniques and whether or not they're practical in the real world.

My dojang has mats.  They're never covered in rain or ice, and my feet never get stuck in them like they can in mud.  They're never hard like a wood floor or concrete.  My opponents have rules they must follow, such as no grappling, no strikes below the belt, no punches to the head, and no knee/elbow strikes.  I'm usually wearing pads, as are my opponents.  In sparring, you fight a single person in your weight class, which does not always happen out in the world.  My opponents don't have weapons in the dojang.  I don't have my carry weapon when I'm sparring.  I'm not allowed to go for soft targets in sparring, like the groin or eyes.  There aren't tight spaces like a hallway or elevator.  We have good lighting.

To say that the gym or dojo isn't sterilized is what I'd consider a fallacy.  Training sport Taekwondo (specifically sport Taekwondo, as that's where the wet grass discussion started) has a huge number of differences between the dojang and the real world.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> The discussion of wet grass was more aimed at a question about halfway through the thread, which was regarding kicks like the tornado kick or a spinning hook kick, and that as the ground gets more slippery, the risk of injury when falling becomes greater, or the rules change (i.e. in Olympic TKD you can't grab your opponent's legs) you're going to have to change which techniques you would want to use.  This sub-discussion is not about Taekwondo in general, but specifically about the more energetic techniques and whether or not they're practical in the real world.
> 
> My dojang has mats.  They're never covered in rain or ice, and my feet never get stuck in them like they can in mud.  They're never hard like a wood floor or concrete.  My opponents have rules they must follow, such as no grappling, no strikes below the belt, no punches to the head, and no knee/elbow strikes.  I'm usually wearing pads, as are my opponents.  In sparring, you fight a single person in your weight class, which does not always happen out in the world.  My opponents don't have weapons in the dojang.  I don't have my carry weapon when I'm sparring.  I'm not allowed to go for soft targets in sparring, like the groin or eyes.  There aren't tight spaces like a hallway or elevator.  We have good lighting.
> 
> To say that the gym or dojo isn't sterilized is what I'd consider a fallacy.  Training sport Taekwondo (specifically sport Taekwondo, as that's where the wet grass discussion started) has a huge number of differences between the dojang and the real world.



Yeah. Good old no 2. The self defence marketing machine. This is why boxing doesn't work. (Broken hands) BJJ doesn't work (the floor is lava) Judo doesn't work (T shirts)

And yet you get popped in the head with a tornado kick and you are still going to have a bad day.






By the way. Just apart from that line of reasoning that he will do this then I will do that and so on. 

The head which automatically goes forwards to defend a punch breaking your hand so badly you can't use it at all. Goes backwards for the palm heel so you don't wrist lock yourself.


----------



## drop bear

Catching kicks cos of the rules?





Is this where I just drop the mike? Street fight with kicks on freaking ice. Ok mabye concrete. Looks slippery as all get out.


----------



## skribs

Hahahahaha!  That video is obviously staged.  You can tell he's pulling his kicks on the "finishing" moves on each of them, and the third guy goes down on a back kick that missed him by like 2 whole feet.


----------



## skribs

If that is a Russian guy, then he probably is used to being on a slippery surface, as it gets very cold there.  That's why you're not supposed to try and lay siege to Russia.  They'll just hold out to winter, and then your troops will freeze to death.  Why don't you show me a video of yourself going to an ice skating rink and performing tornado kicks, back kicks, and spin-hook kicks, and tell me its just as easy as it is in the dojang on the mat?

I also don't see that the argument has been made that these kicks are not possible, or that these kicks cannot be used in self defense.  Just that the tactics used in Taekwondo Olympic-style sparring are not likely to be as effective when your opponent can break all the rules of the style.

The first video you showed proved that a tornado kick can be used in MMA.  Does that mean that all tornado kicks will be successful in MMA?  Does that mean the same tactics you use in Taekwondo will set it up in MMA?  No.  It proves anecdotally it worked.  It doesn't prove that it's a good idea.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> If that is a Russian guy, then he probably is used to being on a slippery surface, as it gets very cold there.  That's why you're not supposed to try and lay siege to Russia.  They'll just hold out to winter, and then your troops will freeze to death.  Why don't you show me a video of yourself going to an ice skating rink and performing tornado kicks, back kicks, and spin-hook kicks, and tell me its just as easy as it is in the dojang on the mat?
> 
> I also don't see that the argument has been made that these kicks are not possible, or that these kicks cannot be used in self defense.  Just that the tactics used in Taekwondo Olympic-style sparring are not likely to be as effective when your opponent can break all the rules of the style.
> 
> The first video you showed proved that a tornado kick can be used in MMA.  Does that mean that all tornado kicks will be successful in MMA?  Does that mean the same tactics you use in Taekwondo will set it up in MMA?  No.  It proves anecdotally it worked.  It doesn't prove that it's a good idea.



It was addressing the issues of catching a kick. Which of course you can do in MMA and then beat the guy unconscious.

Tornado kicks are becoming pretty common. And catching really hasn't really been an issue.


----------



## DaveB

So Drop Bear, basically what you are saying is that if you ignore the point being made and home in on one of the examples to the exclusion of all context that you might be able to make everyone forget that you are arguing nonsense.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I'm still not sure where the term "accepted SD technique" is coming in. He never said he couldn't use stuff because it wasn't designed for SD. He said he couldn't use his sport-oriented TKD because it wasn't working in the situation. That might be a problem with TKD, or might be a problem with his TKD. For him, in the situation at that moment, the two are the same. Someone with TKD experience would probably be equipped to talk about whether the way the techniques are trained/used for sport makes it harder to translate them to less dependable surfaces.
> 
> The concept that started out here was that training for sport can end up developing technique in a way that doesn't work on other surfaces. Mind you, the same is true for SD-oriented training, if that training is limited to the dojo, for the very same reasons. It's pretty easy to step outside and work on grass, gravel, pavement, etc. from time to time, and it gives an opportunity to find out (when the cost of finding out is pretty low) what is and is not problematic when you aren't in that training environment.


For my part I was simply suggesting that environment is one of the considerations of goal oriented training (specifically SD in this discussion) that sport training doesn't usually address. 

There are other things that drop bear will make equally circuitous and irrelevant arguments to avoid conceding aren't included in sport training, but as I mentioned before DBs tactic is to home in on a single aspect so the big picture is lost.

His argument is "all you need for anything is sport training", and it is surpisingly fun watching him tie him and his straw men into knotts to support his belief.

Funny thing is I don't especially disagree. I think if all you want to do is sport that it will likely build enough attributes and skills to help in many SD situations. I just also see the benefits of learning specific skills and knowledge relevant to the goal.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Catching kicks cos of the rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where I just drop the mike? Street fight with kicks on freaking ice. Ok mabye concrete. Looks slippery as all get out.



 Even if this video showed what you thought it showed, you are so busy manufacturing your own version of what is being said to you that your trying to defeat arguments no one else is making.


----------



## skribs

DaveB said:


> Even if this video showed what you thought it showed, you are so busy manufacturing your own version of what is being said to you that your trying to defeat arguments no one else is making.



Wow, that is one of the best ways to put that argument that I've ever seen.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Even if this video showed what you thought it showed, you are so busy manufacturing your own version of what is being said to you that your trying to defeat arguments no one else is making.



Do you have an example of that?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> So Drop Bear, basically what you are saying is that if you ignore the point being made and home in on one of the examples to the exclusion of all context that you might be able to make everyone forget that you are arguing nonsense.



You mean the part of my post skribs has homed in on there.

If you want to suggest a argument is nonsense you kind of need to show the argument then show why it is nonsense.

So for example here is part of the post.

Skribs.
"which was regarding kicks like the tornado kick or a spinning hook kick, and that *as the ground gets more slippery, the risk of injury when falling becomes greater,* or the rules change *(i.e. in Olympic TKD you can't grab your opponent's legs) you're going to have to change which techniques you would want to use. *This sub-discussion is not about Taekwondo in general, but specifically about the more energetic techniques and whether or not they're practical in the real world."

So I showed a slippery environment and an environment where people can catch kicks. Because unlike what you claimed they were the actual arguments being made.

You shouldn't really post up threads with no content.

That is just trolling.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> You mean the part of my post skribs has homed in on there.
> 
> If you want to suggest a argument is nonsense you kind of need to show the argument then show why it is nonsense.
> 
> So for example here is part of the post.
> 
> Skribs.
> "which was regarding kicks like the tornado kick or a spinning hook kick, and that *as the ground gets more slippery, the risk of injury when falling becomes greater,* or the rules change *(i.e. in Olympic TKD you can't grab your opponent's legs) you're going to have to change which techniques you would want to use. *This sub-discussion is not about Taekwondo in general, but specifically about the more energetic techniques and whether or not they're practical in the real world."
> 
> So I showed a slippery environment and an environment where people can catch kicks. Because unlike what you claimed they were the actual arguments being made.
> 
> You shouldn't really post up threads with no content.
> 
> That is just trolling.



You're claiming that a single instance of a tornado kick working in MMA is proof that there is no more danger to using a tornado kick in MMA than there is in Olympic TKD.

You're claiming that a single video of a guy fake-fighting on ice is proof that there is no danger of slipping on ice when you're fighting.

You're using anecdotal evidence of successes to make generalized claims.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> For my part I was simply suggesting that environment is one of the considerations of goal oriented training (specifically SD in this discussion) that sport training doesn't usually address.
> 
> There are other things that drop bear will make equally circuitous and irrelevant arguments to avoid conceding aren't included in sport training, but as I mentioned before DBs tactic is to home in on a single aspect so the big picture is lost.
> 
> His argument is "all you need for anything is sport training", and it is surpisingly fun watching him tie him and his straw men into knotts to support his belief.
> 
> Funny thing is I don't especially disagree. I think if all you want to do is sport that it will likely build enough attributes and skills to help in many SD situations. I just also see the benefits of learning specific skills and knowledge relevant to the goal.




Complain all you want but a lot of people are throwing successful kicks under varying conditions.

The evidence is just there. Regardless what you have been told.

If you want to make a case the environment adversely effect this kicking style. You need to support the argument with something.

So far everyone has just said it.

And they say it because they are used to everyone else just saying it.

Rather than actually thinking about it.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> You're claiming that a single instance of a tornado kick working in MMA is proof that there is no more danger to using a tornado kick in MMA than there is in Olympic TKD.
> 
> You're claiming that a single video of a guy fake-fighting on ice is proof that there is no danger of slipping on ice when you're fighting.
> 
> You're using anecdotal evidence of successes to make generalized claims.



I can go on YouTube and show compilations of kicks working in street fights. 

So more an extreme example (and even if fake. He still didn't fall over)

Now bear in mind the evidence for slipping over so far is nothing.

I have made more of a case for slipping over inside the dojo than outside it.


----------



## skribs

Nobody is saying kicks can't work in MMA or in the street.  We're saying there are different considerations in training for those situations.

Do me a favor, go to an ice skating rink and do your forms, do sparring drills with tornado kicks, and then report back to me with how easy it was to do, the first try, when you started your practice on ice instead of on your dojang floor.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> Nobody is saying kicks can't work in MMA or in the street.  We're saying there are different considerations in training for those situations.
> 
> Do me a favor, go to an ice skating rink and do your forms, do sparring drills with tornado kicks, and then report back to me with how easy it was to do, the first try, when you started your practice on ice instead of on your dojang floor.



Do me a favor and argue with evidence of these kicks not working on different surfaces. Or how these different considerations actually represent themselves

Because so far I have your say so that this is the case. And I am watching a lot of examples where it just isnt the case.


----------



## skribs

So...more fake stuff, a clip titled "bully gets K.O. with spin kick to the face" when the aggressor used a back kick to the stomach, lots of stuff where they're not fighting on slippery surfaces like we're discussing, and lots of stuff that doesn't involve anything close to olympic style sparring.

Did you even watch the video?

I now understand the term "I literally can't even..." because I don't even know how to respond to arguments that are so far outside the scope of the discussion that they have no relevance.


----------



## DaveB

skribs said:


> So...more fake stuff, a clip titled "bully gets K.O. with spin kick to the face" when the aggressor used a back kick to the stomach, lots of stuff where they're not fighting on slippery surfaces like we're discussing, and lots of stuff that doesn't involve anything close to olympic style sparring.
> 
> Did you even watch the video?
> 
> I now understand the term "I literally can't even..." because I don't even know how to respond to arguments that are so far outside the scope of the discussion that they have no relevance.



 How do you begin to discuss a subject when the opposition's starting premise is, "I saw it on youtube so it must be universal truth"?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> Do me a favor and argue with evidence of these kicks not working on different surfaces. Or how these different considerations actually represent themselves
> 
> Because so far I have your say so that this is the case. And I am watching a lot of examples where it just isnt the case.


Here's my evidence:
Redirect Notice


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> So...more fake stuff, a clip titled "bully gets K.O. with spin kick to the face" when the aggressor used a back kick to the stomach, lots of stuff where they're not fighting on slippery surfaces like we're discussing, and lots of stuff that doesn't involve anything close to olympic style sparring.
> 
> Did you even watch the video?
> 
> I now understand the term "I literally can't even..." because I don't even know how to respond to arguments that are so far outside the scope of the discussion that they have no relevance.



At the very least it is an example that you can throw lots of different kicks on lots of different surfaces. 

So regardless of what you are trying to suggest. These kicks work in an uncertain environment. 

Not as you suggested only suitable for one environment.

What have you supported your argument with?


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> How do you begin to discuss a subject when the opposition's starting premise is, "I saw it on youtube so it must be universal truth"?



By finding evidence of your own to counter those claims.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> At the very least it is an example that you can throw lots of different kicks on lots of different surfaces.
> 
> So regardless of what you are trying to suggest. These kicks work in an uncertain environment.
> 
> Not as you suggested only suitable for one environment.
> 
> What have you supported your argument with?



*When
Has
Anyone
Said
These
Kicks
Will
Never
Work?
*
Sorry, but you've missed that the last several times I've written it, so I figured I'd make it easier to spot.  If you are arguing against the idea that these kicks will never work in a situation outside of Olympic sparring, nobody is saying that.  You're basically trying to prove the Earth is round if you're arguing that it's possible to use these kicks and tactics.*

However, *you seem to be arguing that:

The surface you are on makes no difference in how effective your kick will be, and that it should be easy to do tornado kicks on an icy road
That if you haven't practiced on slick ground, it will be easy to fight on slick ground
That the risk of injury is not greater if you are on a hard ground (like the street) as opposed to a padded Taekwondo dojang
That there is no additional risk of your kicks being countered in a match where grabbing the leg is allowed, or on the street where the only rule is survival
So tell me, *which is it that you're arguing*?  Are you arguing that A) it is possible for a Taekwondo kick to work outside of the dojang and in adverse conditions?  If so, congratulations, you've just spent pages and pages arguing against something that nobody is arguing.
Or are you arguing that B) what works in the Taekwondo ring will work just as easily in the real world?  In which case a few highlight videos, half of which are obviously fake, aren't going to do anything.



> By finding evidence of your own to counter those claims.



I mean, with how realistic half of those fights looked, I might as well be arguing against the idea that a Kamehameha Wave is practical for self defense.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> At the very least it is an example that you can throw lots of different kicks on lots of different surfaces.
> 
> So regardless of what you are trying to suggest. These kicks work in an uncertain environment.
> 
> Not as you suggested only suitable for one environment.
> 
> What have you supported your argument with?



Nobody said these things you are arguing against.

Just saw Skribs got there first. Well done for having the patience to explain this again.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> By finding evidence of your own to counter those claims.



No.

The starting premise shows such a failure to understand what evidence actually is that doing as you suggest would just compound the error.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> No.
> 
> The starting premise shows such a failure to understand what evidence actually is that doing as you suggest would just compound the error.



evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
_noun_

*1*.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The only facts or information has been provided by me. Everyone else has backed their opinion with nothing.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> *When*
> *Has*
> *Anyone*
> *Said*
> *These*
> *Kicks*
> *Will*
> *Never*
> *Work?*
> 
> Sorry, but you've missed that the last several times I've written it, so I figured I'd make it easier to spot.  If you are arguing against the idea that these kicks will never work in a situation outside of Olympic sparring, nobody is saying that.  You're basically trying to prove the Earth is round if you're arguing that it's possible to use these kicks and tactics.
> 
> *However, *you seem to be arguing that:
> 
> The surface you are on makes no difference in how effective your kick will be, and that it should be easy to do tornado kicks on an icy road
> That if you haven't practiced on slick ground, it will be easy to fight on slick ground
> That the risk of injury is not greater if you are on a hard ground (like the street) as opposed to a padded Taekwondo dojang
> That there is no additional risk of your kicks being countered in a match where grabbing the leg is allowed, or on the street where the only rule is survival
> So tell me, *which is it that you're arguing*?  Are you arguing that A) it is possible for a Taekwondo kick to work outside of the dojang and in adverse conditions?  If so, congratulations, you've just spent pages and pages arguing against something that nobody is arguing.
> Or are you arguing that B) what works in the Taekwondo ring will work just as easily in the real world?  In which case a few highlight videos, half of which are obviously fake, aren't going to do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, with how realistic half of those fights looked, I might as well be arguing against the idea that a Kamehameha Wave is practical for self defense.



I am arguing the scope of what you called huge differences between what someone trains and what they have to perform in a street fight.

From those videos what was the huge differences that made those kicks work as opposed to a kick working in sparring or competition?

Otherwise I just come up with huge differences myself. 

In the street there is more space.

You will be wearing shoes that provide more grip.

The attacker won't know TKD to readily defend himself.

The attacker could be intoxicated lowering his reaction time.

The hard surface will make the damage from the kick more effective.

The lack of padding will make the kick more effective.

Not constricted by rules the kicker will be more dangerous.

Using weapons will make the kicker more dangerous.

So because of the huge differences what works in a TKD ring would work more easily in the real world.

I mean does this argument work both ways or not?


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> evidence
> ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/
> _noun_
> 
> *1*.
> the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
> 
> The only facts or information has been provided by me. Everyone else has backed their opinion with nothing.



