# conversation is sparring not kata.



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.

it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.

kata is given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions. Because it is the way it is done and the way everybody else is doing it.

it might work it might not. That is not the point. It is not up to you to test the theory or disagree. It is up to you to be educated and follow the movements as instructed.

but that is not conversation.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 25, 2014)

Oh dear lord… 



drop bear said:


> In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.



No. Sparring is the training methodology to attempt to to apply skills, which might be based on an "idea" you have (although not necessarily, or even regularly), or not.



drop bear said:


> it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.



Which also suits other training methods, including...



drop bear said:


> kata is given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions. Because it is the way it is done and the way everybody else is doing it.



No. You really don't seem to get what kata is, bluntly.

Kata is the tactical expression of the art. It is a training device designed to impart tactical lessons, not technical ones. It is educating you in the combative ideas and ideals of a particular system, not giving you a list of repeated actions as an end or aim in and of themselves. You do it that way because that is the way the art is expressed and learnt/understood, not because "that's the way everyone is doing it". And the "authority" in question is the art itself, as presented to you by your instructor.



drop bear said:


> it might work it might not. That is not the point. It is not up to you to test the theory or disagree. It is up to you to be educated and follow the movements as instructed.



No. You really don't seem to get what kata is, bluntly.

It is up to you to test it. That's the point of bunkai in many karate systems… and, when it comes to other kata forms (such as Japanese kata), testing is a big part of it. It has to "work" (within it's context and parameters), or there's no point… but, of course, first you need to get what it means for it to "work" in the first place.



drop bear said:


> but that is not conversation.



None of what you've mentioned here is conversation… but, to be blunt, yes, kata can be a "conversation", exactly the same way that sparring can be… but, in the context of this forum here, conversation is the communication between different people, using the medium of the typed word, with the aim of sharing ideas and insights, not fighting against others.

Conversation is not sparring.


----------



## K-man (Dec 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.
> 
> it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.
> 
> ...


Sparring in the context of conversation is what gets threads locked. Discussion is just that. Discussing an issue in a civilised way. Once you are 'sparring', you are needling other people to get a response, something you have become quite adept at.

Now you ides of kata is quite bizarre. "Given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions", is as far from the truth as it could be. Please at least stick to issues you have some knowledge of. Kata is not one of them.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 25, 2014)

You spar to work a lesson or lessons, and then you go work on forms to work a lesson or lessons. I hope that clears things up for you.


----------



## Steve (Dec 25, 2014)

I think this is an interesting idea, and I see what you mean.   I think there are several,kinds of conversation.   A discussion is not a debate, and we run into trouble when we fail to distinguish them.

There are times when I'm debating, and I'd say that a debate is a kind of sparring.   A discussion, however, is just that.  Not sparring.   At most, I'm sharing an opinion.   I'm not trying to persuade anyone, and I'm not really interested in defending my position.   

The issue around here is that we have conflict when some people are debating and others are trying to have a discussion.   Further, I think some people think they're discussing the topic, when they're actually debating it, and they're not skilled enough communicators to realize it.  

Bottom line is debate drives the forum.  But there's a place for sharing opinions without pushing an agenda.

Edit.   Just want to add that a lot of threads go south because of this.  You can see in most threads that one side, the debaters, continue to push a position.   The other side inevitably start focusing on the nature of the debate and not the subject of the debate. 

If people who are interested in discussions would simply avoid being drawn into debates, there would be less conflict.   Conversely, if people who are interested in debates would respect that sometimes a direct answer to a direct question is all you get, there would be less conflict, too.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

K-man said:


> Sparring in the context of conversation is what gets threads locked. Discussion is just that. Discussing an issue in a civilised way. Once you are 'sparring', you are needling other people to get a response, something you have become quite adept at.
> 
> Now you ides of kata is quite bizarre. "Given to you by a person of authority requiring you to follow their instructions", is as far from the truth as it could be. Please at least stick to issues you have some knowledge of. Kata is not one of them.



poor sparring etiquette is what gets threads locked. It moves from a conversation to a fight. Or in this case a lecture.

interesting that you are giving me instruction from your position of authority. As opposed to having a conversation.

so lets look at kata. I don't know how you do it. But when I did it. My instructor,the person in authority. Gave instructions that we followed. It was not the place to work out an idea.

like the conversation we are having now.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

Steve said:


> I think this is an interesting idea, and I see what you mean.   I think there are several,kinds of conversation.   A discussion is not a debate, and we run into trouble when we fail to distinguish them.
> 
> There are times when I'm debating, and I'd say that a debate is a kind of sparring.   A discussion, however, is just that.  Not sparring.   At most, I'm sharing an opinion.   I'm not trying to persuade anyone, and I'm not really interested in defending my position.
> 
> ...



emotionally invested in their debates possibly?

for me i try to play the ball rather than the man. This thread has come from people playing the man. Which is generally considered pretty low class even in a debate.


----------



## Hanzou (Dec 25, 2014)

Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.

And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> You spar to work a lesson or lessons, and then you go work on forms to work a lesson or lessons. I hope that clears things up for you.



the forms are like a notation made about your training. Once it is settled you know what works. You collate you findings into kata.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 25, 2014)

I think it hits the fan when certain people fail to argue the topic at hand and start making value judgments of the people they are talking to. You can tell by the types of questions they ask. It can be quite irritating. However, I am a troll at heart, and see it as a challenge.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.
> 
> And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.



the thing is everybody has to find their own way. Otherwise we are all doing the same thing.

diversity is what makes a system like martial arts grow.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 25, 2014)

Hanzou said:


> Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.
> 
> And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.


I'm sure it shows.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> I think it hits the fan when certain people fail to argue the topic at hand and start making value judgments of the people they are talking to. You can tell by the types of questions they ask. It can be quite irritating. However, I am a troll at heart, and see it as a challenge.



ditto. Because if I have a position i need to have more thought behind it than it feels right.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> the forms are like a notation made about your training. Once it is settled you know what works. You collate you findings into kata.


I work a grave yard shift, mostly by myself; so, the whole damn night is a spontaneous kata.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh dear lord…
> 
> 
> 
> ...



bunkai as you describe it would be the conversation though.

even as you describe kata. Doesn't make it a conversation. It makes it a lecture.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> bunkai as you describe it would be the conversation though.
> 
> even as you describe kata. Doesn't make it a conversation. It makes it a lecture.


This is true, but you must understand that most people know what they know from a lecture, and are just repeating what they were told to think.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 25, 2014)

Conversation is neither sparring nor kata, but let's look at the metaphor for a little bit.

Your fundamental idea (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you can test your ideas in conversation through spirited debate. If you have flaws in your premises or your logic, then the person you are debating will point them out, just as in sparring your partner will expose the weaknesses in your attacks and defenses. So far, so good.

Now let's look at the ramifications and limitations of this approach ...

1) Not all conversation is debate. To extend the metaphor a bit, you only spar with people who have agreed to do so and who have agreed on the rules. If you start a "sparring" session by walking up to a random person on the street and throwing jabs at them, then you aren't sparring - you're starting a fight. You wouldn't do that in real life. Don't do it metaphorically on a board devoted to friendly conversation either.

2) Remember, the value of sparring is in learning, not "winning". The same thing goes in a debate. Here we have a problem. In physical sparring, you know for sure when you've been hit or tapped out. In debate, it's easy to be the kid in a game of cops and robbers who continually insists "nuh uh, you missed" every time he gets "shot."

If you want to have a chance of learning something about whether your ideas hold up to scrutiny in debate, then you need a few things to happen.
a) You need to understand clearly the points your "sparring "partner" is making. That doesn't mean jeering at a straw man position you make up and put in their mouth. That means you could paraphrase the other person's position in such a way that they would say "that's it. That's exactly what I'm trying to say."
b) You need to make your own points clearly enough that your "sparring partner" understands exactly what _you_ are trying to say so that they can make their best argument against them. (Note - sarcastic quips don't work well for this purpose.)
c) You need to avoid provoking emotional responses. If you make the other person mad, then they aren't going to offer careful analysis of the weak spot in the third logical step of your argument. They're going to just start insulting you and you won't learn anything from that.
d) You need to be ruthlessly honest with yourself. There are no judges to call the points against you. You don't have the actual physical experience of being choked unconscious. You have to be able and willing to say "Huh, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I'm wrong about this." Hint - if you never find yourself doing that then you aren't getting any value out of your debates and should probably stick to casual friendly conversation.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 25, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> This is true, but you must understand that most people know what they know from a lecture, and are just repeating what they were told to think.



which is not something i really do. Especially with martial arts. I am more of a take it apart and break it guy.


----------



## Steve (Dec 25, 2014)

Some very good points here.  I really like what tony said above. 

 I also want to recognize drop bears point about lecturing.  Its a very good one, IMO.   Lecturing can be as destructive to a friendly discussion as an unwelcome debate.   

I personally don't enjoy discussing things with people who are lecturing me in return.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> which is not something i really do. Especially with martial arts. I am more of a take it apart and break it guy.


Then you would Love Kata,  We spend days breaking a Kata down taking it apart and discovering new meanings


----------



## geezer (Dec 25, 2014)

drop bear said:


> In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.
> 
> it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.
> 
> ...



Tony already covered this pretty thoroughly, but to put it very simply, I'd say that_ forms, _as I train them, are not unlike _verbal recitation, _while sparring is comparable to _debate_. Both are valid methods of learning. Verbally, recitation of great works provides a model to follow, while debate allows us to engage with others and test our ideas and logic against theirs. My training requires both methods ...and others as well.


----------



## geezer (Dec 25, 2014)

@ Drop Bear: There is sparring between buddies or well intentioned acquaintances directed at both parties learning from the experience. Then again,  there are those occasions when you enter into what _you think_ will be such a productive session, and your opponent has such an _attitude of disdain_ for your skill and experience that you can either continue and engage in a_ fight_, or bow out and seek another partner to work with.

On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, _"Oh, dear lord..."_ I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 25, 2014)

geezer said:


> @ Drop Bear: There is sparring between buddies or well intentioned acquaintances directed at both parties learning from the experience. Then again,  there are those occasions when you enter into what _you think_ will be such a productive session, and your opponent has such an _attitude of disdain_ for your skill and experience that you can either continue and engage in a_ fight_, or bow out and seek another partner to work with.
> 
> On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, _"Oh, dear lord..."_ I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.


I usually reserve, "Oh Dear Lord" for the videos.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2014)

geezer said:


> @ Drop Bear: There is sparring between buddies or well intentioned acquaintances directed at both parties learning from the experience. Then again,  there are those occasions when you enter into what _you think_ will be such a productive session, and your opponent has such an _attitude of disdain_ for your skill and experience that you can either continue and engage in a_ fight_, or bow out and seek another partner to work with.
> 
> On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, _"Oh, dear lord..."_ I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.



yeah but what are you going to do?

this is kind of my point. That those who fire out those comments should not be so surprised at the response.

because conversation is sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 26, 2014)

MAMA Martial Arts Mommy Archives Sparring is a Conversation Not a Monologue


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> poor sparring etiquette is what gets threads locked. It moves from a conversation to a fight. Or in this case a lecture.



No, "poor sparring etiquette" is not what gets threads locked… multiple reported posts is what gets threads locked. And those reports come from a range of sources and reasons… there's nothing about "sparring etiquette" at all… as, well, this ain't sparring. I'm not here to spar with you. Bluntly, I don't consider that you're in a position to "spar" with me… or that you have the requisite skills and knowledge base to attempt it. 

Look. that's not an attack on you at all… simply an observation of where we're both coming from. But, importantly, disagreeing isn't a fight… correcting isn't fighting either. A lecture? Maybe… but, to be frank again, sometimes that's required. 



drop bear said:


> interesting that you are giving me instruction from your position of authority. As opposed to having a conversation.



You're being corrected. That's not going to be a conversation. It's going to be a statement made with the aim of improving your understanding, rather than to say "hey, here's an alternative way of thinking"… it's simply not appropriate, when it all comes down to it.



drop bear said:


> so lets look at kata. I don't know how you do it. But when I did it. My instructor,the person in authority. Gave instructions that we followed. It was not the place to work out an idea.



And that's the very beginning of how you learn kata… again, the very beginning of how you learn it. It's hardly the entirety of kata the same way that learning to say "hello, goodbye, where is the train station?" is the entirety of learning a language. If you didn't progress beyond that in your classes, either due to time in training, or due to the lower level of the training you received, it really doesn't change the fact that kata training is a lot more than you have suggested or written.



drop bear said:


> like the conversation we are having now.



This, believe it or not, isn't necessarily intended as a conversation. You presented an idea (for the fourth or fifth time now), and it's been demonstrated that it is lacking by most contributors. We haven't asked for counters.



drop bear said:


> emotionally invested in their debates possibly?
> 
> for me i try to play the ball rather than the man. This thread has come from people playing the man. Which is generally considered pretty low class even in a debate.



No, you play the man constantly. You constantly attempt to have a range of little digs aimed at a number of posters, and what they've told you (including myself), in an attempt to mock them by trying to twist their words back. Sadly, you also constantly miss the point of what they've told you.

I'll leave it to you what level of class that is.



Hanzou said:


> Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.



Er… okay… kinda besides the point of what's being discussed here, but glad to see you can bring your issues across as well… 



Hanzou said:


> And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.



Yes, debates can be. There hasn't been any question on that. The question is whether or not conversation (not debate) is "sparring".



drop bear said:


> the forms are like a notation made about your training. Once it is settled you know what works. You collate you findings into kata.



Hmm… partly, but partly not. A big part of it is exactly what is being collated, really… and how.



drop bear said:


> the thing is everybody has to find their own way. Otherwise we are all doing the same thing.



Yep, this I agree with.



drop bear said:


> diversity is what makes a system like martial arts grow.



This, a little less. For one thing, what system is "martial arts"? But, a little more seriously, it really, really depends on the art itself.



drop bear said:


> bunkai as you describe it would be the conversation though.



Not really… it can very much be a solo endeavour… although it can be, and is, done with a partner. What bunkai is is an exploration within the kata, which can take a number of forms.  



drop bear said:


> even as you describe kata. Doesn't make it a conversation. It makes it a lecture.



Lectures are a format of communication to impart lessons… so, yeah. Mind you, I never said kata was a conversation… I was saying that a conversation isn't sparring… and pointing out that what you think you know kata is, isn't what it actually is. But hey, here's some kata that is more of a "conversation" for you…





(start from about 6:30)













drop bear said:


> which is not something i really do. Especially with martial arts. I am more of a take it apart and break it guy.



Hmm… you don't really learn from being told based on the knowledge of others? Really? Okay… for the record, of course, it should be pointed out that "take it apart" is a big part of kata training, and, well, pretty much all martial arts… thing is, once you do that, 99% of the time you'll find that the way it's been taught is the best method for it… which is the point of having it as kata in the first place.



Steve said:


> Some very good points here.  I really like what tony said above.
> 
> I also want to recognize drop bears point about lecturing.  Its a very good one, IMO.   Lecturing can be as destructive to a friendly discussion as an unwelcome debate.
> 
> I personally don't enjoy discussing things with people who are lecturing me in return.



It depends entirely on what the reasons for communication are. It's been commented that I lecture a bit here and there… and, honestly, a lecture isn't entirely the way it's intended… but, to be blunt, I am not here to ask questions. 



geezer said:


> On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, _"Oh, dear lord..."_ I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.



Then let's clear up why such a phrase might be used… it's an expression of exasperation, used when the same topic that has been presented, countered, discussed, and moved on from… and is then brought up again. So, no, it's not necessarily the "second scenario" you presented… 



drop bear said:


> yeah but what are you going to do?



Honestly? Listen.



drop bear said:


> this is kind of my point. That those who fire out those comments should not be so surprised at the response.



I'm surprised by nothing in your responses, for the record.



drop bear said:


> because conversation is sparring.



No. It isn't. For the ninth time, it really, really isn't.



drop bear said:


> MAMA Martial Arts Mommy Archives Sparring is a Conversation Not a Monologue



And you've used that before as well… and had explained to you (at length) that saying that sparring is a conversation is far from saying that conversation is sparring… not that you listened the first time… or the second, it seems… of course, I'd also point out that the blog post itself is not actually about the idea of sparring being a conversation either, despite it's purported message and title… it's about having awareness and sensitivity to your training partner… which is a different idea entirely.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 27, 2014)

geezer said:


> On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, _"Oh, dear lord..."_ I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.



I can fully appreciate Chris Parker's exasperation.  This '_conversation_' with Drop Bear (and by extenstion Hanzou) started months ago and many, many threads ago.  This is just the latest pre-packaged attempt at the same thing.  Looking at DB's OP, Chris is correct, DB has absolutely no concept of what kata actually is.  *He has not been trained correctly by someone that knows what a kata actually is*.  Neither has Hanzou.  And rather than attempt a '_conversation_' with those that do know what a kata actually is, as a means of gaining knowledge, they dig in with multiple threads on their same lack of experience and education.  That may sound like a flame, but it is not.  That is just examining the situation as it exists.

DB and Hanzou, unfortunately, don't know what a kata truly is, how it is used for training and how that training is effective in real world altercations.  I feel sad for them.  But what is even sadder is that they don't want to know.  Rather they choose to waste bandwidth again and again arguing from a position of ignorance.  That isn't a conversation.  People that likely have been training longer than they've been alive have patiently tried to explain what a kata is and why it is an effective means of training.  They disregard it.  Their loss.


----------



## Steve (Dec 27, 2014)

geezer said:


> @ Drop Bear: There is sparring between buddies or well intentioned acquaintances directed at both parties learning from the experience. Then again,  there are those occasions when you enter into what _you think_ will be such a productive session, and your opponent has such an _attitude of disdain_ for your skill and experience that you can either continue and engage in a_ fight_, or bow out and seek another partner to work with.
> 
> [ b]On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, _"Oh, dear lord..."_ I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.[/b]


 hey, geezer.   You were right.  Should we continue the metaphor by discussing the dangers of unchecked ego within sparring?  