Not true, my sign was perfectly good evidence. As is your refusal to film yourself kicking on an ice rink.

More to the point though is that you haven't posted a fact or information. You think you have and that's why there's little point discussing with you.

The rest of us know that there is nothing we can post that would be sufficient evidence because no video alone can convey a circumstance like the level of friction between a surface and a given shoe. Nor can a random video be ecpected to represent a given individuals technique.

Look at it this way.:

a physicist a mathematician and a statistician are travelling on a train.
They see a cow in a field.

The physicist says, "all cows in this land are Brown."
The mathematician corrects him saying, "one cow in this land is brown."
The statistician corrects them both saying, "one cow in this land is brown, on one side."

In most of these forum threads you take the role of the physicist in a room full of mathematicians and statisticians.


----------



## DaveB

drop bear said:


> I am arguing the scope of what you called huge differences between what someone trains and what they have to perform in a street fight.
> 
> From those videos what was the huge differences that made those kicks work as opposed to a kick working in sparring or competition?
> 
> Otherwise I just come up with huge differences myself.
> 
> In the street there is more space.
> 
> You will be wearing shoes that provide more grip.
> 
> The attacker won't know TKD to readily defend himself.
> 
> The attacker could be intoxicated lowering his reaction time.
> 
> The hard surface will make the damage from the kick more effective.
> 
> The lack of padding will make the kick more effective.
> 
> Not constricted by rules the kicker will be more dangerous.
> 
> Using weapons will make the kicker more dangerous.
> 
> So because of the huge differences what works in a TKD ring would work more easily in the real world.
> 
> I mean does this argument work both ways or not?



Of course it does, hence people train.

Obviously there can be advantages to an environment as well as disadvantages. I'm not sure if I for one agree with everything you listed, but again this feels like an answer to an argument no one has made.


----------



## RTKDCMB

DaveB said:


> Look at it this way.:
> 
> a physicist a mathematician and a statistician are travelling on a train.
> They see a cow in a field.
> 
> The physicist says, "all cows in this land are Brown."
> The mathematician corrects him saying, "one cow in this land is brown."
> The statistician corrects them both saying, "one cow in this land is brown, on one side."


That reminds me of something I heard on Landline:

The difference between an optimist, a pessimist and a realist is as follows;

The optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel.

The pessimist sees only the darkness.

The realist sees the train.

The train driver just see three idiots standing on the track.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> For my part I was simply suggesting that environment is one of the considerations of goal oriented training (specifically SD in this discussion) that sport training doesn't usually address.
> 
> There are other things that drop bear will make equally circuitous and irrelevant arguments to avoid conceding aren't included in sport training, but as I mentioned before DBs tactic is to home in on a single aspect so the big picture is lost.
> 
> His argument is "all you need for anything is sport training", and it is surpisingly fun watching him tie him and his straw men into knotts to support his belief.
> 
> Funny thing is I don't especially disagree. I think if all you want to do is sport that it will likely build enough attributes and skills to help in many SD situations. I just also see the benefits of learning specific skills and knowledge relevant to the goal.


Do you really think drop bear’s argument is “all you need for anything is sport?”  If so, I have completely misunderstood him for a long time.  I always thought he was about avoiding appeals to authority, conjecture and the hazards of speculation.


DaveB said:


> Not true, my sign was perfectly good evidence. As is your refusal to film yourself kicking on an ice rink.
> 
> More to the point though is that you haven't posted a fact or information. You think you have and that's why there's little point discussing with you.
> 
> The rest of us know that there is nothing we can post that would be sufficient evidence because no video alone can convey a circumstance like the level of friction between a surface and a given shoe. Nor can a random video be ecpected to represent a given individuals technique.
> 
> Look at it this way.:
> 
> a physicist a mathematician and a statistician are travelling on a train.
> They see a cow in a field.
> 
> The physicist says, "all cows in this land are Brown."
> The mathematician corrects him saying, "one cow in this land is brown."
> The statistician corrects them both saying, "one cow in this land is brown, on one side."
> 
> In most of these forum threads you take the role of the physicist in a room full of mathematicians and statisticians.


I think you're giving yourselves way too much credit.  In your joke, the statistician is the one challenging presumptions and tenuous generalities.  The only person I see around here doing that consistently is Drop Bear.

The argument I see from Drop Bear (right or wrong) is essentially this:

No technique is appropriate all the time.
It is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight.
If it is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight, it is also impossible to train for every contingency (whether that's wet grass or lava or a full grown mountain gorilla).
Mental elasticity (or I would say developing ability to improvise) allows one to account for unforeseen variables in a street fight.
There are ways to train that develop mental elasticity.

It's not that complicated an argument, as I see it.  His response is generally very predictable.  If you say, "X technique never works in Y situation."  He will say, "How do you know that?"   A reasonable question, I think.

for what it's worth, I agree with him for the most part.  I think there are ways other than MMA training to develop the ability to improvise in real time, but not any that are better.


----------



## skribs

drop bear said:


> I am arguing the scope of what you called huge differences between what someone trains and what they have to perform in a street fight.
> 
> From those videos what was the huge differences that made those kicks work as opposed to a kick working in sparring or competition?
> 
> Otherwise I just come up with huge differences myself.
> 
> In the street there is more space.
> 
> You will be wearing shoes that provide more grip.
> 
> The attacker won't know TKD to readily defend himself.
> 
> The attacker could be intoxicated lowering his reaction time.
> 
> The hard surface will make the damage from the kick more effective.
> 
> The lack of padding will make the kick more effective.
> 
> Not constricted by rules the kicker will be more dangerous.
> 
> Using weapons will make the kicker more dangerous.
> 
> So because of the huge differences what works in a TKD ring would work more easily in the real world.
> 
> I mean does this argument work both ways or not?




You seem to have still missed the point.  You are saying the kick CAN be effective.  NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH THAT.  Do you deny that training for the ring is different than training for the real world?

I'm not going to argue with your individual points (which I find plenty of problems with).  What is the case that you are making?  What is your goal here, that you're trying to convince us?  Is it:

1) That Taekwondo sparring training CAN work in the street?
2) That Taekwondo sparring training is USUALLY effective in the street?
3) That Taekwondo sparring training without ever training for different conditions, will still be perfect on the street?

Let me know what it is you're trying to say, because I don't even know that.  I don't want to hear your points or your reasons why, or your "evidence" or your videos with a mic drop.  I just want to know what is your thesis, your overall point here?


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Do you really think drop bear’s argument is “all you need for anything is sport?”  If so, I have completely misunderstood him for a long time.  I always thought he was about avoiding appeals to authority, conjecture and the hazards of speculation.
> 
> I think you're giving yourselves way too much credit.  In your joke, the statistician is the one challenging presumptions and tenuous generalities.  The only person I see around here doing that consistently is Drop Bear..



Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.

I just see a different dogma coming from him. He appeals to the authority of YouTube videos all the time and to me the thinking that says of all the martial artists in the world and all the training sessions, I can draw inference from the tiny sample put on film, is much closer to the physicist.

Plus I work in stats...



> The argument I see from Drop Bear (right or wrong) is essentially this:
> 
> No technique is appropriate all the time.
> It is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight.


Not this time.

Usually he argues along those lines but here, when presented with the mere possibility of environment making x technique unwise, he's gone hell for leather trying to argue that through normal sport based training one can kick on ice with dojo levels of safety and effectiveness.


> If it is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight, it is also impossible to train for every contingency (whether that's wet grass or lava or a full grown mountain gorilla)..


Nobody said it was, but getting an understanding of how easy it is to apply zenkutsudachi from Shotokan in a busy pub might be useful for a city dweller like myself, might it not? Well apparently not, according to Drop Bear.



> Mental elasticity (or I would say developing ability to improvise) allows one to account for unforeseen variables in a street fight..


 All fine.



> There are ways to train that develop mental elasticity.



No, he's distinctly not saying that. He's saying that mental elasticity is a byproduct of sport training.
He is discounting the possibility of developing said quality in other ways such as through goal oriented training.



> It's not that complicated an argument, as I see it.  His response is generally very predictable.  If you say, "X technique never works in Y situation."  He will say, "How do you know that?"   A reasonable question, I think.


That would be ok but NOBODY is making any such argument. Hence the repeated statements that NOBODY is making any such argument, or variations thereof.



> for what it's worth, I agree with him for the most part.  I think there are ways other than MMA training to develop the ability to improvise in real time, but not any that are better.



I agree. I just don't think doing other stuff automatically makes your training suck.


----------



## Balrog

DaveB said:


> They shouldn't.
> 
> This is a common issue in martial arts schools that we train ourselves to overlook, but low grades should not be able to lay a finger on black belt grades.


I disagree.  The Black Belt should have the control and discipline to "spar down" to a couple of levels above the student.  For example, if I spar a Green Belt, I'll step it down to roughly Blue or Brown.  I want the lower rank to learn how to spar, not just be a punching bag.  They can best do that by sparring people better than them, but not astronomically better than them.

Now, the lower rank Black Belts are a different story.  I don't spar that much any more because I have too many physical issues.  But when the 1st and 2nd Degrees start getting a little cocky, every once in a while, I'll gear up and show them that the nearly 70 year old Old Fart still has a move or two left in him.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Fair enough, we can agree to disagree.
> 
> I just see a different dogma coming from him. He appeals to the authority of YouTube videos all the time and to me the thinking that says of all the martial artists in the world and all the training sessions, I can draw inference from the tiny sample put on film, is much closer to the physicist.
> 
> Plus I work in stats...


Okay.  Real quick.  I'm not saying you are or are not a statistician.  Good lord, man.  You used an allegory.  I was commenting on that allegory.





> Not this time.
> 
> Usually he argues along those lines but here, when presented with the mere possibility of environment making x technique unwise, he's gone hell for leather trying to argue that through normal sport based training one can kick on ice with dojo levels of safety and effectiveness.
> 
> Nobody said it was, but getting an understanding of how easy it is to apply zenkutsudachi from Shotokan in a busy pub might be useful for a city dweller like myself, might it not? Well apparently not, according to Drop Bear.
> 
> All fine.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he's distinctly not saying that. He's saying that mental elasticity is a byproduct of sport training.
> He is discounting the possibility of developing said quality in other ways such as through goal oriented training.
> 
> 
> That would be ok but NOBODY is making any such argument. Hence the repeated statements that NOBODY is making any such argument, or variations thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I just don't think doing other stuff automatically makes your training suck.


My opinion based on what I've read is that he isn't saying your training sucks or doesn't suck.  He's saying you don't know if your training sucks if you have no evidence that it doesn't suck.  And even this is a gross mischaracterization using a word I haven't heard him use ("sucks").  That's your word, I think.  The word I see from him a lot is evidence.  If you say that a roundhouse (or tornado) kick doesn't work on wet grass, he says, "Sure it can."  And then several posts later, hyperbole is used to create a logical red herring where you are now talking about fighting in an ice rink.

One thing.  I distinctly recall earlier in the thread that this all started because some folks were suggesting that a tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass.  So, I mean, it does seem like there was some argument that direction, despite your insistence that no one ever said that.  I may be wrong.  I haven't gone back in the thread to double-check, but that's my recollection. 

Play the ball, not the man.  That's all.  You guys can go back to it.  I've shared my opinion.  I'll go back to watching from the sidelines.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> Okay.  Real quick.  I'm not saying you are or are not a statistician.  Good lord, man.  You used an allegory.  I was commenting on that allegory.
> My opinion based on what I've read is that he isn't saying your training sucks or doesn't suck.  He's saying you don't know if your training sucks if you have no evidence that it doesn't suck.  And even this is a gross mischaracterization using a word I haven't heard him use ("sucks").  That's your word, I think.  The word I see from him a lot is evidence.  If you say that a roundhouse (or tornado) kick doesn't work on wet grass, he says, "Sure it can."  And then several posts later, hyperbole is used to create a logical red herring where you are now talking about fighting in an ice rink.
> 
> One thing.  I distinctly recall earlier in the thread that this all started because some folks were suggesting that a tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass.  So, I mean, it does seem like there was some argument that direction, despite your insistence that no one ever said that.  I may be wrong.  I haven't gone back in the thread to double-check, but that's my recollection.
> 
> Play the ball, not the man.  That's all.  You guys can go back to it.  I've shared my opinion.  I'll go back to watching from the sidelines.




People weren't saying a Tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass.  They were saying you're more likely to slip on wet grass than in the controlled environment of the ring.  Nobody has said a tornado kick will never work on wet grass.  If I missed it, please point it out to me.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> People weren't saying a Tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass.  They were saying you're more likely to slip on wet grass than in the controlled environment of the ring.  Nobody has said a tornado kick will never work on wet grass.  If I missed it, please point it out to me.


Well, maybe not in these words.  I think the tornado kick and wet grass thing is a hold over from another thread, and I don't have time to find that.  But I'll do my best to lay out how it came up in this thread.  @drop bear said: 





drop bear said:


> I don't like how people tout that the focus is different. You set an objective. Then test your gear to see if your system works to fulfill that.
> 
> This is how TKD basically works.
> 
> And let's break this down to one unlikely move. The tornado kick.
> 
> (Quick side note here the criteria of self defence basically fits the criteria of assault. Motive ability delivery system. But that is another thing)
> 
> Now the tornado kick as much as it shouldn't work, knocks people out. The reason we know this is because we can see it.
> 
> Now we don't have to make up a bunch of logic to support this. You are either knocking fools out with it or you are not.
> 
> It won't mystically work or fail because you are in a street or a ring. The same circumstances that make the technique work. Make the technique work everywhere.


In the note above, he says it either works or it doesn't.  I think it's pretty clear he's not saying "always" or "never."  A reasonable person would read the above and understand that "sometimes" is implied.  It either works "sometimes" or it does not.  "The reason we know [that a tornado kick works sometimes] is because we can see it."  


DaveB said:


> This is absolutely true, but the issues SD focus deals with are the other stuff: is the ground suitable for a tornado kick?
> How can I make distance on this guy who is getting in my face since he's not the same weight class and a shove may not cut it?
> If I shove him first will there be legal ramifications?
> What if he catches my kick which is illegal under our rules?
> etc etc etc.


Here @DaveB introduced the suitability of the ground, among other things. 



drop bear said:


> See the only difference is really the last one. And even that changes via rule sets. So they can catch in ours if they want.
> 
> All these other factors occur everywhere.
> 
> You can't throw a tornado kick anywhere if you slip over or don't have the space.
> 
> If you can't push a guy backwards. You can't push him backwards.
> 
> These mechanics just occur. Suggesting there are these impossible street physics just isn't real.
> 
> They generate like a superstition. And quite often have as much validity.


This is where @drop bear pushes back, pointing out that characteristics of executing the technique are not unique to "the street."  You can slip in the ring, just as you can slip anywhere.  Slipping in the ring is common, particularly when sweaty (or bloody) dudes have been rolling around in them.  



DaveB said:


> Except that they don't occur in a sport only environment. When have you ever trained tkd on wet grass.
> 
> And yes the ruleset makes a big difference, but that's also the point. Not every ma is mma. And even mma isn't real life.


And we made it to wet grass. 

So, while I think it's a nice, meandering path, it's still a direct one.  How about this?  While I think that the thrust of the above can be correctly summarized to say, "Tornado kicks don't work on wet grass," I can see where you might disagree.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Of course it does, hence people train.
> 
> Obviously there can be advantages to an environment as well as disadvantages. I'm not sure if I for one agree with everything you listed, but again this feels like an answer to an argument no one has made.



There are advantages and disadvantages to an environment. But they have less effect than the capability of the practitioners.

If you are getting your head kicked off in the gym. Jumping on to slippery grass is probably not really going to help you.

I actually asked this of a guy who went from muay Thai with 12 oz gloves and muay Thai with MMA gloves.

Same everything else.

And so I though that because of the massive differences specific training would be needed.

And no. It really doesn't.

Now what this means is you can train to become a wet grass fighting specialist. But you are then taking time, focus and feedback away from just learning how to fight.

Which will put you behind.

Now self defence people beat up this difference not to make people more effective. But to make their product more relevant. Which is why we hear so much about these differences.

It is Luke women's deodorant. Different package, floral smell, same stuff.

You just pay more for it.


----------



## skribs

The people you posted videos of are probably used to being on slick surfaces.  Without being used to doing a tornado kick on a slick surface, do you disagree you are more likely to fall?

I go back to what I said before - go to an ice rink, or go out on a slick day, and try your tornado kicks.  Report back to us with how manageable it was compared to practicing in the dojang.  Until then, I'm not going to accept highlight reel videos that may or may not be scripted of people who may or may not have practiced heavily for the ice.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Okay.  Real quick.  I'm not saying you are or are not a statistician.  Good lord, man.  You used an allegory.  I was commenting on that allegory.
> My opinion based on what I've read is that he isn't saying your training sucks or doesn't suck.  He's saying you don't know if your training sucks if you have no evidence that it doesn't suck.  And even this is a gross mischaracterization using a word I haven't heard him use ("sucks").  That's your word, I think.  The word I see from him a lot is evidence.  If you say that a roundhouse (or tornado) kick doesn't work on wet grass, he says, "Sure it can."  And then several posts later, hyperbole is used to create a logical red herring where you are now talking about fighting in an ice rink.
> 
> One thing.  I distinctly recall earlier in the thread that this all started because some folks were suggesting that a tornado kick doesn't work on wet grass.  So, I mean, it does seem like there was some argument that direction, despite your insistence that no one ever said that.  I may be wrong.  I haven't gone back in the thread to double-check, but that's my recollection.
> 
> Play the ball, not the man.  That's all.  You guys can go back to it.  I've shared my opinion.  I'll go back to watching from the sidelines.



The statement that started this was:


> This is absolutely true, but the issues SD focus deals with are the other stuff: is the ground suitable for a tornado kick? How can I make distance on this guy who is getting in my face since he's not the same weight class and a shove may not cut it?
> If I shove him first will there be legal ramifications?
> What if he catches my kick which is illegal under our rules?
> etc etc etc



One element of the general point, focussed on to the point where context is lost.