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 27, 2014)

How so, Steve?


----------



## Steve (Dec 27, 2014)

How do you think, Chris?   You're a bright guy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## geezer (Dec 27, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I can fully appreciate Chris Parker's exasperation.  ...Looking at DB's OP, Chris is correct, DB has absolutely no concept of what kata actually is.  *He has not been trained correctly by someone that knows what a kata actually is*.



We all know that forms are practiced in many different ways in different systems and schools. DB is just speaking from a different experience than you and Chris. His remarks reflect that experience and perhaps his own temperament and learning style as well.

He has every right to voice his opinion on his experiences. On the other hand, he is out of his depth when generalizing and applying those opinions to what others do. If, as you say, he won't listen and learn, then any response is pointless. Equally, if you respond with condescension, you can hardly expect him to be open to your remarks. This is exactly how conversations become ego-driven arguments.

Arguing with very opinionated people is pointless. Some people will never back down, right or wrong. Take my wife, for example (bada-bum). So, I prefer to point out the differences in how forms or kata are used in different styles and even under different instructors within the same system. I will share what I do and learn from others about what they do. I'll let it go at that.


----------



## Steve (Dec 27, 2014)

Great post, geezer.   

It's been my experience that both sides have valid points.  Where opinions and experiences are involved, it's very possible to have contradictory opinions that are both 'right'.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 27, 2014)

geezer said:


> We all know that forms are practiced in many different ways in different systems and schools. DB is just speaking from a different experience than you and Chris. His remarks reflect that experience and perhaps his own temperament and learning style as well.
> 
> He has every right to voice his opinion on his experiences.



I agree, DB speaks from a different level of experience that several of us than have participated in these discussions.  Does he have the right to voice his opinion?  Sure.  I would ask though, at what point is a person voicing his opinion and at what point is he simply trolling?  I believe that is a valid question.  DB and Hanzou severely lack experience in this area.  That isn't condescending, and I've made that point clear in the past.  It is observation.  I severely lack experience in how points are scored in Thailand during a MT match, therefore I'm not going to start a dozen threads about it.  If I were truly interested I would start ONE thread and allow those that are familiar with it educate me on the way points are scored.  Then I'd say thank you for the education.

This isn't the case here.



> On the other hand, he is out of his depth when generalizing and applying those opinions to what others do.



I quite agree.


> If, as you say, he won't listen and learn, then any response is pointless.



On this I respectfully disagree in one regard.  I agree it is pointless to argue with someone with a closed mind.  However, this thread will be read by more people than just him and Hanzou.  Of these people, some will be quite open minded and desire to look into the matter on a deeper level.  This will enhance their own training considerably.  It is for the benefit of these folks that I will enter the thread.  If at some point DB and/or Hanzou truly wish to expand their knowledge base on kata (and a few other topics) then I will gladly assist them as I can.  I have nothing against them, only the inane comments with no factual basis.



> This is exactly how conversations become ego-driven arguments.



On the parts of some I quite agree.  But not for all parties involved.  For example, one may claim that kata training is not an efficient way to train for realworld self-defense.  However, if someone that uses kata as a basis for realworld self-defense, and has been successful int that regard for decades, and clearly expresses this information, it is not ego-driven, it is factually based.  If on the other hand the original person who made the statement, with no real world experience in this regard still makes the erroneous claim, it is now ego-drive and not factually based.  Quite a difference.

Either DB wants to know more about kata training and why it is effective or he doesn't.  If he is interested he need only reread the multitude of threads already devoted to the subject and them respectfully ask any question he may have to gain clarity.  If he's not interested...then why is this yet another thread on the same thing with a different title?  I think that is a valid question.

Do let's ask the question and see what the answer may be.  This would be for DB as well as Hanzou.  Are either of you truly interested in kata (as in what it is, how it is used and why it is so effective a training method)?  Honest, straight-forward question.  Can we hear what your response is please?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> it's very possible to have contradictory opinions that are both 'right'.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And sometimes people are just wrong


----------



## Steve (Dec 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> And sometimes people are just wrong


Zing.  Good one.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 27, 2014)

You know, on level you could count verbal sparring as a conversation, but I would venture that it would be very good friends who would do that. Siblings would be the foremost though.


Other than that, between civilians, peace officers, or whoever, it would not be. Sparring is the same across the spectrum, I maybe a lunatic, but that is just obvious

No, verbal or otherwise, sparring has only one aim, only one being, to test yourself by both verbal, and physical contact. Hence, verbally that also fits. So, the reality is that both contradict each other. Thus a separation that cannot reflect.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> Zing.  Good one.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wasn't attempting to zing anyone.  You tend to play this "everyone's opinion is valid" game but that's not true sometimes people opinions are just wrong.


----------



## Steve (Dec 27, 2014)

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion.   Some opinions are better grounded in fact than others.   But there are plenty of times around here where two informed, fact based opinions are completely opposite Nd neither is wrong or all right.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> I think everyone is entitled to their opinion.   Some opinions are better grounded in fact than others.   But there are plenty of times around here where two informed, fact based opinions are completely opposite Nd neither is wrong or all right.


Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion.  Not everyone's opinion is correct however.  If you opinion is every other style is inferior to yours because you can't find a clip in youtube if that style in the "cage" then you spend all your time going from subsection to subsection of this forum asking why do we see _________style in the cage we see BJJ in the cage but not ___________.  Well your opinion is wrong.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 27, 2014)

Steve said:


> How do you think, Chris?   You're a bright guy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


This stuff, right here. Turns sparring into a real lesson. LOL


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2014)

geezer said:


> Tony already covered this pretty thoroughly, but to put it very simply, I'd say that_ forms, _as I train them, are not unlike _verbal recitation, _while sparring is comparable to _debate_. Both are valid methods of learning. Verbally, recitation of great works provides a model to follow, while debate allows us to engage with others and test our ideas and logic against theirs. My training requires both methods ...and others as well.



yeah but on the internet if you are treating the conversation like kata. You are basically patronising people.

this conversation we are exploring an idea. You are not patiently educating me. I am not educating you.

seriously. How demeaning is that phrase.

some people don't like kata. And you don't have to do be a martial artist.


----------



## Buka (Dec 27, 2014)

I think some of you guys just like to fight with each other. But that's me.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion.  Not everyone's opinion is correct however.  If you opinion is every other style is inferior to yours because you can't find a clip in youtube if that style in the "cage" then you spend all your time going from subsection to subsection of this forum asking why do we see _________style in the cage we see BJJ in the cage but not ___________.  Well your opinion is wrong.



if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.

and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point.

eg. The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage. But apparently that is not the real knee exploding kick that is successful in the street 

so i got educated on a kick that nobody had thrown successfully. 

the cage reference is valid. There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2014)

Buka said:


> I think some of you guys just like to fight with each other. But that's me.



I do.

i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported. I want my martial arts to work. And that means sometimes getting punched in the face.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I agree, DB speaks from a different level of experience that several of us than have participated in these discussions.  Does he have the right to voice his opinion?  Sure.  I would ask though, at what point is a person voicing his opinion and at what point is he simply trolling?  I believe that is a valid question.  DB and Hanzou severely lack experience in this area.  That isn't condescending, and I've made that point clear in the past.  It is observation.  I severely lack experience in how points are scored in Thailand during a MT match, therefore I'm not going to start a dozen threads about it.  If I were truly interested I would start ONE thread and allow those that are familiar with it educate me on the way points are scored.  Then I'd say thank you for the education.
> 
> This isn't the case here.
> 
> ...



i see the point of kata. I know good fighters who do it and have had a reasonable practical explanation why. I don't like it and find other methods.

your explanation that sparring is detrimental because it does not reflect a fight. Is hanzou,s explanation of why kata is detrimental.

 And i have disagreed with both of you on this subject.

you cant keep the logic that sparring is not realistic but kata is. That just does not make sense. 

and that is basically how you lost me regarding respectfully asking your opinion on kata and its effectiveness.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 27, 2014)

drop bear said:


> I do.
> 
> i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported. I want my martial arts to work. And that means sometimes getting punched in the face.



Yeah, but not on the internet though


----------



## drop bear (Dec 27, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Yeah, but not on the internet though



it a metaphor.

and if people really believed that we wouldn't have arguments.

i think there may be some subjectivity regarding that.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 28, 2014)

drop bear said:


> if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.



Are you seriously going to suggest to the membership of Martial Talk that if a video of what they do isn't on Youtube then it has no evidence to support its validity?  If you need to go to Youtube for your training philosophy then I truly feel sorry for you.  You're not going to find a lot, if anything on YT concerning all the elements of SPEAR, PCR or Boatman edged weapon defense.  Yet a multitude of government entities (i.e. Police & Military) use the full system (or selected elements of the full system depending upon their needs) very successfully.  In fact, I've discussed the statistical efficiency of several of these systems here in the past, the method of training and the retention in long term memory.  

I will take departmental efficiency statistics for real world altercations over randomly chosen YT videos.  



drop bear said:


> and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point.



I've asked you in the past, respectfully, to use capitalization, punctuation and complete sentences.  You get offended.  But if you're going to take the time to write something, and then expect someone to take the time to read it...then have some respect for the person reading it.  The above is just ONE example of a fragmented sentence that makes no sense.  I'm not going to assume what you're trying to say, I expect you to be able to express yourself in an adult fashion using correct grammar.  That isn't too much to ask of anyone.   Capitalization, punctuation and complete sentences are your friend and show you respect the person reading.  An occasional misspelled word is to be expected.  



drop bear said:


> There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.



Many sporting fights get recorded.  The vast number of real world altercations do not get recorded.  Sporting fights are scheduled ahead of time and have many cameras and angles and good lighting etc.  An attack in a parking lot or alley or car isn't scheduled and if it is caught on video it is the exception and not the rule.  Let me repeat so the point isn't lost on you;  the vast number of real world altercations (be it military, police or private citizen) are not on a YT video.  Looking to YT as your sole means of credibility is pure ignorance in the extreme.



drop bear said:


> The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage.



Because you lack real world experience and the means to research statistically proven techniques.  I like YT, I really do.  But it is not the bastion of knowledge you'd like it to be.



drop bear said:


> i see the point of kata. I know good fighters who do it and have had a reasonable practical explanation why. I don't like it and find other methods.



No, I don't think you see or understand the point of kata despite the fact it has been explained, in detail, numerous times by a multitude of members.  You betray you motives with your statement that you don't like kata.  That's fine, you don't have to like it.  You don't have to train using kata.  But your dislike and misunderstanding is not a basis for creating multiple threads on the same thing in a vain attempt to justify your decision.  If you don't like kata...and if you don't want to learn it's benefits...then stop creating so many threads about it.  You're only demonstrating your lack of understanding.



drop bear said:


> your explanation that sparring is detrimental because it does not reflect a fight.



You clearly have NO understanding of what has been explained to you multiple times, in several threads.  Once again, you're being dishonest and disingenuous.  



drop bear said:


> i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported.



Yes, you really are.  



drop bear said:


> you cant keep the logic that sparring is not realistic but kata is. That just does not make sense.



It makes perfect sense.  Sparring (in the manner you have previously described) requires:


A referee
A mutually agreed upon rule set
A single opponent
No weapons (improvised or conventional)

No verbal de-escalation
No opportunity for escape or evasion
A well-lit, flat, dry surface
Safety gear
A kata, when broken down into bunkai:


Can be used without a referee
Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use
Can be against a single or multiple attackers
Can often be used regardless of the position of the victim and attacker(s)
The bunkai can be used with scenario based training that allows more real world factors to be inserted for realism i.e. looking for pre-fight indicators, opportunity to de-escalate, diffuse, evade, escape the situation
Can be trained anywhere, at anytime on any terrain and in any condition
So which one is more realistic for the street?  Seriously.  If your training requires you to observe a specific rule set in training....and requires the opponent to abide by the same rule set...and limits to a weaponless one-on-one sparring match inside a school....well that's just not realistic now is it.  

Sparring can be one limited element of training, but that's all it is.  It in no way, shape or form prepares you for the totality of a real world attack.  Kata training....proper kata training (not to be confused with the cookie-cutter/learn a kata for the next colored belt/class filler variety) can be a more widely useful training tool since it does NOT require either party to subscribe to a specific rule set and has the flexibility to be tailored extensively to realistic training.   

Do you NEED kata?  Nope.  Kata is merely a catalog of training drills (bunkai).  Do you need sparring?  Nope.  To limited if that is the ONLY tool you use.  I DON'T spar (in the way your many YT videos have displayed) and my 'record' over three decades indicates I'm not missing a thing.  

This boils down to sparring vs. scenario based training (again).  Sparring is great for sport because the elements and focus are limited.  Sparring is NOT great for self defense because the elements and focus are limited.  Scenario based training is great for self defense because it mirrors real world events far better in the totality of what is needed.  Scenario based training is NOT great for sport for the same reason.  Kata training (proper kata training) when broken down into bunkai (proper bunkai training) can be inserted quite efficiently into scenario based training.  

So the bottom line take home message is this:


If you don't understand real kata training, and have no inclination to learn real kata training....don't do it
If you think sparring is the ultimate training tool...do it
If you think YT is your ultimate guru...surf it instead of actually training
If you don't want to hear other people's experience, training or perspective...don't post threads
But above all, have a nice day.  I'm going to go '_get down with my bad self_'.  Peace out.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 28, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Are you seriously going to suggest to the membership of Martial Talk that if a video of what they do isn't on Youtube then it has no evidence to support its validity?..............
> 
> .......................If you don't want to hear other people's experience, training or perspective...don't post threads. But above all, have a nice day.  I'm going to go '_get down with my bad self_'.  Peace out.



Well that is more than a definitive answer. The answer!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> Are you seriously going to suggest to the membership of Martial Talk that if a video of what they do isn't on Youtube then it has no evidence to support its validity?  If you need to go to Youtube for your training philosophy then I truly feel sorry for you.  You're not going to find a lot, if anything on YT concerning all the elements of SPEAR, PCR or Boatman edged weapon defense.  Yet a multitude of government entities (i.e. Police & Military) use the full system (or selected elements of the full system depending upon their needs) very successfully.  In fact, I've discussed the statistical efficiency of several of these systems here in the past, the method of training and the retention in long term memory.
> 
> I will take departmental efficiency statistics for real world altercations over randomly chosen YT videos.
> 
> ...



 sparring has been proven as an effective self defence tool.

because there are documented accounts of sports trained being effective in self defence. Which for some reason you continue to ignore.

so again you have lost me. 

sorry your conclusions don't add up.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 28, 2014)

Kong soo do.

"•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"

This would be a description of kata?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.



That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?



drop bear said:


> and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point



What makes you think non-competitive martial arts are not evidence based? That argument sounds familiar. 



drop bear said:


> eg. The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage. But apparently that is not the real knee exploding kick that is successful in the street



Did the person getting kicked get his or her leg broken? If not then it was not the knee exploding kick you speak of.



drop bear said:


> so i got educated on a kick that nobody had thrown successfully.



That you know of.



drop bear said:


> the cage reference is valid. There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.



The cage reference is valid for a sport, its validity is somewhat reduced for self defense. Context is important.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> The cage reference is valid for a sport, its validity is somewhat reduced for self defense. Context is important.



ok read that last statement. Then apply your first one.

"That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?"

and you will understand where i am suggesting that people may not be applying evidence to their training.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> ok read that last statement. Then apply your first one.
> 
> "That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?"
> 
> and you will understand where i am suggesting that people may not be applying evidence to their training.


So, as you see it, it is harder to find evidence that satisfies you that self defense arts work for self defense than it is to find evidence that competitive arts work in competition because they are more likely to be put on video. it is like wanting to find evidence that a speedboat works well in the water by trying to use it on dry land. Self defense arts are not faith based like you probably think, they just have different standards of evidence.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> So, as you see it, it is harder to find evidence that satisfies you that self defense arts work for self defense than it is to find evidence that competitive arts work in competition because they are more likely to be put on video. it is like wanting to find evidence that a speedboat works well in the water by trying to use it on dry land. Self defense arts are not faith based like you probably think, they just have different standards of evidence.



sort of this quote from a master trainer explains the concept a bit better.

Zahabi:" Then how do you know them? I’ll tell you one thing: Look at when man was trying to fly. People jumped off buildings because they believed so much that their device would work. The first man who attempted to fly jumped off a building and broke his back. Theory is one thing, but you haven’t been cross examined yet, and that’s the beauty of philosophy. People ask me, “Why did you get a degree in philosophy? What’re you going to do with that?” I use my degree every single day, because it taught me how to cross examine and test the truth value of any statement. To say that to punch one way or to punch another way or to attack you this way is better than another is a truth statement. We have to cross examine it. If I tell you, “Get in this airplane.” You ask, “Has it been tested?” “No, but don’t worry, the guy who made it is 100 percent sure it’s going to work.” “Well, what’s the guy’s background? How many planes has he made before?” “First time, but he thinks he knows.” “Has it been tested?” “No, no testing.” I wouldn’t get in that plane; and it’s crazy, because even when we’re testing things, still one in a million times something happens that you never saw coming. Fighting is the same way, man. It’s very hard to control. There are so many factors. Anything can happen in a fight, so to understand the chaos of fighting and the millions of variables, you have to taste them, taste the action itself. Bruce Lee said, “If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water.” He said that. He was a philosopher. He was a thinker. He understood the importance of experience."


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 29, 2014)

Steve said:


> How do you think, Chris?  You're a bright guy.



Look, I know how this is going to read, and really, that's probably going to be a fair assessment, but yeah, I'm a bright guy. Frankly, a lot more intelligent than you seem to understand… and I get what you think you were saying. But I wanted you to specifically answer the question… I wanted you to enunciate what you were meaning… not get me to read into your little snide dig. Which, I note, you added to… with even more passive aggression. 

Steve, I heartily recommend you stop thinking you can read into what's being said, and just read what's actually being said. You've been assigning motives to a number recently, and you've been fairly off-base consistently. It doesn't help.