Instead of finding evidence of sport clubs including non competition elements in their routine training, we have videos of people falling over during tkd demos.

All that's being said is that environment can affect how you have to fight and that an SD focussed Tkd school should pay more attention to factors like this than a sport tkd school. 

Bear in mind that two people with sport tkd experience have attested to this, but that pales compared to tkd demo vids where people do and don't fall over.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> The people you posted videos of are probably used to being on slick surfaces.  Without being used to doing a tornado kick on a slick surface, do you disagree you are more likely to fall?
> 
> I go back to what I said before - go to an ice rink, or go out on a slick day, and try your tornado kicks.  Report back to us with how manageable it was compared to practicing in the dojang.  Until then, I'm not going to accept highlight reel videos that may or may not be scripted of people who may or may not have practiced heavily for the ice.


The surface of my gym gets slick,  real word gyms do.

An ice rink. In the Whitsundays.

I could maybe go to the beach or something


----------



## Steve

drop bear said:


> There are advantages and disadvantages to an environment. But they have less effect than the capability of the practitioners.
> 
> If you are getting your head kicked off in the gym. Jumping on to slippery grass is probably not really going to help you.
> 
> I actually asked this of a guy who went from muay Thai with 12 oz gloves and muay Thai with MMA gloves.
> 
> Same everything else.
> 
> And so I though that because of the massive differences specific training would be needed.
> 
> And no. It really doesn't.
> 
> Now what this means is you can train to become a wet grass fighting specialist. But you are then taking time, focus and feedback away from just learning how to fight.
> 
> Which will put you behind.
> 
> Now self defence people beat up this difference not to make people more effective. But to make their product more relevant. Which is why we hear so much about these differences.
> 
> It is Luke women's deodorant. Different package, floral smell, same stuff.
> 
> You just pay more for it.


for some reason I think of the movie dodgeball.   “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.” 

I think the sports guy would say, if you can’t dodge a ball, you won’t be able to dodge a wrench, but a spoon won’t hurt you, either way.  

The statistician would say, “there is no spoon.”  

Or maybe not.  Sorry.  I’m not taking this seriously enough.   I’ll try harder.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> for some reason I think of the movie dodgeball.   “If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.”



We use that term a lot.

Of course we don't have any dangerous fighting ice rinks.

So maybe it will change.


----------



## drop bear

drop bear said:


> View attachment 21136
> The surface of my gym gets slick,  real word gyms do.
> 
> An ice rink. In the Whitsundays.
> 
> I could maybe go to the beach or something



OK so I went on to the grass which was pretty Dewey. And honestly my kick was more effected by my ability to do the kick. Than being on grass.


----------



## skribs

Pretty dewey or so rain-soaked that you're tearing the grass into the soggy mud?


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> Pretty dewey or so rain-soaked that you're tearing the grass into the soggy mud?


What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles?  Have you trained for that?

This could be fun.  I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles?  Have you trained for that?
> 
> This could be fun.  I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.



You live in Washington.  I'm surprised that soggy ground is a concept so foreign to you.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> You live in Washington.  I'm surprised that soggy ground is a concept so foreign to you.


I’m kind of an expert.  So, why aren’t you asking me about kicking on wet grass?  You’d think, if anyone knows wet grass, it’s me and my fellow seattleites.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> Pretty dewey or so rain-soaked that you're tearing the grass into the soggy mud?



Just Dewey. Sorry. That was the way the ground was.

 I didn't have any birthing agent handy.


----------



## skribs

Steve said:


> I’m kind of an expert.  So, why aren’t you asking me about kicking on wet grass?  You’d think, if anyone knows wet grass, it’s me and my fellow seattleites.



The point is you made it sound like slippery ground is a straw-man argument.  The discussion we've been having for the last several pages is literally regarding acrobatic techniques on slippery surfaces, and whether or not it will be easy to use them if all you've trained is in the dojang.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles?  Have you trained for that?
> 
> This could be fun.  I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.





Steve said:


> What if you have to defend yourself in a giant, mud filled inflatable pool? What if the mud is in the middle of a giant fire ant hill, where heroin addicts toss used needles?  Have you trained for that?
> 
> This could be fun.  I have a pretty good imagination, if we are playing the “what about” game.



Assessing environment and an evidence based approach to technique choice always gets a good laugh.


----------



## Steve

skribs said:


> The point is you made it sound like slippery ground is a straw-man argument.  The discussion we've been having for the last several pages is literally regarding acrobatic techniques on slippery surfaces, and whether or not it will be easy to use them if all you've trained is in the dojang.


What point did I make?  I thought the point I was making is that you guys are fundamentally misunderstanding drop bears point.  How is that a slippery slope or a straw man?  The rest is just being silly in response to silliness.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Assessing environment and an evidence based approach to technique choice always gets a good laugh.


Wait.  Are you suggesting an evidence based approach?  I’m genuinely confused.  Because, that’s what drop bear seems to be in favor of, as well.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Wait.  Are you suggesting an evidence based approach?  I’m genuinely confused.  Because, that’s what drop bear seems to be in favor of, as well.



Again, thats what he usually does, but because the suggestion in this thread was that an SD focussed school may be more likely to go looking for said environmental evidence than a sport school, DB has been arguing against the use of evidence.

He proposes, and you seem to agree, that because a dojo etc can become slippery, that this is sufficient to understand how one might need to adapt technique based on their environment. 

Actually simulating or experiencing different environments (ie evidence gathering) is, in this case, a waste of time for him. 

Being able to think up unlikely scenarios apparently makes preparing for common situations a ludicrous idea.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Again, thats what he usually does, but because the suggestion in this thread was that an SD focussed school may be more likely to go looking for said environmental evidence than a sport school, DB has been arguing against the use of evidence.
> 
> He proposes, and you seem to agree, that because a dojo etc can become slippery, that this is sufficient to understand how one might need to adapt technique based on their environment.
> 
> Actually simulating or experiencing different environments (ie evidence gathering) is, in this case, a waste of time for him.
> 
> Being able to think up unlikely scenarios apparently makes preparing for common situations a ludicrous idea.


To he clear, I'm proposing that you cannot anticipate every variable in training.  I.e.  You cannot anticipate all the variables that can occur in real life.  This is the "whatabout" game.   And while fun, its not all that practical.  It just turbs into discussions like this.  What about on wet grass?   What if it's super muddy and slick? What if the guy has a knife?  What if he has a bazooka?


Simply put, I think most martial artists fail even to get to a functional, application level of competence in a single context, much less a higher level of expertise thar would allow you to transfer that competence to other contexts.   if you cannot reliably use technique in one context, you will not be able to apply it to different contexts.

And also, it works the other way, positively.   Functional ability in one context can be transferred to another.


----------



## skribs

The discussion we've been having for a while is if a tornado kick, or the types of tactics used in sport Taekwondo, are applicable on the street.  The two factors we're discussing are that your leg can be grabbed, or that you might slip.  Hence where slightly dewy grass that's still got pretty good traction is not as relevant to the discussion as soil that's super-saturated with water.


----------



## Balrog

skribs said:


> The discussion we've been having for a while is if a tornado kick, or the types of tactics used in sport Taekwondo, are applicable on the street.


IMNSHO, anyone who uses a tornado kick for self-defense deserves to be knocked on his ***.  The best use of the legs and kicking is to take the other guys legs away from him.  In a self-defense situation, I advocate to NEVER kick above the belt line.  Blow his knee out and run like hell.


----------



## skribs

Balrog said:


> IMNSHO, anyone who uses a tornado kick for self-defense deserves to be knocked on his ***.  The best use of the legs and kicking is to take the other guys legs away from him.  In a self-defense situation, I advocate to NEVER kick above the belt line.  Blow his knee out and run like hell.




When I first started working 12 years ago, my orientation at Albertson's was conducted by a guy who was about 6'3, 250 pounds.  He told us why we weren't supposed to chase after shoplifters with a personal story.  He says he chased down a guy who couldn't have been a hair over 5'7 down, and next thing he knew he woke up in the hospital, with his boss saying "I think he got you with his foot."


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> To he clear, I'm proposing that you cannot anticipate every variable in training.  I.e.  You cannot anticipate all the variables that can occur in real life.  This is the "whatabout" game.   And while fun, its not all that practical.  It just turbs into discussions like this.  What about on wet grass?   What if it's super muddy and slick? What if the guy has a knife?  What if he has a bazooka?
> 
> 
> Simply put, I think most martial artists fail even to get to a functional, application level of competence in a single context, much less a higher level of expertise thar would allow you to transfer that competence to other contexts.   if you cannot reliably use technique in one context, you will not be able to apply it to different contexts.
> 
> And also, it works the other way, positively.   Functional ability in one context can be transferred to another.



Funny that it's only detractors of the method that get into the "whatabout" game. People who havd trained in SD specific schools seem quite happy with a few common scenarios introduced to get people thinking or drilling with obstacles to help get better at being aware of your surroundings. 

You see just because you can mischaracterise something doesn't mean that's how it is.

The whole appeal of SD focussed schools was that they moved straight into skill building and application, avoiding (or minimising) forms and impractical elements. Yes I'm sure there are plenty that devalue sparring and don't do enough of it. But then there are those that do, so this idea that you have to pick either functional skill or an understanding of environment is as nonsensical to me as the suggestion that you shouldn't use tornado kicks in SD is to Drop Bear.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Funny that it's only detractors of the method that get into the "whatabout" game. People who havd trained in SD specific schools seem quite happy with a few common scenarios introduced to get people thinking or drilling with obstacles to help get better at being aware of your surroundings.
> 
> You see just because you can mischaracterise something doesn't mean that's how it is.
> 
> The whole appeal of SD focussed schools was that they moved straight into skill building and application, avoiding (or minimising) forms and impractical elements. Yes I'm sure there are plenty that devalue sparring and don't do enough of it. But then there are those that do, so this idea that you have to pick either functional skill or an understanding of environment is as nonsensical to me as the suggestion that you shouldn't use tornado kicks in SD is to Drop Bear.


There's a whole lot of foundational discussion we would need to have before we can talk about this.  I guess if I try to sum it up, it would be to say that, as a person who's made a career out of teaching people to do things, I have concerns about most "self defense" specific schools.  If the outcomes of the program are specific and objectively measurable, AND the skills being taught will be used "for real" by the students, great.  This could be a close quarters program taught to LEO.  It could be a women's self defense course for college students.  Whatever it might be. 

General programs, where you invent stuff that is very unlikely to ever occur... those are problematic. 

So, where we talk about whether someone can kick on wet grass, that's more of a sales pitch to me.  Selling a feature without benefit.  Unless, of course, you're a cop who is in an area where you are likely to be tussling on wet grass from time to time.  And even then, occasional practice on actual wet grass will be less useful than frequent practice on slippery mats.

Where I am a proponent of sport based training of any kind over non-sport based training, is that it is a venue for application to people who aren't professionally violent.  And even if you are professionally violent, sport training is great for skill development. 

Sport is not an essential element of a good training program.  Application is essential.  All sport is application.  Not all application is sport. 

Training, no matter how realistic, is not application.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Again, thats what he usually does, but because the suggestion in this thread was that an SD focussed school may be more likely to go looking for said environmental evidence than a sport school, DB has been arguing against the use of evidence.
> 
> He proposes, and you seem to agree, that because a dojo etc can become slippery, that this is sufficient to understand how one might need to adapt technique based on their environment.
> 
> Actually simulating or experiencing different environments (ie evidence gathering) is, in this case, a waste of time for him.
> 
> Being able to think up unlikely scenarios apparently makes preparing for common situations a ludicrous idea.



So because a dojo can get slippery it prepares you for a slippery surface.

And so far I think I am the only one who has gone out and thrown tornado kicks on wet grass. See there is a difference between evidence gathering and waxing lyrical about what might happen in the street.

And yes you dont get that much bang for your buck being an environmental fighting specialist.

I mean how long would it take for me to find this ice rink, learn to fight effectively on it. As opposed to what advantage would it give me as I am going to struggle to find an ice rink should I need to defend myself.


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> IMNSHO, anyone who uses a tornado kick for self-defense deserves to be knocked on his ***.  The best use of the legs and kicking is to take the other guys legs away from him.  In a self-defense situation, I advocate to NEVER kick above the belt line.  Blow his knee out and run like hell.



The never kick above the belt thing is an urban myth. Just people thinking something is a good idea on a subject they dont understand.


----------



## drop bear

skribs said:


> The discussion we've been having for a while is if a tornado kick, or the types of tactics used in sport Taekwondo, are applicable on the street.  The two factors we're discussing are that your leg can be grabbed, or that you might slip.  Hence where slightly dewy grass that's still got pretty good traction is not as relevant to the discussion as soil that's super-saturated with water.



The soil wasn't supersaturated with water. That was the real environment I found at the time.

So had I been attacked at that time that would have been the environment I would have had to deal with. It would not have been an ice rink. It would not have been a floating platform over an abyss flash gordon style. It would have remained dewey grass.

This is an important distinction because you are arguing what isn't. I cannot throw a tornado kick neck deep in quicksand. So mabye every time someone comes up with a concept I can say. "Yeah but it wont work if you are neck deep in quicksand so therefore you are really not training for self defence"

I mean here is a real enviroment people have had street fights in.


----------



## Balrog

drop bear said:


> The never kick above the belt thing is an urban myth. Just people thinking something is a good idea on a subject they dont understand.


Ummm...no.  It is exactly what I teach, and I teach it for a reason.  Head kicks are nice and flashy and showy and great for practicing technique, but they are not practical for self defense.  Your balance is better and your kicks are stronger if you keep them at the belt line or lower.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Balrog said:


> Ummm...no.  It is exactly what I teach, and I teach it for a reason.  Head kicks are nice and flashy and showy and great for practicing technique, but they are not practical for self defense.  Your balance is better and your kicks are stronger if you keep them at the belt line or lower.



You may teach it, but that doesn't mean it's not urban myth. If you can kick high effectively in sparring, you can do it in a self defense situation. High kicks may very well not be your 'go to' kick in either situation, but that doesn't mean they're ineffective or impractical.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> There's a whole lot of foundational discussion we would need to have before we can talk about this.  I guess if I try to sum it up, it would be to say that, as a person who's made a career out of teaching people to do things, I have concerns about most "self defense" specific schools.  If the outcomes of the program are specific and objectively measurable, AND the skills being taught will be used "for real" by the students, great.  This could be a close quarters program taught to LEO.  It could be a women's self defense course for college students.  Whatever it might be.
> 
> General programs, where you invent stuff that is very unlikely to ever occur... those are problematic.
> 
> So, where we talk about whether someone can kick on wet grass, that's more of a sales pitch to me.  Selling a feature without benefit.  Unless, of course, you're a cop who is in an area where you are likely to be tussling on wet grass from time to time.  And even then, occasional practice on actual wet grass will be less useful than frequent practice on slippery mats.
> 
> Where I am a proponent of sport based training of any kind over non-sport based training, is that it is a venue for application to people who aren't professionally violent.  And even if you are professionally violent, sport training is great for skill development.
> 
> Sport is not an essential element of a good training program.  Application is essential.  All sport is application.  Not all application is sport.
> 
> Training, no matter how realistic, is not application.



So that we can finally put the wet grass stuff to bed, can you agree that awareness of environment is a more pressing issue for SD schools. I'm not just talking about bumping into people while sparring on mats, though I get that helps you learn, but everything from exit points, choke points, obstacles and trip hazards are not unreasonable things to learn awareness and even the use of if your aim is self defence. 

He'll even if you don't agree with their usefulness, it is a difference between a sport club and an SD club, right?

I would not expect and have never heard of a school spending 6 weeks training to get good at kicking on wet grass. This and any similar points are straw men.

Conversely I would not be surprised if a SD class, maybe once per term, did a class outside just to put environment in mind. Or maybe once a month put obstacles around to simulate a pub and did a role play, again to look at risk assessment and use of environment.

I would not expect to have any such considerations raised in an Olympic style taekwondo competition focussed class, and for the time i regularly trained tkd at a competition based club I never did.

You see this nonsense debate happened not because I thought kicking on grass was impossible etc, but because a general point about the differences between SD and sport tkd schools had a single element plucked from it and argued out of context.

As I've said many times, I agree with the sport training statements and the point about application. 

It seems we only disagree on what SD specific training actually entails.


----------



## DaveB

Balrog said:


> Ummm...no.  It is exactly what I teach, and I teach it for a reason.  Head kicks are nice and flashy and showy and great for practicing technique, but they are not practical for self defense.  Your balance is better and your kicks are stronger if you keep them at the belt line or lower.



One of my points of semi agreement with Drop Bear: In self defence as in all things kick head height if you have the skill knowledge and ability to kick head height successfully. If not, don't.


----------



## Paul_D

They are not ineffective, but they carry a higher risk, in terms of leaving you in a worse position should they go wrong.  Karate kata were designed for civilian self protection, there’s a reason they are no head height kicks.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> So that we can finally put the wet grass stuff to bed, can you agree that awareness of environment is a more pressing issue for SD schools. I'm not just talking about bumping into people while sparring on mats, though I get that helps you learn, but everything from exit points, choke points, obstacles and trip hazards are not unreasonable things to learn awareness and even the use of if your aim is self defence.
> 
> He'll even if you don't agree with their usefulness, it is a difference between a sport club and an SD club, right?
> 
> I would not expect and have never heard of a school spending 6 weeks training to get good at kicking on wet grass. This and any similar points are straw men.
> 
> Conversely I would not be surprised if a SD class, maybe once per term, did a class outside just to put environment in mind. Or maybe once a month put obstacles around to simulate a pub and did a role play, again to look at risk assessment and use of environment.
> 
> I would not expect to have any such considerations raised in an Olympic style taekwondo competition focussed class, and for the time i regularly trained tkd at a competition based club I never did.
> 
> You see this nonsense debate happened not because I thought kicking on grass was impossible etc, but because a general point about the differences between SD and sport tkd schools had a single element plucked from it and argued out of context.
> 
> As I've said many times, I agree with the sport training statements and the point about application.
> 
> It seems we only disagree on what SD specific training actually entails.


I don't know how much we disagree on, honestly.  At this point, I want to start by noting that the above has nothing to do with evidence based feedback, but that's okay.  Let's move on.  

I'm writing this over a period of time a minute here and there, and I'm going to warn you in advance, it is likely to be rambling, might be kind of confusing and possibly even repetitive.   Just bear with me. 

I can certainly agree that some people who have a specific need must understand those things.  For most people, those are not useful or practical skills.  The ones that are, such as being aware of what is around you, are most effectively learned as a byproduct of learning the primary skills. 

I'll try again to just explain the problem I have with "self defense" training.  I am not a fan of traditional teaching models.  The "blah, blah, yak, yak, practice, practice, test... repeat" model.  That's how many schools work.  It's how some colleges and universities work.  It's how a lot of corporate training works, and it's how most self-defense training works, too.  You learn, you practice, you test, and you learn some more... practice some more and test again. 

So, when we talk about self defense training, it's not really what is being taught... the specific things like situational awareness or whatever.  Those might be useful... might not.  Rather, that mistakes in what is being taught are the byproduct of other mistakes... mistakes in identifying desired outcome that lead to a lack of application which drives mistakes in the content of the courses.

For example, a white collar employee who lives in a safe area, works in a secured building and doesn't hang out in bars, take drugs or whatever, will not realize much benefit from a traditional self defense course.  They are learning skills that they have no way to apply, and will likely never need.  Now, it may be that they could do things that will actually help them reduce their risk of being victims of a violent crime.  But self defense training as you describe it above isn't it.  And the training model I describe above becomes the default (yak, yak, test, repeat), because literally every aspect of the training is artificial.  There is no vehicle for applying the skills, which is essential if you want to actually develop skills.

And further, because there is no vehicle for applying the skills, the community of experts becomes diluted.   In other words, you have teachers who have no experience outside of the training model, who learned from teachers who had no experience outside of the training model.

I am a proponent of situated or experiential learning.  Humans learn by doing.  So, training should as closely mimic application as possible.  Application should be fully integrated into the training.  Coaching, reflection, feedback... whatever you might want to call it, should be a huge part of the training, particularly where the trainee fails (which should be often).  AND, a huge part of this should be participation with a community of people all applying the skills, where you start on the edges and sort of work your way up the food chain.   In this way, you have a progression where you essentially learn a new skill, apply the new skill, receive feedback and correction, apply the skills, receive feedback. 

Situated learning, or experiential learning (they aren't exactly the same thing, but they're close), are very well suited for physical skill development.  All sports are, by definition, situated learning.   Corporate training can be designed this way, too.   Apprenticeships are a great example of situated learning.

Bringing this all back around.  The question is, how might we best teach someone to fight on slippery ground?   I'd say the question is far too specific.  There is a lot of well designed training out there.  I've heard some of the guys here describe it.  Some is crap, but some isn't.  Whether it's "good" training, though, is another matter.    Skills are only useful in context.  I could buy a Ferrari and I'm pretty sure I could drive it around and look cool.  But getting the most out of that car is probably beyond me.  I could take some classes, sure.  But I'm jut not going to log the hours on the track to ever get close to it's potential.  My primary barrier is skill.  Now, a professional race car driver could certainly get the most out of that car... on a track.  But even here, the barrier is context.  He has the skills, but they are not helpful to him unless he's on a track.  Could the professional race car driver crush it in a Ferrari?  Sure.  Likely.  But they probably won't.  Any Ferrari they might drive will be designed for their context.  And on the street, the environment is limiting.

One last example.  One area we train new supervisors in is leave management.  We have unions, a contract, and there are employee rights that are sometimes in conflict with management rights.  So, the old way of doing the training is to go through literally every leave type.  Annual leave... this is what it is... this is what it does... these are the rules.  Sick leave... this is what it is.. this is what it does  Military leave... this is what it is... this is what it does...

There are dozens... FMLA, FFLA, Court Leave, Advanced Leave, Bereavement...  etc.  it was very ineffective training.   Instead, what we do now is we teach them the resources... we show them where the rules are.  Then we work through real life scenarios that they are likely to encounter.  An employee comes into your office and says that his son is sick at school.  What do you do?  An employee just told you her guard unit is being deployed.  A new employee with no leave accrued was in a car accident.  An employee is abusing his leave. There is coaching and feedback, and then they go out and actually manage the leave.  If we've done our job right, we have provided them with scenarios that reflect what they are actually doing.  Then, about 6 months later, we bring them back into training for more now that they have some experience.   And so on.

The key here is that 1: the training model makes sense because 2: it reflects what the person will actually be doing.  You need both, and the one is a by product of the other.  So,  the point is, you don't need to teach someone to fight on wet grass, if you teach them to fight and they can gain experience in a variety of environments, including slippery surfaces.  The wet grass takes care of itself tacitly.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> I don't know how much we disagree on, honestly.  At this point, I want to start by noting that the above has nothing to do with evidence based feedback, but that's okay.  Let's move on.
> 
> I'm writing this over a period of time a minute here and there, and I'm going to warn you in advance, it is likely to be rambling, might be kind of confusing and possibly even repetitive.   Just bear with me.
> 
> I can certainly agree that some people who have a specific need must understand those things.  For most people, those are not useful or practical skills.  The ones that are, such as being aware of what is around you, are most effectively learned as a byproduct of learning the primary skills.
> 
> I'll try again to just explain the problem I have with "self defense" training.  I am not a fan of traditional teaching models.  The "blah, blah, yak, yak, practice, practice, test... repeat" model.  That's how many schools work.  It's how some colleges and universities work.  It's how a lot of corporate training works, and it's how most self-defense training works, too.  You learn, you practice, you test, and you learn some more... practice some more and test again.
> 
> So, when we talk about self defense training, it's not really what is being taught... the specific things like situational awareness or whatever.  Those might be useful... might not.  Rather, that mistakes in what is being taught are the byproduct of other mistakes... mistakes in identifying desired outcome that lead to a lack of application which drives mistakes in the content of the courses.
> 
> For example, a white collar employee who lives in a safe area, works in a secured building and doesn't hang out in bars, take drugs or whatever, will not realize much benefit from a traditional self defense course.  They are learning skills that they have no way to apply, and will likely never need.  Now, it may be that they could do things that will actually help them reduce their risk of being victims of a violent crime.  But self defense training as you describe it above isn't it.  And the training model I describe above becomes the default (yak, yak, test, repeat), because literally every aspect of the training is artificial.  There is no vehicle for applying the skills, which is essential if you want to actually develop skills.
> 
> And further, because there is no vehicle for applying the skills, the community of experts becomes diluted.   In other words, you have teachers who have no experience outside of the training model, who learned from teachers who had no experience outside of the training model.
> 
> I am a proponent of situated or experiential learning.  Humans learn by doing.  So, training should as closely mimic application as possible.  Application should be fully integrated into the training.  Coaching, reflection, feedback... whatever you might want to call it, should be a huge part of the training, particularly where the trainee fails (which should be often).  AND, a huge part of this should be participation with a community of people all applying the skills, where you start on the edges and sort of work your way up the food chain.   In this way, you have a progression where you essentially learn a new skill, apply the new skill, receive feedback and correction, apply the skills, receive feedback.
> 
> Situated learning, or experiential learning (they aren't exactly the same thing, but they're close), are very well suited for physical skill development.  All sports are, by definition, situated learning.   Corporate training can be designed this way, too.   Apprenticeships are a great example of situated learning.
> 
> Bringing this all back around.  The question is, how might we best teach someone to fight on slippery ground?   I'd say the question is far too specific.  There is a lot of well designed training out there.  I've heard some of the guys here describe it.  Some is crap, but some isn't.  Whether it's "good" training, though, is another matter.    Skills are only useful in context.  I could buy a Ferrari and I'm pretty sure I could drive it around and look cool.  But getting the most out of that car is probably beyond me.  I could take some classes, sure.  But I'm jut not going to log the hours on the track to ever get close to it's potential.  My primary barrier is skill.  Now, a professional race car driver could certainly get the most out of that car... on a track.  But even here, the barrier is context.  He has the skills, but they are not helpful to him unless he's on a track.  Could the professional race car driver crush it in a Ferrari?  Sure.  Likely.  But they probably won't.  Any Ferrari they might drive will be designed for their context.  And on the street, the environment is limiting.
> 
> One last example.  One area we train new supervisors in is leave management.  We have unions, a contract, and there are employee rights that are sometimes in conflict with management rights.  So, the old way of doing the training is to go through literally every leave type.  Annual leave... this is what it is... this is what it does... these are the rules.  Sick leave... this is what it is.. this is what it does  Military leave... this is what it is... this is what it does...
> 
> There are dozens... FMLA, FFLA, Court Leave, Advanced Leave, Bereavement...  etc.  it was very ineffective training.   Instead, what we do now is we teach them the resources... we show them where the rules are.  Then we work through real life scenarios that they are likely to encounter.  An employee comes into your office and says that his son is sick at school.  What do you do?  An employee just told you her guard unit is being deployed.  A new employee with no leave accrued was in a car accident.  An employee is abusing his leave. There is coaching and feedback, and then they go out and actually manage the leave.  If we've done our job right, we have provided them with scenarios that reflect what they are actually doing.  Then, about 6 months later, we bring them back into training for more now that they have some experience.   And so on.
> 
> The key here is that 1: the training model makes sense because 2: it reflects what the person will actually be doing.  You need both, and the one is a by product of the other.  So,  the point is, you don't need to teach someone to fight on wet grass, if you teach them to fight and they can gain experience in a variety of environments, including slippery surfaces.  The wet grass takes care of itself tacitly.



Well that was a waste of time. I may as well have not posted a word.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Well that was a waste of time. I may as well have not posted a word.


  Now I know you’re a bite sized chunks guys.   I’ll talk to you in short sentences from now on.   No more than a few at a time.

Twitter version:  You don’t need to teach someone to fight on wet grass explicitly in order to prepare them to fight on wet grass.   If you teach them skills they actually use, and to be flexible and creative, they will learn to solve problems.


----------



## Paul_D

How the hell have we had 10 pages of discussion about wet grass


----------



## Steve

Paul_D said:


> How the hell have we had 10 pages of discussion about wet grass


Dry grass was too easy.  Next thread will be about wet grass and broken glass.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah three points. Just sometimes it takes me a few goes to get the concept concise.


Okay, I'll do my best to address them here.



> One. The argument that a gym or a dojo is a sterilized world where real life doesn't happen is a fallacy. Arguing from that idea makes any logic from there basically wrong.


It's inarguable that there's more variability outside a dojo than inside one.



> Two. People have a vested intrest in beating up the difference between the gym/dojo and everywhere else because it makes their own methods seem more relevant than they are.


I agree that's a problem in some cases. I never "beat up" the difference between them. I pointed out the difference, and something I use to see how much difference part of that difference makes.



> Three. You are too sensitive to have real conversations about these topics properly and so don't really get these concepts. Because sometimes they are just ego destroying hard truths. And it sucks to have to face that.


No, I just get frustrated when someone - in this case, you - attacks my training for something it isn't. You did that on at least three occasions back when we were discussing the application of Aiki principles (claiming at least twice that my training was based upon hoping the other guy was awful, that I only ever trained using made-up scenarios, etc. - ignoring that I'd pointed out already the parts of our training methods that weren't at all like that). In this case, you spent a ton of effort trying to bash me for trying things on wet grass because it's more slippery than mats - at times claiming I'd said kicks were useless on grass, and other times claiming wet grass isn't slippery.

What you seem to miss is that I _*really want *_you to have a good point. I don't practice and teach the same way I did 10 years ago, and that's because some people made some very good points about weaknesses in my approach (some actively, some by demonstrating a better approach in seminars, etc.). So, when you challenge my training approach, I'm looking to learn something from it, to see if there's something I need to change. When you bash my training by bashing something that's not my training, that's no help to me, at all. That's when I get frustrated. What you think is me getting all ego-hurt, is me wishing you'd make a point about what I do, rather than arguing strawmen and/or making ludicrous statements (like wet grass isn't slippery).



> So while a good self defence system would carefully work the nuances between what works for them in a controlled environmemt using basically labratory testing and well thought out hypothesis. people don't. Either because they just don't have the grounding to understand what they are doing or are to biased by self intrest to care what sort of result they get.


See, this is one of those strawmen. We do actually do some of that. And some of that examination is done by working outside the dojo, to see what changes. You know, like working on grass, maybe even wet grass.



> And so back to TKD. yes it can work in self defence provided it works to its strengths and reduces its weaknesses. None of which is its inability to function on wet grass.
> 
> That is just made up.


I agree with that. I also agree that the post that started this was really about whether that person's TKD worked on wet grass or not. My round kicks didn't work reliably on wet grass the last time I tried them there in a relatively live setting. As we agreed before, that's about my round kicks, not about the effectiveness of round kicks, in general. I do consider it inarguable, though, that the surface being more slippery (wet grass is, on average, more slippery than dojo mats - even wet ones) does change the math. That's true of other techniques, and it's up to each person to figure out if the change of math makes it worth changing decisions. For most of my techniques, it's not worth changing. For those kicks, it was.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Paul_D said:


> How the hell have we had 10 pages of discussion about wet grass


How have we not had that before, Paul? I mean, damn.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah. Good old no 2. The self defence marketing machine. This is why boxing doesn't work. (Broken hands) BJJ doesn't work (the floor is lava) Judo doesn't work (T shirts)
> 
> And yet you get popped in the head with a tornado kick and you are still going to have a bad day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way. Just apart from that line of reasoning that he will do this then I will do that and so on.
> 
> The head which automatically goes forwards to defend a punch breaking your hand so badly you can't use it at all. Goes backwards for the palm heel so you don't wrist lock yourself.


You've confounded using a tornado kick with defending against one. The question isn't whether one would work if it landed, but whether the math (chance of good outcome vs. chance of bad outcome) makes the technique worth it. And that's not a SD concept - it's a MA concept. Your fighters have to go through that same decision for the octagon/ring, just as you when working the door. It's why some techniques are fun, but not really useful for SD/fight/ring/whatever, even if they can work. And then, every now and then, someone will find a situation where that math is suddenly worth it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Catching kicks cos of the rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this where I just drop the mike? Street fight with kicks on freaking ice. Ok mabye concrete. Looks slippery as all get out.


Odd - I couldn't tell if that was slippery or not. In a couple of places, folks seemed to slip like it was icy, but then there was that stupid flying kick thing by the third attacker, and he didn't slip (and he had every right to). The defender is either someone with really good balance, so he never slipped a single step, or he just did a better job picking places to put his feet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Do you have an example of that?


Most of this thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> By finding evidence of your own to counter those claims.


Yeah, that pretty much never works with you. One of your videos is worth much more to you than one of someone else's.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Do you really think drop bear’s argument is “all you need for anything is sport?”  If so, I have completely misunderstood him for a long time.  I always thought he was about avoiding appeals to authority, conjecture and the hazards of speculation.
> 
> I think you're giving yourselves way too much credit.  In your joke, the statistician is the one challenging presumptions and tenuous generalities.  The only person I see around here doing that consistently is Drop Bear.
> 
> The argument I see from Drop Bear (right or wrong) is essentially this:
> 
> No technique is appropriate all the time.
> It is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight.
> If it is impossible to anticipate every variable in a street fight, it is also impossible to train for every contingency (whether that's wet grass or lava or a full grown mountain gorilla).
> Mental elasticity (or I would say developing ability to improvise) allows one to account for unforeseen variables in a street fight.
> There are ways to train that develop mental elasticity.
> 
> It's not that complicated an argument, as I see it.  His response is generally very predictable.  If you say, "X technique never works in Y situation."  He will say, "How do you know that?"   A reasonable question, I think.
> 
> for what it's worth, I agree with him for the most part.  I think there are ways other than MMA training to develop the ability to improvise in real time, but not any that are better.


Yet, DB is the person saying there's no reason to train on grass, even wet grass, because that's not useful information. He shows a video or two of someone doing something, and that settles it to him, as if that means everyone's technique, if at all similar, will be viable in all situations, even if not similar.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There are advantages and disadvantages to an environment. But they have less effect than the capability of the practitioners.


This I entirely agree with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> OK so I went on to the grass which was pretty Dewey. And honestly my kick was more effected by my ability to do the kick. Than being on grass.


This is true. But I never heard anyone say otherwise. The grass changes the math some. How much "some" is, and whether that changes the decision to use that technique will vary by individual capability (including what other tools are available).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

skribs said:


> Pretty dewey or so rain-soaked that you're tearing the grass into the soggy mud?


IME, dewey makes for slippery grass, and that was the point of the discussion. Slippery ground (with or without grass in it) is a different surface.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> To he clear, I'm proposing that you cannot anticipate every variable in training.  I.e.  You cannot anticipate all the variables that can occur in real life.  This is the "whatabout" game.   And while fun, its not all that practical.  It just turbs into discussions like this.  What about on wet grass?   What if it's super muddy and slick? What if the guy has a knife?  What if he has a bazooka?
> 
> 
> Simply put, I think most martial artists fail even to get to a functional, application level of competence in a single context, much less a higher level of expertise thar would allow you to transfer that competence to other contexts.   if you cannot reliably use technique in one context, you will not be able to apply it to different contexts.
> 
> And also, it works the other way, positively.   Functional ability in one context can be transferred to another.


I agree with your overall point, for the most part, Steve. But I know many MA who do some experimentation with varying environments without either thinking they've covered everything or attempting to do so. This includes things like my random forays into grassy, paved, and rocky areas; Tony's experiments on couches and car seats (not at all what it sounds like, to the folks who haven't read those threads); annual trips some schools make to train at beaches and lakes, etc. As you point out, what's learned in one variation can translate to others, so having a few variations gives information that covers many more. Having only one environment doesn't often give the input to figure out what will matter when the situation changes. If someone uses their MA on a regular basis on the street (defense, LEO, bouncer, whatever), then they get that input in those situations. For those of us who don't get regular use in the street, many of us find a supplement helps fill some of that gap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> The whole appeal of SD focussed schools was that they moved straight into skill building and application, avoiding (or minimising) forms and impractical elements.