But, that said, I was going to leave geezer's post as it stood… but, if you're going to think it's accurate and applies to my posting, then we should take a look at it… specifically with regards to myself, and my posts.



geezer said:


> @ Drop Bear: There is sparring between buddies or well intentioned acquaintances directed at both parties learning from the experience. Then again,  there are those occasions when you enter into what _you think_ will be such a productive session, and your opponent has such an _attitude of disdain_ for your skill and experience that you can either continue and engage in a_ fight_, or bow out and seek another partner to work with.



So, here's the problem with this idea.

What you've presented there is two extremes, and sure, they can fit sparring in a class… but they don't necessarily equate to conversation at all… which is the actual premise of the thread. The first scenario, yeah… but the second isn't a conversation… it's kinda the opposite, really. But, more importantly, we should take this to the context of the thread. 

You talk about entering into "what you think will be a such a productive session"… which is really the last thing that drop bear could have thought this would be. He's brought the idea of "conversation equals sparring" up a number of times before… and each time, he's been informed (again and again) that, no, it's not. He expressed his idea as involving the idea of "smashing" or "crushing" his "opponent's" (in conversation), as that's his take on what conversation (sparring) is, or is meant to be. It's not meant to be a productive session… he has almost literally said that he only wants to beat people down with his take on things, and expects others to respond in kind (he mentioned that he learns by being beaten down). You then continue to say that the other person (the opponent), having such an attitude of "disdain for your skill and experience", makes it a "fight"… to which he can bow out and seek another person to work with.

No. 

Drop bears very idea, by his own definition, is combative. That's how he's seeing "conversation" here. And it's far from my having any attitude of "disdain for his skill and experience", it's that the very premise is incorrect, not to mention destructive to the aims of the forum. And, as far as him leaving to "work with another", that's really not a solution either, as it denies the very reality of the situation.



geezer said:


> On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, _"Oh, dear lord..."_ I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.



No, he's not dealing with the second scenario, he's dealing with someone having to repeat the same damn thing again, as he's refusing to let yet another incorrect idea go. It's got nothing to do with "winning" or anything of the kind… and, as far as the direction of the thread, you did notice that the OP itself has 5 negative ratings, yeah? It was heading in that direction from before the first response.



Steve said:


> hey, geezer.   You were right.  Should we continue the metaphor by discussing the dangers of unchecked ego within sparring?



No, Steve, you shouldn't. As, well, it's completely irrelevant, and again a case of you reading things that aren't actually present.



Steve said:


> Great post, geezer.
> 
> It's been my experience that both sides have valid points.  Where opinions and experiences are involved, it's very possible to have contradictory opinions that are both 'right'.



It's also equally possible that the person observing has so little understanding that they think both are equally "right"… when, frankly, that couldn't be further from the truth.



Steve said:


> I think everyone is entitled to their opinion.   Some opinions are better grounded in fact than others.   But there are plenty of times around here where two informed, fact based opinions are completely opposite Nd neither is wrong or all right.



An example, if you would?



Touch Of Death said:


> This stuff, right here. Turns sparring into a real lesson. LOL



Not quite following you there… what sparring is going on, and what "real lesson" has it turned into?



drop bear said:


> yeah but on the internet if you are treating the conversation like kata. You are basically patronising people.



Who is "treating the conversation like kata"?!?! Seriously, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean… 



drop bear said:


> this conversation we are exploring an idea. You are not patiently educating me. I am not educating you.



Well, you not getting educated is certainly true… but no, we're not exploring an idea… you presented one in your OP that you'd presented before, been corrected on, had the correction clarified, you brought up again, were corrected again, and you have now decided to make into a thread itself… since then, it's turned into yet another "kata is good, no it isn't" thread… which, bluntly, isn't anything to do with the OP or topic, other than you showing (again) in your OP that you don't get kata.

We've tried educating you. You don't seem to be interested in it.



drop bear said:


> seriously. How demeaning is that phrase.



Not at all, I'd say. 



drop bear said:


> some people don't like kata. And you don't have to do be a martial artist.



Er… yeah… again, nothing really to do with anything here… 



drop bear said:


> if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.



You're kidding, right?

There are many, many forms of evidence… in fact, there is a hierarchy of evidence… ranging from first-hand, to witness reports, experiential, testing of theories and hypotheses, circumstantial, contextual, and so on. Having something on you-tube is not necessarily even close to the better end of the scale, if it can be considered "evidence" at all (which will depend entirely on the content itself).

In other words, absolute garbage. You don't have the first clue about what evidence actually is.



drop bear said:


> and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point.



Was that even meant to be a sentence? Or just a random assortment of concepts that you think have some connection? What point is meant to be "supported"? What does "evidence based" mean? Especially if you don't understand what can constitute evidence in the first place?



drop bear said:


> eg. The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage. But apparently that is not the real knee exploding kick that is successful in the street



Yeah… you completely missed everything you were being told there… again… 



drop bear said:


> so i got educated on a kick that nobody had thrown successfully.



No, you had a range of aspects, ideas, and more explained to you… I wouldn't say you got educated, though… and as far as "nobody had thrown successfully", is there anything to support that? Or are you simply taking the very small sample here as indicative of all attempts and applications ever, combining with your own lack of ability to see beyond the preconceived notions you already hold?



drop bear said:


> the cage reference is valid. There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.



Wow… no. To all of that. Just no.

The cage reference is only valid for the context of the cage (sport). Who gives a damn if they all get recorded… so do all professional football games… does that mean that no-one does anything in any football game not recorded didn't happen, as it wasn't recorded and dissected? A resource we have not really had before? Are you kidding me? What do you think kata are, if not a dissection of such things? Do you want me to quote Homer's The Iliad, and it's dissection and recording of the fight between Achilles and Hector? Do we discuss the examination of the battles of history from Tacticus onwards?

Pure ignorance, you say? Care to try again?



drop bear said:


> I do.



Then, once again, you're in the wrong place. I heartily recommend you either re-assess your take on communication, especially as it pertains to this forum ("friendly", remember…), or recognise that this is not the place to go around trying to start fights. Especially not the place to openly admit that that's what you're doing.



drop bear said:


> i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported. I want my martial arts to work. And that means sometimes getting punched in the face.



Your opinions are artificially supported. What you can get here is the opportunity to put your opinions and beliefs up against the knowledge, opinions, experience, understanding, and insight of a much larger pool than you could hope to attain on your own… in order to assess whether or not your opinions hold up, or could benefit from re-examination.

And it's great that you want your martial arts to work… you're hardly alone there… but, one more time, to "work" is a less-than-precise concept… it's highly contextually dependant. There isn't anything that's equally applicable ("works") in all contexts. I'll deal with the last sentence in a bit.



drop bear said:


> i see the point of kata. I know good fighters who do it and have had a reasonable practical explanation why. I don't like it and find other methods.



Honestly, I don't think you do see the point… or, more accurately, I don't think you understand the value and relevance to it. Which, really, is fine… you don't have to get it, or like it. Of course, telling people that what they're doing doesn't work when you don't understand it doesn't make you many friends… 



drop bear said:


> your explanation that sparring is detrimental because it does not reflect a fight. Is hanzou,s explanation of why kata is detrimental.



Hanzou was wrong. It's really that simple.

But, here's the thing… both he and you are looking at the wrong aspect to find where a real encounter is reflected in kata.



drop bear said:


> And i have disagreed with both of you on this subject.



Right.



drop bear said:


> you cant keep the logic that sparring is not realistic but kata is. That just does not make sense.



Yes, it does. You don't understand it… which is not the same thing as it not making sense, you realise.



drop bear said:


> and that is basically how you lost me regarding respectfully asking your opinion on kata and its effectiveness.



Because you couldn't grasp what you were being told? Okay… 



drop bear said:


> it a metaphor.



Sure… but it's also completely out of place here.

Look, the biggest issue here is that you're advocating a method of communication that flatly goes against the beliefs, aims, and ideals of this forum. If you want to treat all communication as a sparring match, looking to "smash or get smashed", looking to get metaphorically "punched in the face", you are seriously, seriously in the wrong place. 



drop bear said:


> and if people really believed that we wouldn't have arguments.



No.



drop bear said:


> i think there may be some subjectivity regarding that.



Sure… but not so much when it comes to the forum here.



drop bear said:


> sparring has been proven as an effective self defence tool.



No, it hasn't. The best you can say is that sparring is an aspect, or part of the training methodology of some systems that have claimed some success in self defence… when it comes to the hierarchy of evidence, it's largely circumstantial, and would be classed as "post hoc ergo propter hoc", in a legal sense ("after it, therefore because of it", implying that while a connection is sometimes noticed, it is not a genuine causation relationship).



drop bear said:


> because there are documented accounts of sports trained being effective in self defence. Which for some reason you continue to ignore.



And there are plenty of documented cases of non-sporting systems, even non-sparring systems being effective in self defence… which, for some reason you continue to ignore.



drop bear said:


> so again you have lost me.



Yes… I could see we had… (okay, maybe you need to hear that in Tim Roth's voice from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead…)



drop bear said:


> sorry your conclusions don't add up.



Yes, they do. Yours, on the other hand, are relying on a biased viewpoint from the outset, combined with an abject denial of anything anyone else has tried to explain to you.



drop bear said:


> Kong soo do.
> 
> "•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"
> 
> This would be a description of kata?



Yes, it certainly can be.



drop bear said:


> ok read that last statement. Then apply your first one.
> 
> "That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?"
> 
> and you will understand where i am suggesting that people may not be applying evidence to their training.



No. What I can see is a lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence, how that evidence is rated, how it is applied, what it is applied to, and more.

To put it simply, there are many forms of evidence that you seem completely unwilling to recognise, and only a small, biased, and flawed form that you do.



drop bear said:


> sort of this quote from a master trainer explains the concept a bit better.
> 
> Zahabi:" Then how do you know them? I’ll tell you one thing: Look at when man was trying to fly. People jumped off buildings because they believed so much that their device would work. The first man who attempted to fly jumped off a building and broke his back. Theory is one thing, but you haven’t been cross examined yet, and that’s the beauty of philosophy. People ask me, “Why did you get a degree in philosophy? What’re you going to do with that?” I use my degree every single day, because it taught me how to cross examine and test the truth value of any statement. To say that to punch one way or to punch another way or to attack you this way is better than another is a truth statement. We have to cross examine it. If I tell you, “Get in this airplane.” You ask, “Has it been tested?” “No, but don’t worry, the guy who made it is 100 percent sure it’s going to work.” “Well, what’s the guy’s background? How many planes has he made before?” “First time, but he thinks he knows.” “Has it been tested?” “No, no testing.” I wouldn’t get in that plane; and it’s crazy, because even when we’re testing things, still one in a million times something happens that you never saw coming. Fighting is the same way, man. It’s very hard to control. There are so many factors. Anything can happen in a fight, so to understand the chaos of fighting and the millions of variables, you have to taste them, taste the action itself. Bruce Lee said, “If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water.” He said that. He was a philosopher. He was a thinker. He understood the importance of experience."



Er… no, it doesn't. It's a reducto ad absurdum argument, and in and of itself, flawed. Oh, and as for the Bruce Lee comment… all I have to say to that is Theodor Kaluza…


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Kong soo do.
> 
> "•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"
> 
> This would be a description of kata?



No, it would not.  It is the exact polar opposite.  Why are you failing to understand what has been thoroughly described to you multiple times?  



drop bear said:


> sparring has been proven as an effective self defence tool.



When used as I've described it can be effective.  When used as you describe it can be a detriment.  That's an established fact.  And the word is defense...with an 's' and not a 'c'.  When you get the squiggly red line underneath a word it means you misspelled the word.  Unfortunately there is nothing to remind you to capitalize the first word in a sentence.  

By the way, you claim to be a bouncer IIRC.  Did you post videos of yourself using your sparring in a self defense situation yet?  If so, I missed it.  Could you post them again in your next reply?  I'd like to see them.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> No, it would not.  It is the exact polar opposite.  Why are you failing to understand what has been thoroughly described to you multiple times?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you cant ask for proof apparently because it is trolling. 

all the incidents are at our office. Which i believe is the same proof you have.

i am not sure how the other arguments you made are really helpful.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 29, 2014)

This is getting rediculas. Does every thread have to now turn into an argument. Obviously so!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Kang so do you have said this.

"when used as I've described it can be effective. When used as you describe it can be a detriment. That's an established fact"

how exactly is it an established fact?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> This is getting rediculas. Does every thread have to now turn into an argument. Obviously so!



the thing is i am not even taking shots at people. I am just looking at the issue.


----------



## Buka (Dec 29, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> This is getting rediculas. Does every thread have to now turn into an argument. Obviously so!



Says who? You? C'mon, put em' up! (Bwahaha!)


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Ok back to this because i find it quite a strange statement to direct towards kata.

can someone explain how it is valid? 

"•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"

 This would be a description of kata?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> This is getting rediculas. Does every thread have to now turn into an argument. Obviously so!


That was a very Kata like statement.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Ok back to this because i find it quite a strange statement to direct towards kata.
> 
> can someone explain how it is valid?
> 
> ...


It would be a property of Kata.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> It would be a property of Kata.



some sort of non prearranged kata?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> some sort of non prearranged kata?


There is no friggin' attacker, dude.


----------



## MJS (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> In sparring you have an idea that you can test against another person. Who may have the same idea. Or a different one.
> 
> it works or it doesn't. If it doesn't you can discard it or tweek it. Retest the idea with more sparring. Trial and error.
> 
> ...



Soooo....what is the conversation?  Sparring? Kata?  This is just another topic that is the same as others, just worded different.  But I'll play along.  We are of course, talking about 2 different things.  I don't know about anyone else, but I don't now, nor have I ever, sparred, with any kata that I know.  Both, IMO, have their pros and cons.  Everyone will have their own opinions on the topic, and that's fine.  I do both, and will continue to do both.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> Ok back to this because i find it quite a strange statement to direct towards kata.
> 
> can someone explain how it is valid?
> 
> ...



In simplistic terms, a kata is a collection of individual techniques, principles and strategies.   As such, a kata can be broken down into specific drills (bunkai).  These drills (bunkai) can have more than one application.  

The reason that a prescribed rule set isn't required is because a kata, and by logical extension the bunkai, mirrors a real world altercation.  Real world altercations don't go by a prescribed rule set.

As an example, let's say that you and I are going to train together.  We have two options available for this particular training session.  We can either spar or we can do bunkai from a kata.  Let's take a look at both to see the similarities as well as the differences.  

If we choose to spar, we must both abide by the same rule set.  It wouldn't make for much of a sparring session if you were limited to WTF TKD rules i.e. you can kick and punch but you must remain standing, whereas I use a MMA rule set that allows me to take you to the ground and/or submit you with a lock.  That is why two people sparring abide by the same rule set.  And though sparring can be useful, to a degree, it does not reflect the totality of a real world fight because of the limitations of sparring.  In a sparring session I can't try to de-escalate you and/or you can't run away from the encounter.  In a sparring session I can't pull a weapon and you can't have two of your buddies help you.  And so on and so forth as I've described several times.

If we choose to train a bunkai from a kata, then we aren't limited necessarily to a specific rule set.  For example, the first bunkai from Pinan Shodan can be trained with you throwing a punch at me.  We can also train this bunkai if you and I are grappling.  We can also train this bunkai if we're on the ground.  We can train this bunkai if you're intention is to take me to the ground but my intention is to place you in an arm lock to facilitate moving you from point A to point B or to inflict pain compliance.  This bunkai can be trained as part of a free-flowing scenario based drill that incorporates multiple options.  A bunkai can be used to train, by rote, a specific application for the purposes of learning the application or it can be used in a more advanced way against a free-flowing attack.  Using bunkai from a kata, you can pull a weapon or have a buddy or two join in.  Some bunkai will be more useful than others depending on the situation.  And I can tailor them to the specifics of the training session.  Am I working on ground stuff today?  Great, bunkai for the win.  Am I working on stand up?  Great, bunkai for the win.  Do I want to go all-out-free-form-no-rules scenario based drills?  Great, bunkai for the win.

Although sparring has a limited use, I can't use it for all the things I can use a bunkai for.  If sparring were to use de-escalation, escape/evasion, conventional/improvised weapons, multiple attackers, multiple locations etc then it would no longer be sparring, it would be a scenario based drill.  I can take one bunkai or several from the same kata and insert them into a scenario based drill.  I can use a bunkai regardless of what rules the attacker(s) may or may not be using.  Again, using the first bunkai in Pinan Shodan as an example, you can be unarmed or armed.  You can be trying to punch me or we can be on the ground.  We can be on a stairwell or in an elevator or in a car.  The venue is immaterial and doesn't dictate the methods that can be used.  

Does this help to explain the differences more clearly to you?

In regards to sparring in-and-of-itself...

If it is going to be useful for self defense;


Spar in different lighting conditions i.e. full light, dim light, no light.  Statistically more attacks occur in dim light conditions.
Spar on different surfaces.  It's one thing to spar on a soft mat, quite another to spar on grass, a slope, wet/slippery asphalt etc.
Spar wearing street clothes.  It's one thing grappling in shorts and a T-shirt and quite another wearing a jacket that limits your limbs movements.
Spar outside the school i.e. in an alley, in the parking lot, inside a car!
None of this equals scenario based training that uses all the elements of sparring plus all the rest....but it is a step in the right direction.  

In regards to bunkai, lighting doesn't matter, the venue doesn't matter, specific clothing isn't required etc.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 29, 2014)

Buka said:


> Says who? You? C'mon, put em' up! (Bwahaha!)