I don't see this as a unique characteristic of SD schools. I'd expect a good sport-oriented school to do this, as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Balrog said:


> Ummm...no.  It is exactly what I teach, and I teach it for a reason.  Head kicks are nice and flashy and showy and great for practicing technique, but they are not practical for self defense.  Your balance is better and your kicks are stronger if you keep them at the belt line or lower.


I disagree, because you state this as an absolute. Just as a kick to the head can end an MMA fight, it can end an attack on the street. If the situation is right, a high kick can be the right tool. I actively practice high front kicks to about chin height. A kick like that, delivered in the right situation, is more likely to end a fight than any punch I'm likely to deliver. I haven't figured a way to practice them safely enough (for my preference) with live partners, so I might not recognize the opening for them, but I want them in my toolbag.


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> I disagree, because you state this as an absolute. Just as a kick to the head can end an MMA fight, it can end an attack on the street. If the situation is right, a high kick can be the right tool. I actively practice high front kicks to about chin height. A kick like that, delivered in the right situation, is more likely to end a fight than any punch I'm likely to deliver. I haven't figured a way to practice them safely enough (for my preference) with live partners, so I might not recognize the opening for them, but I want them in my toolbag.



Just put on pads and headgear. It's not a big deal. People have been practicing high kicks safely for decades...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Just put on pads and headgear. It's not a big deal. People have been practicing high kicks safely for decades...


It's that kick to the chin I don't like the idea of - the force straight into the chin, or mis-delivered into the neck or nose. Rounds and such are a different story (and I'm only moderately capable of delivering them at head height - probably only to someone my own height).


----------



## Dirty Dog

gpseymour said:


> It's that kick to the chin I don't like the idea of - the force straight into the chin, or mis-delivered into the neck or nose. Rounds and such are a different story (and I'm only moderately capable of delivering them at head height - probably only to someone my own height).



Use headgear with a face shield, like THIS or THIS. The odds of hitting the throat are minuscule. Or practice developing control. That works too.
As someone who has been kicking heads for a couple of years now, I think you're worrying too much.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Now I know you’re a bite sized chunks guys.   I’ll talk to you in short sentences from now on.   No more than a few at a time.
> 
> Twitter version:  You don’t need to teach someone to fight on wet grass explicitly in order to prepare them to fight on wet grass.   If you teach them skills they actually use, and to be flexible and creative, they will learn to solve problems.



What was it about my comment that made you think you needed to repeat yourself?

And where did you get the idea that I only read short posts?

It seems that more and more of what you apparently "know", is based on what you can mischaracterise in your head.

I wonder if getting to the bottom of this latter mystery will solve the fundamental communication gap were having?


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> What was it about my comment that made you think you needed to repeat yourself?
> 
> And where did you get the idea that I only read short posts?
> 
> It seems that more and more of what you apparently "know", is based on what you can mischaracterise in your head.
> 
> I wonder if getting to the bottom of this latter mystery will solve the fundamental communication gap were having?


why are you so angry?


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> why are you so angry?


Another mischaracterisation.

I suppose some people are just destined to talk at cross purposes.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Another mischaracterisation.
> 
> I suppose some people are just destined to talk at cross purposes.


may be.  You seem really agitated to me.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> may be.  You seem really agitated to me.


Not even a little bit. Just genuinely baffled by your understanding of, and responses to the posts in this thread.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, I just get frustrated when someone - in this case, you - attacks my training for something it isn't. You did that on at least three occasions back when we were discussing the application of Aiki principles (claiming at least twice that my training was based upon hoping the other guy was awful,



Was that the one where you had to force people to strike you in a manner that was not technically correct based on the hope that someone would punch in that manner in a street fight?

And the reason for that was your techniques just didn't work if the person was striking you in a technically correct manner?

I think you were saying when you spar your guys don't produce enough energy to Aiki. But then you dont just put on a set of 16,s and say just punch me as hard as you can to get that energy.

Your training is based on the other guy being awfull. He has to be slow and technically incorrect. If he is fast or technically correct or both you wont have trained for that. And then have to overcome this big issue of an actual fight having just different and more dangerous dynamics.

So yeah. Not good training methodology.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> It's inarguable that there's more variability outside a dojo than inside one.



Exept that wasnt the argument. The argument was that a gym is a steralised environment.

And in this case does not include slippery surfaces. Which is an incorrect premis to base an argument off.

This is how slippery a jigsaw mat can physically get. Now extreme example. But still. 





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=398998123565524


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> See, this is one of those strawmen. We do actually do some of that. And some of that examination is done by working outside the dojo, to see what changes. You know, like working on grass, maybe even wet grass.



Exept we now have an example of never train head kicks because of the risk in the street. So while you may not fall in to that trap. It is definitely present.

Working on grass also is not a self defence only method. Plenty of people train on grass.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Not even a little bit. Just genuinely baffled by your understanding of, and responses to the posts in this thread.


try being the statistician.


----------



## DaveB

gpseymour said:


> I don't see this as a unique characteristic of SD schools. I'd expect a good sport-oriented school to do this, as well.


Not suggesting it's unique, simply that Steve's view of SD focus as avoiding functional application training is incorrect.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> try being the statistician.


Except I'm not the only one whose had to correct your interpretation of the conversation.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Except I'm not the only one whose had to correct your interpretation of the conversation.


Yeah.  Skribs. Right.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Not suggesting it's unique, simply that Steve's view of SD focus as avoiding functional application training is incorrect.



One of gpseymours posts reminded me.

As well as environmental training. You are sparring hard with risk as well?

(And by risk. I mean at least the chance of getting knocked out or dropped)

Given that pace and intent is almost a constant in fighting in general and in my opinion more of a game changer than a lot of training to reality concerns.


----------



## drop bear

DaveB said:


> Not suggesting it's unique, simply that Steve's view of SD focus as avoiding functional application training is incorrect.



Because the self defence focus can quite often run counter to functional training.

So for example say I do go out and train on a set of stairs. If I was to use the same techniques or intensity as I would on a flat matted surface. Someone is going to get crippled.

So the more I train on stairs the more I avoid functional training. It is quite simply time spent doing A or time spent doing B.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Dirty Dog said:


> Use headgear with a face shield, like THIS or THIS. The odds of hitting the throat are minuscule. Or practice developing control. That works too.
> As someone who has been kicking heads for a couple of years now, I think you're worrying too much.


The face shield is probably the right answer. Somewhere I have one set of headgear with that. And, yeah, I probably am worrying too much about the throat. I've never actively used that kick to that target in sparring, so don't have any experience to base expectations on. Thanks for the input!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Was that the one where you had to force people to strike you in a manner that was not technically correct based on the hope that someone would punch in that manner in a street fight?
> 
> And the reason for that was your techniques just didn't work if the person was striking you in a technically correct manner?
> 
> I think you were saying when you spar your guys don't produce enough energy to Aiki. But then you dont just put on a set of 16,s and say just punch me as hard as you can to get that energy.



Yeah, the one where I showed you a video of a dozen people or so, in actual street altercations, making precisely the mistake of over-commitment that takes advantage of. And every technique - all of them in every art - fail if someone doesn't give the right set-up. A jab won't work if the guy's too far away, and there's not much that's more reliable than a jab.

And, no, I didn't say we don't create enough energy for it when sparring. I said we don't often commit the energy in the way that makes aiki techniques available, because we train not to provide that opening. As you know, one of the problems in sparring against the same art is that you face an art that defends against itself.



> Your training is based on the other guy being awfull. He has to be slow and technically incorrect. If he is fast or technically correct or both you wont have trained for that. And then have to overcome this big issue of an actual fight having just different and more dangerous dynamics.
> 
> So yeah. Not good training methodology.



And this is the fallacy you made then and continue to commit to. You ignore that this is only one portion of our training, though that was explained to you BEFORE you first made this comment about my training approach. It's like saying BJJ is bad training because it can only work if the guy crawls between your legs, and can't handle any other position on the ground - a gross mischaracterization.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Exept that wasnt the argument. The argument was that a gym is a steralised environment.
> 
> And in this case does not include slippery surfaces. Which is an incorrect premis to base an argument off.
> 
> This is how slippery a jigsaw mat can physically get. Now extreme example. But still.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=398998123565524


I never characterized it (at least not intentionally) as sterile. It has low variability, but that's not the same. And those mats have been hosed down and look to even have soap on them. I've never been on a mat that was anywhere near that slippery. Even with some accumulation of sweat on a wrestling mat surface, it's maybe as slippery as that dewy grass you tried kicks on. And most mats won't even get that slippery, especially the tatami-surface ones that are so popular. Now, if someone has mats that get that slippery, they probably get really good at the math for slippery surfaces - which actually supports my point. I never said you can't create variability in the school - it's just easier to find it right outside.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Exept we now have an example of never train head kicks because of the risk in the street. So while you may not fall in to that trap. It is definitely present.
> 
> Working on grass also is not a self defence only method. Plenty of people train on grass.


I never said it was a SD-only method. I don't know what everyone else trains. I suspect it's often done out of convenience (that's how I got started doing it). You appear to want me to be bashing sport training, or saying there's something wrong with it (maybe that's why you spend so much time trying to make my training awful). I've said it before and will probably say it to others later: good training is good training, and good sport training (for the right rules) is good preparation for fighting and defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> One of gpseymours posts reminded me.
> 
> As well as environmental training. You are sparring hard with risk as well?
> 
> (And by risk. I mean at least the chance of getting knocked out or dropped)
> 
> Given that pace and intent is almost a constant in fighting in general and in my opinion more of a game changer than a lot of training to reality concerns.


The risk of getting knocked out is pretty low in most SD schools. The risk of grappling injuries tends to be higher. For some reason, most SD folks are more okay with going to work with a dislocated finger than a black eye, though the latter is the lesser injury. For some of us, we accept a lesser intensity in training to guard against head injury. If I still coached soccer, I'd wouldn't teach kids to head the ball, either, except for floaters.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Because the self defence focus can quite often run counter to functional training.
> 
> So for example say I do go out and train on a set of stairs. If I was to use the same techniques or intensity as I would on a flat matted surface. Someone is going to get crippled.
> 
> So the more I train on stairs the more I avoid functional training. It is quite simply time spent doing A or time spent doing B.


Do you have evidence to support that a single session on an uneven surface (stairs, stacked mats, etc.) at lower intensity produces less learning than a full-intensity session on a flat surface? Or is that just an assertion you make without evidence?


----------



## JR 137

I’m getting ready to shovel a couple inches of snow here.  This thread just inspired me to go out and run through some punches, kicks, and spar with my 4 and 7 year old daughters before I shovel away all that potential training goodness.

Any requests before I get at it?   I’ll try my best in the name of MA.

Or maybe I’ll wait for the guy who walks his chihuahua every day to walk by and start a fight with him.  I’ll tie the dog’s leash to the porch so nothing skews my findings.  No way I’m messing with the guy with the bull mastiff though.  I’m pretty sure I can take him, but there’s no way I’m messing with him when he’s got Hooch by his side.  I’d wait for the mailman, but it’s Sunday.  Him carrying pepper spray makes it even better.  Never mind; fighting the mailman might be a federal offense.  I’ve got to draw the line there.  

Edit:  Wait a minute!  I forgot my dojo has our annual Christmas party this afternoon!  I’ll see if there’s any takers to a friendly challenge in the lawn out back.  I’ll be sure to report my potential findings.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Do you have evidence to support that a single session on an uneven surface (stairs, stacked mats, etc.) at lower intensity produces less learning than a full-intensity session on a flat surface? Or is that just an assertion you make without evidence?



Well I have done it of course.

And you have not produced evidence of anything so honestly pretty late in the game.


----------



## drop bear

JR 137 said:


> I’m getting ready to shovel a couple inches of snow here.  This thread just inspired me to go out and run through some punches, kicks, and spar with my 4 and 7 year old daughters before I shovel away all that potential training goodness.
> 
> Any requests before I get at it?   I’ll try my best in the name of MA.
> 
> Or maybe I’ll wait for the guy who walks his chihuahua every day to walk by and start a fight with him.  I’ll tie the dog’s leash to the porch so nothing skews my findings.  No way I’m messing with the guy with the bull mastiff though.  I’m pretty sure I can take him, but there’s no way I’m messing with him when he’s got Hooch by his side.  I’d wait for the mailman, but it’s Sunday.  Him carrying pepper spray makes it even better.  Never mind; fighting the mailman might be a federal offense.  I’ve got to draw the line there.
> 
> Edit:  Wait a minute!  I forgot my dojo has our annual Christmas party this afternoon!  I’ll see if there’s any takers to a friendly challenge in the lawn out back.  I’ll be sure to report my potential findings.



For our gym break up we are getting a bouncy castle. For the street.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And this is the fallacy you made then and continue to commit to. You ignore that this is only one portion of our training, though that was explained to you BEFORE you first made this comment about my training approach. It's like saying BJJ is bad training because it can only work if the guy crawls between your legs, and can't handle any other position on the ground - a gross mischaracterization



OK. So only a portion of your training is I'll advised. And then what. When you spar and just can't pull off the moves in the drills assume it will be different in the street?



gpseymour said:


> Yeah, the one where I showed you a video of a dozen people or so, in actual street altercations, making precisely the mistake of over-commitment that takes advantage of. And every technique - all of them in every art - fail if someone doesn't give the right set-up. A jab won't work if the guy's too far away, and there's not much that's more reliable than a jab.
> 
> And, no, I didn't say we don't create enough energy for it when sparring. I said we don't often commit the energy in the way that makes aiki techniques available, because we train not to provide that opening. As you know, one of the problems in sparring against the same art is that you face an art that defends against itself.



And so I am thinking yes. You are hoping on the street it will work out better for you than in training. OK if you want energy to perform a move you have to learn how to create it. Not just tell the guy to provide it for you. 



gpseymour said:


> I never characterized it (at least not intentionally) as sterile. It has low variability, but that's not the same. And those mats have been hosed down and look to even have soap on them. I've never been on a mat that was anywhere near that slippery. Even with some accumulation of sweat on a wrestling mat surface, it's maybe as slippery as that dewy grass you tried kicks on. And most mats won't even get that slippery, especially the tatami-surface ones that are so popular. Now, if someone has mats that get that slippery, they probably get really good at the math for slippery surfaces - which actually supports my point. I never said you can't create variability in the school - it's just easier to find it right outside.



So when it was said mats were sterile and you just jumped on board you were arguing a different definition of sterile which you again just did not tell anybody about.

Otherwise I think you are making a bunch of conflicting points there.

My point was you can slip over on mats. So it is a variable surface.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> The risk of getting knocked out is pretty low in most SD schools. The risk of grappling injuries tends to be higher. For some reason, most SD folks are more okay with going to work with a dislocated finger than a black eye, though the latter is the lesser injury. For some of us, we accept a lesser intensity in training to guard against head injury. If I still coached soccer, I'd wouldn't teach kids to head the ball, either, except for floaters.



The lesser vs greater intensity makes such a large mechanical difference unfortunately I would have to take you in to a gym and beat you up to explain it. (Which is how I worked it out)

But is a big reason why you see these wing chun systems struggle at speed. Why you see moves like defensive hand trapping. Standing arm bars and a whole bunch of stuff that have worked in drills or light sparring just no longer work when the pace is on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well I have done it of course.
> 
> And you have not produced evidence of anything so honestly pretty late in the game.


What assertions have I made that require evidence? I have only asserted what benefit I got from training on different surfaces, and that others might get some of those benefits. You're claiming that training for any period on a different surface is actually detrimental to functional training. Yours is surely more in need of support by evidence, since mine is based (and stated as such) upon my experience. Experience can't cover such a broad claim as you've made.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The lesser vs greater intensity makes such a large mechanical difference unfortunately I would have to take you in to a gym and beat you up to explain it. (Which is how I worked it out)
> 
> But is a big reason why you see these wing chun systems struggle at speed. Why you see moves like defensive hand trapping. Standing arm bars and a whole bunch of stuff that have worked in drills or light sparring just no longer work when the pace is on.


I understand the difference it makes, because I've done some hard sparring (and some fighting). We (actually, you and I) have previously discussed the compromises that people have to make in training. I've made compromises to protect my brain. I've also made some to avoid injury that probably was me being too cautious. Not always, but probably more often than was necessary. And more with striking than with grappling, by a long shot. I've sparred hard enough to find out what it's like to get hit (not much different from being hit really hard by a soccer ball, oddly), but only just enough.

I'm an odd mix of risk taker and very cautious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> OK. So only a portion of your training is I'll advised. And then what. When you spar and just can't pull off the moves in the drills assume it will be different in the street?
> 
> 
> 
> And so I am thinking yes. You are hoping on the street it will work out better for you than in training. OK if you want energy to perform a move you have to learn how to create it. Not just tell the guy to provide it for you.
> 
> 
> 
> So when it was said mats were sterile and you just jumped on board you were arguing a different definition of sterile which you again just did not tell anybody about.
> 
> Otherwise I think you are making a bunch of conflicting points there.
> 
> My point was you can slip over on mats. So it is a variable surface.


As I said before, every art, every style, has some bits that don't work under some circumstances. I have stuff that doesn't come available against someone with the same training. I have some stuff that is less likely to be available against anyone trained and in control (drunk or angry, and that changes). There's even some stuff that falls in both categories. There's also a group of stuff that doesn't work against someone kicking, some stuff that doesn't work against guys standing up, stuff that doesn't work against guys on the ground, stuff that doesn't work against people 8" taller than me, and so on. Everything has its place and time. 

And if you see a bunch of different points, perhaps that's because you've led the discussion in a dozen different directions, in an attempt to keep from having to defend any of your points?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> What assertions have I made that require evidence? I have only asserted what benefit I got from training on different surfaces, and that others might get some of those benefits. You're claiming that training for any period on a different surface is actually detrimental to functional training. Yours is surely more in need of support by evidence, since mine is based (and stated as such) upon my experience. Experience can't cover such a broad claim as you've made.



Pretty sure experience can cover my claim there.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> As I said before, every art, every style, has some bits that don't work under some circumstances. I have stuff that doesn't come available against someone with the same training. I have some stuff that is less likely to be available against anyone trained and in control (drunk or angry, and that changes). There's even some stuff that falls in both categories. There's also a group of stuff that doesn't work against someone kicking, some stuff that doesn't work against guys standing up, stuff that doesn't work against guys on the ground, stuff that doesn't work against people 8" taller than me, and so on. Everything has its place and time.
> 
> And if you see a bunch of different points, perhaps that's because you've led the discussion in a dozen different directions, in an attempt to keep from having to defend any of your points?


*
I have some stuff that is less likely to be available against anyone trained and in control (drunk or angry, and that changes). There's even some stuff that falls in both categories.*


And you still don't see the massive issue with this?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I understand the difference it makes, because I've done some hard sparring (and some fighting). We (actually, you and I) have previously discussed the compromises that people have to make in training. I've made compromises to protect my brain. I've also made some to avoid injury that probably was me being too cautious. Not always, but probably more often than was necessary. And more with striking than with grappling, by a long shot. I've sparred hard enough to find out what it's like to get hit (not much different from being hit really hard by a soccer ball, oddly), but only just enough.
> 
> I'm an odd mix of risk taker and very cautious.



I really don't think you get it. You can spar hard and not come to good conclusions.

It took me ages. I blamed the other guys skill set. Or assumed he had some magical property I didn't. Maybe my technique was lacking. All sorts of things.

And it really has a lot to do with what you prioritize. If you prioritize things that work. Like say TKD and just kicking heads off. You will have a system that works. If you prioritize things that are less important like fighting on an uneven surface. You pretty much wind up with a system that doesn't work.

As a side note this is also why BJJ black belts don't do as well as they should in MMA.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Pretty sure experience can cover my claim there.


Nope. Your experience didn't show any loss of learning by the short time spent outside. You've claimed that spending time training on grass actually takes away from functional learning. That's a claim your quick experience on grass doesn't seem to support in any meaningful way.

Furthermore, if it DID support it, that's a single instance. That, brother, is what "anecdotal evidence" is - a single data point that can't be used to draw statistical inferences without additional data to work with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> *I have some stuff that is less likely to be available against anyone trained and in control (drunk or angry, and that changes). There's even some stuff that falls in both categories.*
> 
> 
> And you still don't see the massive issue with this?


No, because nothing I've ever trained, in any art, it always available. Some makes handling big people easier. Some makes handling angry people easier. Some makes handling strong people easier. And so on. It's tools for given situations. Much of BJJ doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter. That's not a problem with BJJ, it's just a natural limitation of the tools in question.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I really don't think you get it. You can spar hard and not come to good conclusions.
> 
> It took me ages. I blamed the other guys skill set. Or assumed he had some magical property I didn't. Maybe my technique was lacking. All sorts of things.
> 
> And it really has a lot to do with what you prioritize. If you prioritize things that work. Like say TKD and just kicking heads off. You will have a system that works. If you prioritize things that are less important like fighting on an uneven surface. You pretty much wind up with a system that doesn't work.
> 
> As a side note this is also why BJJ black belts don't do as well as they should in MMA.


So, because you made excuses, I can't learn from my sparring? When I get my *** handed to me, I assume it's because the other guy and/or his toolset are better. Then I work to figure out what probably caused it. If he's just a monster, I'll write that off - I'm not training hard enough to handle monsters. If he out-skills me badly, that's probably a problem with my techniques (what I trained in), unless he's training some insane amount. If my tools just don't work when I expected them to, then that's probably a problem with my techniques.

So, if I am just outclassed, I have work to do to figure out if it's because of my training (how much/well I trained) or my toolbox (what I trained in). If it's how much I trained, that's just part of the compromise I made to do what else I wanted in life. If it's how well I trained, that's a problem with my training approach. If it's the toolbox, I need to train something new.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> No, because nothing I've ever trained, in any art, it always available. Some makes handling big people easier. Some makes handling angry people easier. Some makes handling strong people easier. And so on. It's tools for given situations. Much of BJJ doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter. That's not a problem with BJJ, it's just a natural limitation of the tools in question.



What you are suggesting there is nothing like bjj being ground focused. BJJ will actually fight people on the ground. You are making an Aikido guy pretend to punch like a drunk person might.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. Your experience didn't show any loss of learning by the short time spent outside. You've claimed that spending time training on grass actually takes away from functional learning. That's a claim your quick experience on grass doesn't seem to support in any meaningful way.
> 
> Furthermore, if it DID support it, that's a single instance. That, brother, is what "anecdotal evidence" is - a single data point that can't be used to draw statistical inferences without additional data to work with.



Yeah there is this really depressing factor to self defence that people don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. And that is the ability to crack skulls is pretty much the most important factor in winning or loosing a fight. And it is by a pretty big margin. And this is from my experience. And hey ask around see if other street fighters disagree.

So if you spend time learning to fight in different environments that is good. But you will probably get bashed by a guy who dedicated the same time to learning to crack skulls.

And look people think there should be more to it. But there really isn't if you are looking at the bare essentials of winning street fights. The other stuff is on top of this basic function.

And if you don't understand that. You won't understand self defence.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=837157759796618


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> Much of BJJ doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter. That's not a problem with BJJ, it's just a natural limitation of the tools in question.


Err..  that’s not true at all.  There are entire technical areas of BJJ that center around attacking a standing person.   De la riva guard, for example.   And vice versa.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Err..  that’s not true at all.  There are entire technical areas of BJJ that center around attacking a standing person.   De la riva guard, for example.   And vice versa.


Which would mean the other bits not aimed at the standing guy, would be the "much of" he mentioned.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What you are suggesting there is nothing like bjj being ground focused. BJJ will actually fight people on the ground. You are making an Aikido guy pretend to punch like a drunk person might.


Nope. That's your delusion of it. I've shown you video of actual people actually attacking in ways that make those things available. It actually happens, and there's actual proof. You just don't like it, so you ignore it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Err..  that’s not true at all.  There are entire technical areas of BJJ that center around attacking a standing person.   De la riva guard, for example.   And vice versa.


I didn't say all of it, Steve. I said much of it. My point is that there's nothing wrong with something that is situational. Good ground work will include a fair amount of stuff that's only available when the guy is on the ground.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Yeah there is this really depressing factor to self defence that people don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. And that is the ability to crack skulls is pretty much the most important factor in winning or loosing a fight. And it is by a pretty big margin. And this is from my experience. And hey ask around see if other street fighters disagree.
> 
> So if you spend time learning to fight in different environments that is good. But you will probably get bashed by a guy who dedicated the same time to learning to crack skulls.
> 
> And look people think there should be more to it. But there really isn't if you are looking at the bare essentials of winning street fights. The other stuff is on top of this basic function.
> 
> And if you don't understand that. You won't understand self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=837157759796618


So, if the ability to crack skulls is paramount, we should stop all grappling study?


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Which would mean the other bits not aimed at the standing guy, would be the "much of" he mentioned.


You're a pugnacious dude.  Would you say that much of aikido as well?  Seem like an odd statement.  


gpseymour said:


> I didn't say all of it, Steve. I said much of it. My point is that there's nothing wrong with something that is situational. Good ground work will include a fair amount of stuff that's only available when the guy is on the ground.


okay.  Sorry. Much is like... How much?  More than a lot?  Less than some?  Abiut the same as a little bit?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> You're a pugnacious dude.  Would you say that much of aikido as well?  Seem like an odd statement.
> okay.  Sorry. Much is like... How much?  More than a lot?  Less than some?  Abiut the same as a little bit?


Given that I don't know the full spectrum of what's in BJJ, I purposely used a vague term. Much = some. Sorta.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> You're a pugnacious dude.  Would you say that much of aikido as well?  Seem like an odd statement.
> okay.  Sorry. Much is like... How much?  More than a lot?  Less than some?  Abiut the same as a little bit?





Steve said:


> You're a pugnacious dude.  Would you say that much of aikido as well?  Seem like an odd statement.
> okay.  Sorry. Much is like... How much?  More than a lot?  Less than some?  Abiut the same as a little bit?



Just continuing my quest to help you understand sentences.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> Just continuing my quest to help you understand sentences.


Okay.  So, help me out.

Can we say that much of judo doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter?   Can we say that much of Aikido doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter?


gpseymour said:


> Given that I don't know the full spectrum of what's in BJJ, I purposely used a vague term. Much = some. Sorta.


Saying something from a position of ignorance and then saying, "Yeah, well, I was intentionally vague because, dude, I don't know what I'm talking about," just doesn't work for me.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. That's your delusion of it. I've shown you video of actual people actually attacking in ways that make those things available. It actually happens, and there's actual proof. You just don't like it, so you ignore it.



And you are training with those people you see in those fights?

I mean I act like a really impressive girl for when I train rape defence. My mate barry can pretend to be an Aikido black belt like nobodies buisness.

And when we do gun defence we are all being marines.

Look we have watched the videos so it is  not like we havent done our research.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So, if the ability to crack skulls is paramount, we should stop all grappling study?



No. It is part of this ability to crack skulls. They choke mofo's out which is essentually the same thing.

This goes back to TKD as a self defence and my origional point. If a TKDer can kick you in the face hard enough to knock you out and you cant deal with that. He is better at self defence than you are. This almost negates every other bit of self defence training you have done.

Lets look at this again. MMA guy did not exibit amazing skill here. There were no cool moves and even his punching wasn't all that crisp. Do you think tai chi guy had not trained to defend  sloppy round punches?






These are the same sloppy round punches that you have trained specifically to defend. So why did he win?


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> Okay.  So, help me out.
> 
> Can we say that much of judo doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter?   Can we say that much of Aikido doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter?
> .



I don't train either art so not the best person to ask. My advice though is simply to look at what was written and puzzle out the meaning yourself. If you stop worrying about the subjective and concentrate on the broader context I'm sure you will get it.


----------



## Steve

DaveB said:


> I don't train either art so not the best person to ask. My advice though is simply to look at what was written and puzzle out the meaning yourself. If you stop worrying about the subjective and concentrate on the broader context I'm sure you will get it.


I will take that advice.  I want to believe you have something worthwhile to offer.  I will assume for now it’s me.  Time will tell.


----------



## DaveB

Steve said:


> I will take that advice.  I want to believe you have something worthwhile to offer.  I will assume for now it’s me.  Time will tell.



Here's what I offer:

When you look at gpseymore's post, he's not trashing bjj, he's pointing out that every technique has a time and a place. If used in the wrong way a technique won't work.

To me this is a pretty simple uncontroversial point, but if you disagree, have at it.

But if that is the essence of his point, what is gained from a focus on the minutiae of Bjj's syllabus and the precise proportion attributed to the word "much"?

If we stay on that track, then just like the tkd thread we'd end up 6 pages later with everyone talking at cross purposes because some people are trying to get back to the point and some are, intentionally or not, clinging to the nonsense that has arisen. 

I'm not the boss of you, please ignore me if I am wrong, but I do think we will all gain more from discussing the points raised rather than the details imprecisely conveyed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Steve said:


> Saying something from a position of ignorance and then saying, "Yeah, well, I was intentionally vague because, dude, I don't know what I'm talking about," just doesn't work for me.


Not from a point of ignorance. I know some of what's in BJJ - have a smattering of training, and enough to know there's a solid amount with little application to a standing opponent. I've pointed out before that I've also seen enough of BJJ to know it's not all about the ground. Put those together, and though I don't know the proportions, I know there's *much* that doesn't have direct application to a standing opponent (I added "direct" because at least some of the principles aren't greatly dissimilar from other arts, where said principles are applied to standing work).

Okay, so maybe a point of ignorance about "how much is much".


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> And you are training with those people you see in those fights?
> 
> I mean I act like a really impressive girl for when I train rape defence. My mate barry can pretend to be an Aikido black belt like nobodies buisness.
> 
> And when we do gun defence we are all being marines.
> 
> Look we have watched the videos so it is  not like we havent done our research.


You know, I'd think you were being serious if I didn't know you actually know how to train with a specific kind of attack. How do I konw that? Because literally every art and system does it. When you train a single leg as a counter to something, the person feeding the attack to be countered has to replicate the attack that you're working on. If they decide to use what they'd use against you (knowing you have a good single-leg), then you don't get to practice that single-leg.

See, this is what I was pointing out earlier. You'd never think having someone feed a drill properly was a problem, but the second it has do to with Aikido (or something that smells like it to you), you lose your mind. You have a tremendous double-standard problem, and top it off with a huge helping of confirmation bias.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DaveB said:


> Here's what I offer:
> 
> When you look at gpseymore's post, he's not trashing bjj, he's pointing out that every technique has a time and a place. If used in the wrong way a technique won't work.
> 
> To me this is a pretty simple uncontroversial point, but if you disagree, have at it.
> 
> But if that is the essence of his point, what is gained from a focus on the minutiae of Bjj's syllabus and the precise proportion attributed to the word "much"?
> 
> If we stay on that track, then just like the tkd thread we'd end up 6 pages later with everyone talking at cross purposes because some people are trying to get back to the point and some are, intentionally or not, clinging to the nonsense that has arisen.
> 
> I'm not the boss of you, please ignore me if I am wrong, but I do think we will all gain more from discussing the points raised rather than the details imprecisely conveyed.


@Steve, if you thought I was taking a shot at BJJ, I missed making my point. I chose BJJ because not only is it something DB is very familiar with, but it's also an easy model to point at as something that works. As Dave said, everything has its place, and the fact that a given BJJ technique perhaps only works when the other guy is on the ground (or, more specifically even, in mount) isn't a weakness of the technique or the art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No. It is part of this ability to crack skulls. They choke mofo's out which is essentually the same thing.


We're pretty much on the same page on that, then. I'd only add that avoiding getting one's own skull cracked is equally important.



> This goes back to TKD as a self defence and my origional point. If a TKDer can kick you in the face hard enough to knock you out and you cant deal with that. He is better at self defence than you are. This almost negates every other bit of self defence training you have done.


Agreed. Nothing in that is contrary to anything I've said (in fact, that's the point I make in my first part of this reply).



> Lets look at this again. MMA guy did not exibit amazing skill here. There were no cool moves and even his punching wasn't all that crisp. Do you think tai chi guy had not trained to defend  sloppy round punches?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are the same sloppy round punches that you have trained specifically to defend. So why did he win?


Training to defend ONLY sloppy punches is a problem. Learning to use a technique or principle against over-committed punches (which can actually be either sloppy or compact - it's the body that matters, though many students mistake the looping punch as the point) doesn't make one unable to also practice it against other kinds of attacks.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You know, I'd think you were being serious if I didn't know you actually know how to train with a specific kind of attack. How do I konw that? Because literally every art and system does it. When you train a single leg as a counter to something, the person feeding the attack to be countered has to replicate the attack that you're working on. If they decide to use what they'd use against you (knowing you have a good single-leg), then you don't get to practice that single-leg.
> 
> See, this is what I was pointing out earlier. You'd never think having someone feed a drill properly was a problem, but the second it has do to with Aikido (or something that smells like it to you), you lose your mind. You have a tremendous double-standard problem, and top it off with a huge helping of confirmation bias.



Not really. We execute a working attack that may have a single leg counter.

Look at it this way. If you don't strike like intoxicated street brawlers. I wouldn't spend all that much time learning to strike like intoxicated street brawlers just so you can effectively feed someone that style of strike so their defence works.

It is a big messy way of justifying a defence that probably doesn't work very well.

Now because you are suggesting self defence here. You have plenty of options for defending good punches that also defends bad punches.

This will save you a lot of time learning to effectively punch badly. Learning to defend that. Then learning to effectively punch properly and then learning to defend that.

Bear in mind I do sport. And can muck around with over engineered junk that covers the vagaries of what a professional fighter might do. Spider guards and flying ompaloompas. You should be focusing on cracking skulls.

So you have to be more conservative and efficient.

So seriously none of this "you learn 50 guard passes so why can't I do it?"


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. Nothing in that is contrary to anything I've said (in fact, that's the point I make in my first part of this reply).



Unless the surface is slippery or there is no ref or you have four friends or a gun.

Which is the argument that got used against the same point I made with a tornado kick.

And why I made the point with the tornado kick.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> We're pretty much on the same page on that, then. I'd only add that avoiding getting one's own skull cracked is equally important.



Also correct. Conceptually a lot simpler than people like to sell the concept.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Training to defend ONLY sloppy punches is a problem. Learning to use a technique or principle against over-committed punches (which can actually be either sloppy or compact - it's the body that matters, though many students mistake the looping punch as the point) doesn't make one unable to also practice it against other kinds of attacks.



Over committed punches should happen as part of realistic training. 

Not pretending.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not really. We execute a working attack that may have a single leg counter.


Yeah, that's what I said. If you wouldn't normally (you, personally) deliver that attack, you don't just stop doing it and do something different. You feed the attack that the drill calls for.



> Look at it this way. If you don't strike like intoxicated street brawlers. I wouldn't spend all that much time learning to strike like intoxicated street brawlers just so you can effectively feed someone that style of strike so their defence works.
> 
> It is a big messy way of justifying a defence that probably doesn't work very well.


I said nothing about them having to be drunk. In the video I posted for you a couple of months ago, there was no evidence any of those folks were drunk. Angry people do it, too. So do frustrated people (it even happens in MMA, if they get frustrated enough, or cocky enough).

It's a defense that works, when that kind of attack presents. It also works at other times, but that's the easiest way to practice it. The same movement work with a different set of principles using a push-pull like Judo normally does.



> Now because you are suggesting self defence here. You have plenty of options for defending good punches that also defends bad punches.


Yes. We've been over that many times in the past. You seem to think I disagree about that.