Brilliant. Had to get the Kleenex


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> There is no friggin' attacker, dude.



there is two person kata. And even the implied attack in one person kata is prearranged


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

MJS said:


> Soooo....what is the conversation?  Sparring? Kata?  This is just another topic that is the same as others, just worded different.  But I'll play along.  We are of course, talking about 2 different things.  I don't know about anyone else, but I don't now, nor have I ever, sparred, with any kata that I know.  Both, IMO, have their pros and cons.  Everyone will have their own opinions on the topic, and that's fine.  I do both, and will continue to do both.



this thread is mostly ego sparring. I think people may have lost the ability to have a discussion.

it is like they have been saying this stuff and nobody ever turns around and says. "that just doesn't make sense"

after being in an echo chamber for long enough you can wind up believing anything is right.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> In simplistic terms, a kata is a collection of individual techniques, principles and strategies.   As such, a kata can be broken down into specific drills (bunkai).  These drills (bunkai) can have more than one application.
> 
> The reason that a prescribed rule set isn't required is because a kata, and by logical extension the bunkai, mirrors a real world altercation.  Real world altercations don't go by a prescribed rule set.
> 
> ...



ok but how exactly have you remove the rules from your training session?

i do a kata. It is a pre arranged structure. I don't just make up kata. I do it the way it is supposed to be done. 

i do bunkai. Which i think would be a resisted drill or step sparing. You punch in a prearranged manner i defend either in a prearranged manner or on the fly. Still according to rules.

In sparring like in conversation the rules do matter. Otherwise we either hurt each other. Or achieve nothing.

in a combat scenario. The rules matter for the same reason.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 29, 2014)

I'll agree with drop bear's last post
a kata is prearranged and conversation is not therefor it is more like sparring with certain rules for being polite being used by all parties. Once the rules for politesse are dedicated it is something else but not kata in any sense and maybe not sparring any more


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

i mean this looks like it is prearranged and following rules.

it also does not look like a conversation.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

tshadowchaser said:


> I'll agree with drop bear's last post
> a kata is prearranged and conversation is not therefor it is more like sparring with certain rules for being polite being used by all parties. Once the rules for politesse are dedicated it is something else but not kata in any sense and maybe not sparring any more



This all started when k man had an issue with being called coy. And i said conversation is like sparring. You get smashed in the head trying something new. It is part of the process. You cant take this stuff to heart.

and turned into an idea that drop bear hates people.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> i mean this looks like it is prearranged and following rules.
> 
> it also does not look like a conversation.



With all due respect to whoever is in the video...this is children's karate.  Would you defend yourself in a real fight against a violent attacker as demonstrated in this video?  I sure wouldn't!   So this is not an accurate representation of what I've described previously.  This is cookie-cutter kata teaching that does not accurately reflect kata/bunkai trained to its fullest extent.  

In other words, if this was kata/bunkai training I'd be agreeing with you.  But it isn't and therefore we are comparing apples (this video) to oranges (what I've described above).



drop bear said:


> ok but how exactly have you remove the rules from your training session?



Are you referring to the example I gave above if you and I were training together?  If so, allow me to detail it a bit.  First, kata can be broken down into bunkai.  That much is obvious.  If it is bunkai as demonstrated in the video...throw it away.  It's useless.  Bunkai should be practical and useable.  So you can use bunkai (proper bunkai) to teach a novice i.e. slow and methodical so they understand all the concepts and principles being demonstrated.  But eventually it needs to be free-flowing like an actual attack.  Using Pinan Shodan again, you can use that opening principle standing, grappling or on the ground.  Doesn't matter if the attacker is empty handed or holding a baseball bat.  So at this level, their aren't any rules that you or the attacker have to abide by during the attack.  Now we of course have to have a level of safety involved, but at this level of training your attacker can be cussing you, charging you, trying to hit you or whatever and that principle (Pinan Shodan) can come into play at any time.  Not to suggest that only this one principle is to be used of course.  That's the beauty of bunkai in that it can be trained singularly to master a concept or as a whole i.e. you use whatever you can use.  

Let me ask you this, do you understand the limitations of sparring that I have described to you?  Serious question and not sarcastic.  Although sparring can be a part of training, do you understand how it can be enhanced (as I've described above) to make it even more useful?  Sparring, if using the various things I've described would essentially mirror in many ways the bunkai that I've described.  Would you not agree that it would be useful from time to time to turn out/down the lights?  Or train outside in a tight spot?  Or in winter clothes?  Or inside of a car?  Would it not be useful, from the perspective of realism to be allowed to talk your way out of the fight before it began?  Or to have a conventional or improvised weapon available.  All these things add realism and address the students O.O.D.A. loop directly.  

The bottom line is that kata/bunkai can be a waste of time, in regards to real fights..or it can be highly beneficial.  Sparring, in regards to a real fight can be a waste of time...or it can be highly beneficial.  The more closely it mirrors real life the better the student will be prepared.  Would you agree with this?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> With all due respect to whoever is in the video...this is children's karate.  Would you defend yourself in a real fight against a violent attacker as demonstrated in this video?  I sure wouldn't!   So this is not an accurate representation of what I've described previously.  This is cookie-cutter kata teaching that does not accurately reflect kata/bunkai trained to its fullest extent.
> 
> In other words, if this was kata/bunkai training I'd be agreeing with you.  But it isn't and therefore we are comparing apples (this video) to oranges (what I've described above).
> 
> ...



sparring happens like that anyway. I trained in a Santa Claus onsie over Christmas.

but otherwise yes and no. If i am sparring hard. I don't want things around that can unnecessarily hurt me. If i am in a car park i would not be sparring hard.

i am not overly effected by the o.o.d.a. Loop. And believe it is the hard sparring that causes a resistance to it. Because of the problem solving element attached.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> This all started when k man had an issue with being called coy. And i said conversation is like sparring. You get smashed in the head trying something new. It is part of the process. You cant take this stuff to heart.
> 
> and turned into an idea that drop bear hates people.



I don't think you hate people.  I think that perhaps you got off on the wrong foot soon after joining and did a bit to keep digging yourself deeper.  But that can be, and should be turned around and you have the opportunity to be a productive member of the community.  I'd extend my hand out to you in that regard.  

In regards to kata, I once thought they were a complete waste of time, effort and energy.  But I didn't truly understand them.  That changed.  Now you have to understand, I started training in 1975.  Since 1985 I've been in one uniform or another and, unfortunately, have had to put my hands on people more times than I care to remember.  Real world training is a BIG need for me.  My life or the life of a partner depends on it.  So, having said that, do you think I'd waste my time on something that wouldn't fulfill my primary needs?  Just a thought to toss out for consideration.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2014)

drop bear said:


> there is two person kata. And even the implied attack in one person kata is prearranged


True dat. But, the idea is that everyone has a role to play.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 29, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I don't think you hate people.  I think that perhaps you got off on the wrong foot soon after joining and did a bit to keep digging yourself deeper.  But that can be, and should be turned around and you have the opportunity to be a productive member of the community.  I'd extend my hand out to you in that regard.
> 
> In regards to kata, I once thought they were a complete waste of time, effort and energy.  But I didn't truly understand them.  That changed.  Now you have to understand, I started training in 1975.  Since 1985 I've been in one uniform or another and, unfortunately, have had to put my hands on people more times than I care to remember.  Real world training is a BIG need for me.  My life or the life of a partner depends on it.  So, having said that, do you think I'd waste my time on something that wouldn't fulfill my primary needs?  Just a thought to toss out for consideration.



thanks for the olive branch.

i certainly have wasted my time on training something that would not fulfill my primary needs.

Or to put that better. I employed a method that got the job done. But through observation and experience. Am employing a better method now.





when street fights work exactly as they do in training. I look at that training as useful.

Now we can have a tactical vs technical debate. But the technique looks sound. Showing me the core of the training is sound.

from sound training and good basics. Then i can come up with solutions to fight on stairs or in the dark.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 30, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> ...And the word is defense...with an 's' and not a 'c'.  When you get the squiggly red line underneath a word it means you misspelled the word.  Unfortunately there is nothing to remind you to capitalize the first word in a sentence.



Before we get back into this too much, just to address this point… yeah, some of drop bears postings have me wondering exactly what is being meant (the odd applications of full-stops separating sentences in the middle etc), but in this case, it's not an issue… "defence" is the correct spelling here, not "defense" (which, for the record, gives us a "red line", and my computer wants to turn into "defines"…). The thing to remember is that the US actually changed a range of spellings from English (Continental), and, while we've adapted some of that, we are still spelling things the way they are in England… such as colour, rather than color (hmm, there's that red line again…).

Just so you know… okay, let's get back to it.



drop bear said:


> you cant ask for proof apparently because it is trolling.



No, asking for back up isn't trolling… demanding for a specific form of evidence that is flawed, and you know doesn't exist, then denigrating the other persons opinion just because you aren't getting what doesn't exist, and continuing to put down other approaches based on that, can start to edge across into trolling… 



drop bear said:


> all the incidents are at our office. Which i believe is the same proof you have.



Hmm, I thought you said you "are not even taking shots at people"… 



drop bear said:


> i am not sure how the other arguments you made are really helpful.



If you're referring to Kong Soo Do's comments about your posting, well, he's asking for you to pay more attention to your posts, as they can be a confusing mess to try to read… add to that your lack of clarity when quoting (quoting an entire post, then answering seemingly random aspects of it without having any reference to what exactly in the post you're discussing) and so on just adds to the confusion… I mean, I'm only guessing here at what part of KSD's post you're actually talking about… which is really a case in point for that.



drop bear said:


> Ok back to this because i find it quite a strange statement to direct towards kata.
> 
> can someone explain how it is valid?
> 
> ...