> This will save you a lot of time learning to effectively punch badly. Learning to defend that. Then learning to effectively punch properly and then learning to defend that.


It might. It does slow learning some principles, though, and those principles feed into defense against grappling. They aren't the only way to defend against grappling, but they work pretty well.



> Bear in mind I do sport. And can muck around with over engineered junk that covers the vagaries of what a professional fighter might do. Spider guards and flying ompaloompas. You should be focusing on cracking skulls.


Some parts of what we play with in the aiki area are definitely that kind of over-engineering that gets fun to play with. I try to hold those off until students get more advanced (something new to toy with, and challenges the principles differently), or until someone gives me a really good excuse. You might be surprised how often someone resisting a technique for fun by muscling actually provides a fantastic opening to aiki versions of techniques.



> So you have to be more conservative and efficient.


Which, in application, aiki versions of techniques are. Why do you think I like them, when I also have the non-aiki versions of them? I'm lazy.



> So seriously none of this "you learn 50 guard passes so why can't I do it?"


I'm not sure what that's about. If you're referring to my BJJ reference earlier, that was simply to point out that some things have a more limited application. It doesn't make them wrong, just specialized. It wasn't "whataboutism", but pointing out that nobody (at least, nobody I know) looks at a ground technique and says, "Yeah, but you can't do that if they are standing up!"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Over committed punches should happen as part of realistic training.
> 
> Not pretending.


That's back to the feeding of a drill. Does a new student have to wait until someone accidentally sets themselves up for a single-leg, so they can learn it, or does the coach/instructor have their partner step into the technique (with a specific attack, most often), so they can learn? I'm going to bet it's the latter: they "pretend" to do that attack, to feed the drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Unless the surface is slippery or there is no ref or you have four friends or a gun.
> 
> Which is the argument that got used against the same point I made with a tornado kick.
> 
> And why I made the point with the tornado kick.


All of those do change the situation. How much? That's the point of thinking things through, researching, and experimenting. Which was why I made the point about stepping out to practice on slippery grass from time to time.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That's back to the feeding of a drill. Does a new student have to wait until someone accidentally sets themselves up for a single-leg, so they can learn it, or does the coach/instructor have their partner step into the technique (with a specific attack, most often), so they can learn? I'm going to bet it's the latter: they "pretend" to do that attack, to feed the drill.



Not pretending to be some guy that he saw in a video.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure what that's about. If you're referring to my BJJ reference earlier, that was simply to point out that some things have a more limited application. It doesn't make them wrong, just specialized. It wasn't "whataboutism", but pointing out that nobody (at least, nobody I know) looks at a ground technique and



Wrong for self defence.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> All of those do change the situation. How much? That's the point of thinking things through, researching, and experimenting. Which was why I made the point about stepping out to practice on slippery grass from time to time.



You are making a completely different argument to what other people are making while saying the same words.

You argument is about training with flexibility.

Theirs is about rigid scene setting.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I said nothing about them having to be drunk. In the video I posted for you a couple of months ago, there was no evidence any of those folks were drunk. Angry people do it, too. So do frustrated people (it even happens in MMA, if they get frustrated enough, or cocky enough).
> 
> It's a defense that works, when that kind of attack presents. It also works at other times, but that's the easiest way to practice it. The same movement work with a different set of principles using a push-pull like Judo normally does.



How are you making that judgement that the defence works with that sort of attack?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Not pretending to be some guy that he saw in a video.


So, what's the difference between pretending to be a guy stepping in for an overhook (to set up a drill for a single-leg) and pretending to be a guy giving an over-committed punch?

Either they are both pretending, or they are both not. You're trying to make them different without pointing out any meaningful difference. I can find video of some guy going in for that overhook, just like I can find video of some guy giving that over-committed punch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Wrong for self defence.


And you seem to be unable to point out what's actually wrong, except that you really don't like it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are making a completely different argument to what other people are making while saying the same words.
> 
> You argument is about training with flexibility.
> 
> Theirs is about rigid scene setting.


Okay, and that's the argument I started making pages ago, which you leaped in to challenge as a bad approach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> How are you making that judgement that the defence works with that sort of attack?


I've seen the movement used in videos (including at least one MMA fight I can think of). I've also gotten some feedback from folks who used the principles in the field (a couple of reports from one LEO, and a couple of bouncers). The reports were reasonably reliable, but only partly applicable. I've used the movement myself once (too anecdotal to be helpful on its own, but at least it's a use I know happened).

Note that I'm more concerned with the movement than the final technique. In working with over-committed attacks, it's the start we're training, not the finish. The finish is a result of where things end up midway through, and the same finish can apply to both an over-committed attack and an under-committed attack.

EDIT: I left out the in-dojo experimentation, which is also a part of our validation.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> And you seem to be unable to point out what's actually wrong, except that you really don't like it.



No I already have pointed out what is wrong.

You just do not have the same luxury to fart around in self defence as you do in sport.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> No I already have pointed out what is wrong.
> 
> You just do not have the same luxury to fart around in self defence as you do in sport.


So far as I can tell, you've claimed that practicing this reduces effectiveness on other stuff. What's the evidence of that? What's the evidence that having another principle to draw on reduces one's ability to use other principles? Other than that, your complaints have centered around the idea that it's not okay to give an attack that's not one's full ability to attack, in spite of the fact that all training includes precisely that approach. You don't like the idea of aiki/aikido, so you attack it for things you accept at reasonable in different usage.

As for farting around, that's what we can do in training, to work on a topic, so we don't do it when defending.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I've seen the movement used in videos (including at least one MMA fight I can think of). I've also gotten some feedback from folks who used the principles in the field (a couple of reports from one LEO, and a couple of bouncers). The reports were reasonably reliable, but only partly applicable. I've used the movement myself once (too anecdotal to be helpful on its own, but at least it's a use I know happened).
> 
> Note that I'm more concerned with the movement than the final technique. In working with over-committed attacks, it's the start we're training, not the finish. The finish is a result of where things end up midway through, and the same finish can apply to both an over-committed attack and an under-committed attack.
> 
> EDIT: I left out the in-dojo experimentation, which is also a part of our validation.



See for me when I am told that I need to force a certain energy. (And a limp arm defence would be an example) It will be from a guy who has personally hit that move against fully resisting guys. In my specific case he will have hit that move on top fighters. And then can say from experience that this move will work better when someone is really putting energy.

And should someone not be providing that energy then the technique isn't foiled. Because he just gets folded in half. 

And it gets replicated in sparring.

So I don't think our methodologies are similar here.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> So far as I can tell, you've claimed that practicing this reduces effectiveness on other stuff. What's the evidence of that? What's the evidence that having another principle to draw on reduces one's ability to use other principles? Other than that, your complaints have centered around the idea that it's not okay to give an attack that's not one's full ability to attack, in spite of the fact that all training includes precisely that approach. You don't like the idea of aiki/aikido, so you attack it for things you accept at reasonable in different usage.
> 
> As for farting around, that's what we can do in training, to work on a topic, so we don't do it when defending.



If you look at MMA and specifically BJJ you can see this principle in effect. There is a lot of nuances needed in BJJ that you can quite simply not really bother with. The 50 guard passes is in reference to that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> See for me when I am told that I need to force a certain energy. (And a limp arm defence would be an example) It will be from a guy who has personally hit that move against fully resisting guys. In my specific case he will have hit that move on top fighters. And then can say from experience that this move will work better when someone is really putting energy.
> 
> And should someone not be providing that energy then the technique isn't foiled. Because he just gets folded in half.
> 
> And it gets replicated in sparring.
> 
> So I don't think our methodologies are similar here.


I'm not sure I follow your point fully on this one, DB, so my response may be a propos of nothing.

The point I was making about focusing on the movement is that in practicing the aiki application of a technique, it's more about how to move with the kind of energy that comes in. There's a hard version of most techniques (closer to what you'd see in Judo, and some look like what you'd see in a Shotokan Aikido competition). The movement gets you to where the techniques are applied. If they provide a different input, a different movement is more efficient and effective. Against over-commitment, aiki movement (of the movement I have to select from) is most efficient and effective. I end up at many of the same techniques in the end, though they look different in many cases because of the entry point. The aiki entry to a technique is just a principle of movement to make use of what they've provided. And the principle and movement sometimes (much more rarely) even comes into play without the over-commitment. That usually comes either during recovery from a botched or countered technique (you'll see this principle fairly often in Judo), or from simply being in the wrong place at the right time (which, in drills, looks like you're expecting to be the fastest fighter in the world).


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure I follow your point fully on this one, DB, so my response may be a propos of nothing.
> 
> The point I was making about focusing on the movement is that in practicing the aiki application of a technique, it's more about how to move with the kind of energy that comes in. There's a hard version of most techniques (closer to what you'd see in Judo, and some look like what you'd see in a Shotokan Aikido competition). The movement gets you to where the techniques are applied. If they provide a different input, a different movement is more efficient and effective. Against over-commitment, aiki movement (of the movement I have to select from) is most efficient and effective. I end up at many of the same techniques in the end, though they look different in many cases because of the entry point. The aiki entry to a technique is just a principle of movement to make use of what they've provided. And the principle and movement sometimes (much more rarely) even comes into play without the over-commitment. That usually comes either during recovery from a botched or countered technique (you'll see this principle fairly often in Judo), or from simply being in the wrong place at the right time (which, in drills, looks like you're expecting to be the fastest fighter in the world).



Judo creates the circumstances that make their techniques work.

You just ask your opponent to attack you right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> If you look at MMA and specifically BJJ you can see this principle in effect. There is a lot of nuances needed in BJJ that you can quite simply not really bother with. The 50 guard passes is in reference to that.


Ah. If I'm reading this right, you're saying aiki could just be skipped. And yeah, it could. I've trained folks without it at times, and it loses a level of efficiency of movement and a set of options for recovery. Those aren't strictly necessary, but they are useful. If I was sticking to what was strictly necessary, I'd have to be prescient. Aiki training is really about developing options - I think that's most of the point of most training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Judo creates the circumstances that make their techniques work.
> 
> You just ask your opponent to attack you right.


Nope. You're back to an old argument we've been over many times. You take one option in our training, and generalize it as if it were all we trained in, in spite of the fact that I've told you more than once that we train other stuff.

You're not stupid, so I don't know why you keep doing that. I have to assume you do it on purpose.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> @Steve, if you thought I was taking a shot at BJJ, I missed making my point. I chose BJJ because not only is it something DB is very familiar with, but it's also an easy model to point at as something that works. As Dave said, everything has its place, and the fact that a given BJJ technique perhaps only works when the other guy is on the ground (or, more specifically even, in mount) isn't a weakness of the technique or the art.


I did not think that at all.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Nope. You're back to an old argument we've been over many times. You take one option in our training, and generalize it as if it were all we trained in, in spite of the fact that I've told you more than once that we train other stuff.
> 
> You're not stupid, so I don't know why you keep doing that. I have to assume you do it on purpose.



I am not making a commentary on all of your training. And I specifically said that.
You brought this up. As if me having a problem with you pretending to be street fighters like you see on youtube is somehow an example of me picking on Aikido. 


Ok. this is an example of a limp arm. It will not work without pressure on the overhook. The more pressure on the overhook the better it works.






Can you please show me a video of exactly what you are on about and whether it matches this sort of training as you claimed or if it is some sort of other thing?


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Ah. If I'm reading this right, you're saying aiki could just be skipped. And yeah, it could. I've trained folks without it at times, and it loses a level of efficiency of movement and a set of options for recovery. Those aren't strictly necessary, but they are useful. If I was sticking to what was strictly necessary, I'd have to be prescient. Aiki training is really about developing options - I think that's most of the point of most training.



Well no but you would need to make Aiki practical. And not able to be shut down by a bit of Aikido training.

How many hours a week do you have to create a person who can reasonably defend themselves? Because most self defence gets a guy in 2 mabye 3 times a week. Which is a pretty desparate time frame to prepare someone to win a fight.

If I suggested that if both people know judo then neither person can use their technique principles because the other guy also knows those principles. It would be blatantly false.






Now here is an example of aiki.




Same as the judo same as the limp arm. Same as every other martial rt that creates a position and then takes advantage of it.

So there is something different between that. And what you are doing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Well no but you would need to make Aiki practical. And not able to be shut down by a bit of Aikido training.
> 
> How many hours a week do you have to create a person who can reasonably defend themselves? Because most self defence gets a guy in 2 mabye 3 times a week. Which is a pretty desparate time frame to prepare someone to win a fight.
> 
> If I suggested that if both people know judo then neither person can use their technique principles because the other guy also knows those principles. It would be blatantly false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here is an example of aiki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same as the judo same as the limp arm. Same as every other martial rt that creates a position and then takes advantage of it.
> 
> So there is something different between that. And what you are doing.


You're doing it again. You're equating the entirety of what we do with one part. See, in Judo, it's pretty easy to make something unavailable to your opponent. The problem is, he'll just use something else from Judo. That's the same for what we do. If they take away the aiki (the easiest part to take away wholly), then they can't come in as hard, etc. They'll open up to something else in our repertoire. Aiki is only part of the arsenal, and only one version of most techniques.It works where it works, and doesn't work in other places. And that's not unique. If you keep distance, you eliminate part of an opponent's repertoire. If you are standing, you remove part of his repertoire, etc.

Let's go back to your Judo reference. There's a reason some of the rules exist in Judo competition - two experienced Judoka can actually stymie each other quite well, and very little will happen for a while. The current rules force them to be more offensive, which creates openings for their opponent.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You're doing it again. You're equating the entirety of what we do with one part. See, in Judo, it's pretty easy to make something unavailable to your opponent. The problem is, he'll just use something else from Judo. That's the same for what we do. If they take away the aiki (the easiest part to take away wholly), then they can't come in as hard, etc. They'll open up to something else in our repertoire. Aiki is only part of the arsenal, and only one version of most techniques.It works where it works, and doesn't work in other places. And that's not unique. If you keep distance, you eliminate part of an opponent's repertoire. If you are standing, you remove part of his repertoire, etc.
> 
> Let's go back to your Judo reference. There's a reason some of the rules exist in Judo competition - two experienced Judoka can actually stymie each other quite well, and very little will happen for a while. The current rules force them to be more offensive, which creates openings for their opponent.


You are doing it again.

Is there a rule in judo where you have to act like some guy in a street fight on YouTube?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are doing it again.
> 
> Is there a rule in judo where you have to act like some guy in a street fight on YouTube?


Whataboutism, DB. Decide which point you want to argue, and don't use the opposite point to rebut my reply to that point.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Whataboutism, DB. Decide which point you want to argue, and don't use the opposite point to rebut my reply to that point.



What you are describing is not the same as the judo example you are using to describe it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> What you are describing is not the same as the judo example you are using to describe it.


Then explain the error in that link, rather than changing the topic.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Then explain the error in that link, rather than changing the topic.



There is no rule in judo where you have to act like a street fighter someone saw on youtube to make their technique work.

Where you are training there is that rule.

Pages and pages of this and you refuse to see that. You are desperate to justify this method but If you can't get your self defence techniques to work in real time. They are not very good self defence techniques.

If you think I have the wrong impression of what you are doing. Go get a video of what you are doing to make it clearer. Because Aikido is notorious for doing exactly as you describe.






You get that this is not self defence in any practical expression yeah?

Where as TKD this is a practical expression of self defence.





Because nobody has to pretend.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is no rule in judo where you have to act like a street fighter someone saw on youtube to make their technique work.
> 
> Where you are training there is that rule.
> 
> Pages and pages of this and you refuse to see that. You are desperate to justify this method but If you can't get your self defence techniques to work in real time. They are not very good self defence techniques.
> 
> If you think I have the wrong impression of what you are doing. Go get a video of what you are doing to make it clearer. Because Aikido is notorious for doing exactly as you describe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get that this is not self defence in any practical expression yeah?
> 
> Where as TKD this is a practical expression of self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because nobody has to pretend.


You keep confusing Nihon Goshin Aikido with Aikido. Not the same thing. You keep trying to apply what you’ve seen of one art to a different one. Then you think I should defend it. That’d be like me saying BJJ is the same as another art also mainly derived from Judo, and must make all the same training mistakes that are common to the other art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> There is no rule in judo where you have to act like a street fighter someone saw on youtube to make their technique work.
> 
> Where you are training there is that rule.
> 
> Pages and pages of this and you refuse to see that. You are desperate to justify this method but If you can't get your self defence techniques to work in real time. They are not very good self defence techniques.
> 
> If you think I have the wrong impression of what you are doing. Go get a video of what you are doing to make it clearer. Because Aikido is notorious for doing exactly as you describe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get that this is not self defence in any practical expression yeah?
> 
> Where as TKD this is a practical expression of self defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because nobody has to pretend.


Okay, I'm back at my computer, so I can reply more fully. This may take a while, because you keep jumping between attacks. When I reply to one, you point at the other and say, "What about that, though?" So, I reply to that one, and you point back at the other, and say, "Yeah, but what does that have to do with the other thing?"

So, I'll try to hit the major points all at once for you.

Firstly, Nihon Goshin Aikido is not the same as the art simply titled "Aikido" (Aikido is both a single art and a designation of a group of arts, so it gets confusing). I've explained this before in threads you participated in, so you should be aware of this. So, any time you bring up something that's a common perception of Aikido - whether accurate or not - is rarely going to be relevant to NGA. There are no common perceptions of NGA - we're a relative unknown in the MA world, existing mostly in the eastern seabord of the US, with some outliers in 3 other states, I think.

Next, you keep coming back to an approach to training for the principle of aiki and the movement related to that principle. I understand your basic objection to it, but you make two major errors in your argument:

You keep ignoring that we all - yep, even those training for MMA - sometimes "pretend" as attackers. We feed drills with exactly the situation the drill calls for. Some - yes, some, but I'll get to that later - of the drills for practicing aiki use a specific kind of attack. It involves over-commitment of the weight forward, to train not adding muscle in an aiki flow (I can address why that is if you want, but won't here - it would take us off the topic at hand). This overcommitment is most likely to happen in one of 4 scenarios: drunk, madder than hell, untrained/uncoordinated, or have been drawn into it. The last one is what we work toward, but can't be initially trained - you need the movement before you can do that. So, the drills use movement based upon an actual overcommitment that actually happens. But nobody does it during training unless they screw up, so your suggestion that we should just wait for it to happen in training, and then use that to teach is beyond silly.
You keep taking that one part of our training, and acting like it's all we do. You make that assumption despite the fact that we - you and I - have actually discussed some of the other things we do. You just keep acting like all we do is wait for someone to overcommit, or we're screwed. And, yet, you know that's not the case the same way you know we use that overcommitment - I've told you.
Thirdly, you bring up the problem of failure of one response as if it's a failure of the art. Okay, so this is really a continuation of the previous one, but I needed a new paragraph to keep things organized. We let things fail. That's part of the flow of our movement (part of what we're working on with that aiki flow). If I get resistance to an arm bar, I know what that resistance is leading me to, and I let them fail right into the next technique. That principle applies across what we do - across the way I teach. If there's not a good grappling answer available, we'll beat them. We have options across a wide range - actually, not dissimilar to the range MMA works with (striking, takedowns, groundwork), though we take a softer flow to it and don't usually train it with the same intensity.

Okay, now to the one you seem to have gotten lost in the middle of: that aiki can be stopped by someone who understands it. That's not as odd as you think. Remember, it's not the entirety of what we do (I covered that above). I'm not great at Judo, but I can take away hip and shoulder throws absolutely unless they are simply strong enough to haul me against my will. That's not a flaw in Judo, that I can stymie those. If I'm absolutely stymieing those, I'm very open to something like osoto gari. That's not much different from NGA's situation when aiki is taken away. We have other tools to use. The issue is that aiki - when your opponent knows that's what you train, and has any understanding of it - can almost remove opportunities absolutely. I say almost, because they'll sometimes - really rarely - still make the mistake of overcommitment. But it's far more common among the untrained, angry, and those who don't know what we're about to do. I've verified that last one regularly with new students coming in. They make that mistake more when they walk in the door (even if they have prior training) than they do 6 months or a year later. Avoiding that mistake is part of our training. So, while you see it as a problem that it isn't available against each other, it's actually a result of training. It would be odd, wouldn't it, if a Judoka was as easy to throw as a Karateka? 

Lastly (at least I think - I'm losing track of your jumping back and forth), you keep jumping back and forth. Pick one and let's discuss it awhile if you want to get somewhere. You usually have some good points to make, and I appreciate you being willing to push a point, but for jimminy sake, push one, rather than batting two of them back and forth as if they are the same thing.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Okay, I'm back at my computer, so I can reply more fully. This may take a while, because you keep jumping between attacks. When I reply to one, you point at the other and say, "What about that, though?" So, I reply to that one, and you point back at the other, and say, "Yeah, but what does that have to do with the other thing?"
> 
> So, I'll try to hit the major points all at once for you.
> 
> Firstly, Nihon Goshin Aikido is not the same as the art simply titled "Aikido" (Aikido is both a single art and a designation of a group of arts, so it gets confusing). I've explained this before in threads you participated in, so you should be aware of this. So, any time you bring up something that's a common perception of Aikido - whether accurate or not - is rarely going to be relevant to NGA. There are no common perceptions of NGA - we're a relative unknown in the MA world, existing mostly in the eastern seabord of the US, with some outliers in 3 other states, I think.
> 
> Next, you keep coming back to an approach to training for the principle of aiki and the movement related to that principle. I understand your basic objection to it, but you make two major errors in your argument:
> 
> You keep ignoring that we all - yep, even those training for MMA - sometimes "pretend" as attackers. We feed drills with exactly the situation the drill calls for. Some - yes, some, but I'll get to that later - of the drills for practicing aiki use a specific kind of attack. It involves over-commitment of the weight forward, to train not adding muscle in an aiki flow (I can address why that is if you want, but won't here - it would take us off the topic at hand). This overcommitment is most likely to happen in one of 4 scenarios: drunk, madder than hell, untrained/uncoordinated, or have been drawn into it. The last one is what we work toward, but can't be initially trained - you need the movement before you can do that. So, the drills use movement based upon an actual overcommitment that actually happens. But nobody does it during training unless they screw up, so your suggestion that we should just wait for it to happen in training, and then use that to teach is beyond silly.
> You keep taking that one part of our training, and acting like it's all we do. You make that assumption despite the fact that we - you and I - have actually discussed some of the other things we do. You just keep acting like all we do is wait for someone to overcommit, or we're screwed. And, yet, you know that's not the case the same way you know we use that overcommitment - I've told you.
> Thirdly, you bring up the problem of failure of one response as if it's a failure of the art. Okay, so this is really a continuation of the previous one, but I needed a new paragraph to keep things organized. We let things fail. That's part of the flow of our movement (part of what we're working on with that aiki flow). If I get resistance to an arm bar, I know what that resistance is leading me to, and I let them fail right into the next technique. That principle applies across what we do - across the way I teach. If there's not a good grappling answer available, we'll beat them. We have options across a wide range - actually, not dissimilar to the range MMA works with (striking, takedowns, groundwork), though we take a softer flow to it and don't usually train it with the same intensity.
> 
> Okay, now to the one you seem to have gotten lost in the middle of: that aiki can be stopped by someone who understands it. That's not as odd as you think. Remember, it's not the entirety of what we do (I covered that above). I'm not great at Judo, but I can take away hip and shoulder throws absolutely unless they are simply strong enough to haul me against my will. That's not a flaw in Judo, that I can stymie those. If I'm absolutely stymieing those, I'm very open to something like osoto gari. That's not much different from NGA's situation when aiki is taken away. We have other tools to use. The issue is that aiki - when your opponent knows that's what you train, and has any understanding of it - can almost remove opportunities absolutely. I say almost, because they'll sometimes - really rarely - still make the mistake of overcommitment. But it's far more common among the untrained, angry, and those who don't know what we're about to do. I've verified that last one regularly with new students coming in. They make that mistake more when they walk in the door (even if they have prior training) than they do 6 months or a year later. Avoiding that mistake is part of our training. So, while you see it as a problem that it isn't available against each other, it's actually a result of training. It would be odd, wouldn't it, if a Judoka was as easy to throw as a Karateka?
> 
> Lastly (at least I think - I'm losing track of your jumping back and forth), you keep jumping back and forth. Pick one and let's discuss it awhile if you want to get somewhere. You usually have some good points to make, and I appreciate you being willing to push a point, but for jimminy sake, push one, rather than batting two of them back and forth as if they are the same thing.


s
Show me a video of exactly the sort of training you are doing. Because it still sounds like you are feeding an attack in a manner you think a person on YouTube is feeding an attack.

And if you are not a hundred percent sure of exactly what that attack entails you are shooting yourself in the foot technique wise.

So if you are supplying the over commitment but not the speed. You will get false feedback.

If you use different set ups and timing. You will get false feedback.

And one of the biggest indicators of false feedback is when you go from drills to live resisted training training and your move falls apart. And this is what you are describing. 

As soon as your partner makes a fight of it your technique stops working.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> s
> Show me a video of exactly the sort of training you are doing. Because it still sounds like you are feeding an attack in a manner you think a person on YouTube is feeding an attack.


In some drills, we are. I sometimes use videos of attacks to build drills, to make sure we're not skipping attacks.



> And if you are not a hundred percent sure of exactly what that attack entails you are shooting yourself in the foot technique wise.


I'm never 100% sure of anything. But I can see the mechanics of an attack, and can replicate those mechanics within reason.



> So if you are supplying the over commitment but not the speed. You will get false feedback.


As with any drills, there are levels to these. Starting out, they are slow. Eventually, they are full-speed.



> If you use different set ups and timing. You will get false feedback.


There are different set-ups and timing in the actual attacks, so those vary from drill to drill, as well.



> And one of the biggest indicators of false feedback is when you go from drills to live resisted training training and your move falls apart. And this is what you are describing.


Nope. The move doesn't fall apart. If someone messes up and provides that input in live sparring, the move absolutely works. You're confusing availability with reliability. A different version of aiki (not what I've termed "pure aiki" in past discussions) is available when the over-commitment isn't there, or we miss the timing for it. We move with what we're given, and part of what we learn is to feel/recognize that availability. If there's a bit of resistance in the wrong direction, we don't flow into that aiki move, but flow into whatever is actually available. That's what I meant by letting things fail - we don't pursue the technique we want. We let it fail early (as soon as we find that resistance) and move to something that's more available.



> As soon as your partner makes a fight of it your technique stops working.


Nope. The technique might not be available, but that's back to my point earlier about ground technique. Ground technique isn't generally available when everyone is still standing (there are techniques that show up both ground and standing, but not many). That's not ground technique failing - it's just not time for ground technique.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> In some drills, we are. I sometimes use videos of attacks to build drills, to make sure we're not skipping attacks.
> 
> 
> I'm never 100% sure of anything. But I can see the mechanics of an attack, and can replicate those mechanics within reason.
> 
> 
> As with any drills, there are levels to these. Starting out, they are slow. Eventually, they are full-speed.
> 
> 
> There are different set-ups and timing in the actual attacks, so those vary from drill to drill, as well.
> 
> 
> Nope. The move doesn't fall apart. If someone messes up and provides that input in live sparring, the move absolutely works. You're confusing availability with reliability. A different version of aiki (not what I've termed "pure aiki" in past discussions) is available when the over-commitment isn't there, or we miss the timing for it. We move with what we're given, and part of what we learn is to feel/recognize that availability. If there's a bit of resistance in the wrong direction, we don't flow into that aiki move, but flow into whatever is actually available. That's what I meant by letting things fail - we don't pursue the technique we want. We let it fail early (as soon as we find that resistance) and move to something that's more available.
> 
> 
> Nope. The technique might not be available, but that's back to my point earlier about ground technique. Ground technique isn't generally available when everyone is still standing (there are techniques that show up both ground and standing, but not many). That's not ground technique failing - it's just not time for ground technique.



You are not getting practical imput from streetfighters. Your aikido guy who may never have been in a streetfight and may never have thrown a successful streetfighting punch has gone on youtube. Watched a successful punch and is trying to pretend to do that. Then you are defending Aikido guy who has never fought's punch and thinking that it is anything like a roided up neck tattoo throwing a shot that is designed to take your head off.

The people who are feeding me whatever technique at whatever speed have successfully used the techniques they are feeding. That is why they are feeding it in the manner they are feeding it.

So your guy is pretending to be something he isnt to create the illusion that your defence works. So you can drill that untill the cows come home. But you are not training to stop a streetfighting punch.

You are training to stop an Aikido guy who is being forced to punch badly.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> Odd - I couldn't tell if that was slippery or not. In a couple of places, folks seemed to slip like it was icy, but then there was that stupid flying kick thing by the third attacker, and he didn't slip (and he had every right to). The defender is either someone with really good balance, so he never slipped a single step, or he just did a better job picking places to put his feet.



Ok here is my point. 
This is functional training.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=434746433551250
			




This is stupid.





The difference between functional training and stupid training is not exactly along the lines people think it is.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

How the hell is this argument still going on? And why the hell did I just read 477 posts of it?


----------



## drop bear

kempodisciple said:


> How the hell is this argument still going on? And why the hell did I just read 477 posts of it?



Mostly because self defence discussion is so completely consumed with misinformation and self interest that finding any sort of reasonable conclusion is a long process.


----------



## granfire

kempodisciple said:


> How the hell is this argument still going on? And why the hell did I just read 477 posts of it?


well, it's your own fault you read all 477 posts!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are not getting practical imput from streetfighters.


An assumption.



> Your aikido guy who may never have been in a streetfight and may never have thrown a successful streetfighting punch


Another assumption


> has gone on youtube. Watched a successful punch and is trying to pretend to do that. Then you are defending Aikido guy who has never fought's punch and thinking that it is anything like a roided up neck tattoo throwing a shot that is designed to take your head off.


Another assumption



> The people who are feeding me whatever technique at whatever speed have successfully used the techniques they are feeding. That is why they are feeding it in the manner they are feeding it.


You start to make a good point here. I teach people to deliver the punch "properly" for the drill. So, yes, they have actually delivered that technique. Not as an actual attack in some (not all - that's where your assumption fails), because it's not something that fits into our strategy.



> So your guy is pretending to be something he isnt to create the illusion that your defence works. So you can drill that untill the cows come home. But you are not training to stop a streetfighting punch.


Again, you equate one type of drill with the entirety of training, and heap in a bunch of assumptions. As long as you do that, I don't see any chance for either of us to learn anything from this interchange.



> You are training to stop an Aikido guy who is being forced to punch badly.


And you, when you first learned to sprawl against a shoot, learned to stop someone who is being forced to shoot badly, in that he wasn't bringing his best game, and was feeding what the drill called for. An over-committed punch, using those mechanics, is not so different. It presents different weight, and sometimes and over-reach (which creates the over-commitment). You'd understand better if you stopped assuming you know the drill and actually try to understand it. But you are more concerned with being right than being accurate, more concerned with showing something wrong with Aikido (any branch of it will do fine for you), than with sharing information. You're sparring against someone, trying to win, when you're not in a contest. You're wasting your time and mine.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> An assumption.
> 
> 
> Another assumption
> 
> Another assumption
> 
> 
> You start to make a good point here. I teach people to deliver the punch "properly" for the drill. So, yes, they have actually delivered that technique. Not as an actual attack in some (not all - that's where your assumption fails), because it's not something that fits into our strategy.
> 
> 
> Again, you equate one type of drill with the entirety of training, and heap in a bunch of assumptions. As long as you do that, I don't see any chance for either of us to learn anything from this interchange.
> 
> 
> And you, when you first learned to sprawl against a shoot, learned to stop someone who is being forced to shoot badly, in that he wasn't bringing his best game, and was feeding what the drill called for. An over-committed punch, using those mechanics, is not so different. It presents different weight, and sometimes and over-reach (which creates the over-commitment). You'd understand better if you stopped assuming you know the drill and actually try to understand it. But you are more concerned with being right than being accurate, more concerned with showing something wrong with Aikido (any branch of it will do fine for you), than with sharing information. You're sparring against someone, trying to win, when you're not in a contest. You're wasting your time and mine.



The reason I make these assumptions is that the likley hood that you are getting in a successful streetfighter to train your guys to properly throw what is inproper punches is pretty unlikley.

So the defence against shooting is a very good example because it is exactly the issue I am discussing. And it is super common. There is no evidence you are doing anything differentially.

Aikido guy who can't do a double leg takedown vs an Aikido guy who can't defend one equals you training to defend rubbish with rubbish and you will quite simply never know what works and what doesn't.











If you are concerned about learning I would be more concerned with holding on to this training method for dear life and less concerned about arguing with me.

You are desparate to justify unworkable techniques because you have spent a lifetime believeing they work. Rather than putting them in a situation where they either work or they don't. And then putting in the work to either fix the techniques of replace them.

What you do instead is replace the attack.

This is not an Aikido hate thing there is nothing stopping you training against realistic techniques and seeing what happens. This is just you and your ego. And an unwillingness to take an honest look at your training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> The reason I make these assumptions is that the likley hood that you are getting in a successful streetfighter to train your guys to properly throw what is inproper punches is pretty unlikley.
> 
> So the defence against shooting is a very good example because it is exactly the issue I am discussing. And it is super common. There is no evidence you are doing anything differentially.
> 
> Aikido guy who can't do a double leg takedown vs an Aikido guy who can't defend one equals you training to defend rubbish with rubbish and you will quite simply never know what works and what doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are concerned about learning I would be more concerned with holding on to this training method for dear life and less concerned about arguing with me.
> 
> You are desparate to justify unworkable techniques because you have spent a lifetime believeing they work. Rather than putting them in a situation where they either work or they don't. And then putting in the work to either fix the techniques of replace them.
> 
> What you do instead is replace the attack.
> 
> This is not an Aikido hate thing there is nothing stopping you training against realistic techniques and seeing what happens. This is just you and your ego. And an unwillingness to take an honest look at your training.


You continue to equate one part of training with the whole of training, ignoring past discussions where we’ve talked about other areas of work, other drills, and other approaches. You have valid points to make, but we can’t actually get to them, because you’re too busy making generalizations and assumptions. It’s time to drop this line - it’s profiting nobody.


----------



## granfire

I love those 'BUT STREET' discussions.
they inadvertently turn into a water letting contest....


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You continue to equate one part of training with the whole of training, ignoring past discussions where we’ve talked about other areas of work, other drills, and other approaches. You have valid points to make, but we can’t actually get to them, because you’re too busy making generalizations and assumptions. It’s time to drop this line - it’s profiting nobody.



You are too busy defending your ego on a method that is just silly. If part of your training is silly. It does not make it good because it is only part of your training.

Why you keep trying to defend unworkable methods is beyond me. But while you do continue to defend silly training. I will continue to point out it is silly.

Dressing people up like street fighters who are not street fighters. Is not the same as a judoka doing a judo throw with less intensity.

That is pretty obvious.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> You are too busy defending your ego on a method that is just silly. If part of your training is silly. It does not make it good because it is only part of your training.
> 
> Why you keep trying to defend unworkable methods is beyond me. But while you do continue to defend silly training. I will continue to point out it is silly.
> 
> Dressing people up like street fighters who are not street fighters. Is not the same as a judoka doing a judo throw with less intensity.
> 
> That is pretty obvious.


I don’t actually need to defend it. There are legitimate issues that can be raised, but you’re too busy making silly assumptions to make yourself right to actually make the salient points. You make specious destinations between similar drill concepts, and avoid actual discussion by using each argument as a reply to a response to each other argument. 

You might try looking back to see if I ever claimed people were delivering exactly the attack of a “street fighter”. I’ll save you the time: I never did. What I said was they were replicating the mechanics of attacks that are found in street attacks. Your repeated attacks on a statement I’ve not made are yet another example of your frequent use of straw man arguments. You’d rather “win” than actually make a useful point. I’m done with this discussion.


----------