It can be a description of the intended structure and application of kata, not a description of kata itself… but, most importantly, you're looking at entirely the wrong thing. We'll cover that as we go.



Touch Of Death said:


> It would be a property of Kata.



Yep.



drop bear said:


> some sort of non prearranged kata?



Nope. Not anything at all to do with it. "Pre-arranged" or "random" have nothing to do with this.



drop bear said:


> there is two person kata. And even the implied attack in one person kata is prearranged



Sure… but, again, not the point or the argument.



drop bear said:


> this thread is mostly ego sparring. I think people may have lost the ability to have a discussion.



Er, you do know what irony is, yeah?



drop bear said:


> it is like they have been saying this stuff and nobody ever turns around and says. "that just doesn't make sense"



Are you really suggesting that you are the first to question anything, from training methods, to applicability, to, well, sparring vs kata? Seriously? Have you considered that, perhaps, it's just possible that others have already gone through that phase, gotten answers, and understood them to the point that they don't need to continue in that vein anymore? Or that your questions have all actually been answered, you simply have ignored most of what you've been told?



drop bear said:


> after being in an echo chamber for long enough you can wind up believing anything is right.



Again, you do know what irony is, don't you?



drop bear said:


> ok but how exactly have you remove the rules from your training session?



I think you're getting confused between what was said (that the attacker doesn't have to be beholden to a particular, commensurate methodology as the defender… in other words, the attacker can have a very different set of parameters, including the usage of weapons against as unarmed target, not conforming to striking only, or grappling only, even up to having multiples against a single person, and so on), and your idea of the fact that it's a structured method of training.



drop bear said:


> i do a kata. It is a pre arranged structure. I don't just make up kata. I do it the way it is supposed to be done.



Do you? And how is it "supposed to be done"? Is there no freedom within kata? Do you know what bunkai actually is?



drop bear said:


> i do bunkai. Which i think would be a resisted drill or step sparing. You punch in a prearranged manner i defend either in a prearranged manner or on the fly. Still according to rules.



Hmm, that would be a "no", then… 

While bunkai can be trained as drills, and can be done in a fairly regimented fashion, that's not really what it is… literally, the term refers to "exploration/examination"… and is a training concept, not a prescribed method or sequence. Individual bunkai can be a particular, pre-arranged drill… but so can a shadow boxing drill. That doesn't mean that the shadow boxing drill is the only way that sequence can be done, or applied… 



drop bear said:


> In sparring like in conversation the rules do matter. Otherwise we either hurt each other. Or achieve nothing.



So, if you agree that the "rules" matter in conversation, why do you persist in pushing the rules here? But, for the record, the rules are actually a bit different, and have a range of different reasons for the two contexts… yet another reason that conversation isn't sparring, of course. Oh, and there's that irony again ("achieve nothing")...



drop bear said:


> in a combat scenario. The rules matter for the same reason.



No, in a training scenario the "rules" matter for that reason… 



drop bear said:


> i mean this looks like it is prearranged and following rules.
> 
> it also does not look like a conversation.



As others have suggested, that is incredibly basic application of the kata… personally, I'd hesitate to refer to it as bunkai… there's really no exploration or examination present, simply a very basic "this is a block, this is the target for a strike" approach. In Japanese terms, this would be very much the omote (outside, face) application… the actual bunkai would be the ura (inner, hidden) side of it all. But let's leave that off, and look at your complaints.

It looks pre-arranged… okay, sure. It is. So I'm hardly surprised that it looks such. But, and here's where you seem to be getting confused, that's not the same as "following rules". Sure, that particular form of application is sticking with the same context for both parties, but that's really not the end-all, be-all… nor even the reality across the board. There is nothing that says that that's the way it has to be… for example, the second application (against a grab from behind) could just as easily be a response against a pistol held against the back of the head… or a knife attack… or an attempted choke… or any of half a dozen other attacks I can see there. There are no "rules" about what the opponent can attack with… which was the point.

And no, it wouldn't look like a conversation to you… mainly as you're missing a lot of understanding as to what's actually going on. It's a prearranged drill set, sure… but so are "conversations" that are written down in plays… so let's take a look at what a conversation actually is, as I think that's been missed here.

A conversation is a communication between two or more parties, following a common thread or idea, or group of ideas. It's not two people randomly saying different things… not paying attention to each other (you might note, this is where the blog you've linked was making a connection, essentially saying that, in sparring, you should be paying attention to your training partner, rather than just focus on yourself… again, very, very different to saying that conversation is sparring). There needs to be a connective thread… going from one statement to another, from one impetus to a response, to a response to that, and so on. In that regard, the application in the video can be seen as a series of very short conversations… or can be strung along for a longer one, perhaps involving others as well. But a conversation can be just as scripted as those training drills, you realise… 

So, with all that in mind, you might want to take another look at the video (and other bunkai forms), and look for the give-and-take… call and response. If the first action (statement) is ignored so the defender can do whatever, it's not "conversation"… if it's taken on it's value, and the response is geared towards answering in the same context, then it can be seen as a form of it. None of this says that conversation itself is sparring or kata… but it is showing that sparring and kata can be seen as a form of conversation, depending on how you want to stretch the analogy.



drop bear said:


> This all started when k man had an issue with being called coy. And i said conversation is like sparring. You get smashed in the head trying something new. It is part of the process. You cant take this stuff to heart.



If your idea of all conversation and communication is that you get smashed in the head, so don't worry about it, then I heartily recommend you expand your idea of communication… especially here.

Oh, and for the record, you were told that then as well, while being told that conversation is not sparring… how you've continued to here, I have no idea… 



drop bear said:


> and turned into an idea that drop bear hates people.



Where has anyone said anything close to you hating people? I might say your communication skills need work, but that's about all I'd say from this vantage point… 



drop bear said:


> sparring happens like that anyway. I trained in a Santa Claus onsie over Christmas.



Er… okay… 



drop bear said:


> but otherwise yes and no. If i am sparring hard. I don't want things around that can unnecessarily hurt me. If i am in a car park i would not be sparring hard.



I think perhaps you missed the point… there was nothing about adding unnecessary danger… the point was to allow you to prepare for, or at least be somewhat aware of, different environments. 



drop bear said:


> i am not overly effected by the o.o.d.a. Loop. And believe it is the hard sparring that causes a resistance to it. Because of the problem solving element attached.



Ha! Okay… 

Look, you are just as affected (not "effected", for the record…) by the OODA loop as anyone… without it, you couldn't make a decision or act. That's just the reality. You may feel that you have sped up your processing of the loop, and you may indeed have… but to ascribe it to "hard sparring" and any associated "problem solving" is to assume a connection that, honestly, doesn't likely exist. You may very well have had your reflexes improved by such methods (not the only way to do so), you may have had your ability to read an opponent honed by them (again, not the only way), as both are very good benefits from sparring training methods. But to say that you're less affected by the OODA loop? Uh… no.



drop bear said:


> thanks for the olive branch.
> 
> i certainly have wasted my time on training something that would not fulfill my primary needs.
> 
> Or to put that better. I employed a method that got the job done. But through observation and experience. Am employing a better method now.



Yeah, this is where it gets tricky… you can't necessarily ascribe a universal value judgement to training methods in that way… you have found a training method that makes more sense to you, and that you get more value and benefit out of… it's frankly not a "better" method… it's just one that works better for you. I do recommend you recognise the difference there, as much of the heat that you and Hanzou have taken has been over the comments you've made that imply such definitive "better and worse" ideas.



drop bear said:


> when street fights work exactly as they do in training. I look at that training as useful.



See, we look at that, and see very different things… sure, it looks very similar to the form of technical methods seen in MMA… hardly surprising, really, as there are a range of reasons for it's taking the form it has today (which isn't just to do with the source systems, you understand)… but, to be frank, I see nothing that impresses me at all. I see someone who attacks another person, the one being attacked doing essentially nothing back, and, despite absolutely nothing stopping the techniques, there being almost no effect whatsoever. Which is something I don't find particularly useful… 



drop bear said:


> Now we can have a tactical vs technical debate. But the technique looks sound. Showing me the core of the training is sound.



Again, not to me… the technique was rather lacking (and ineffective), despite the apparent "control" he had… all of which showed me that the training is lacking on a number of levels… both tactically and technically.



drop bear said:


> from sound training and good basics. Then i can come up with solutions to fight on stairs or in the dark.



And what makes you think that couldn't be done with other systems?

But, again, for the record, if that was the result of my guys being able to apply anything they wanted, I'd hardly call it good basics… but this is really far from the idea of "conversation is sparring"… so how about we try to address that topic, rather than what training method is good, bad, better, or worse… it doesn't change anything about what conversation is or isn't, and is just another rehashing of a discussion/argument we've all done many times now. If you want to retread that tired path again, perhaps yet another thread is in order, yeah? I mean, you started this topic… did you want to actually discuss it?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 30, 2014)

Kong Soo Do said:


> If we choose to spar, we must both abide by the same rule set. It wouldn't make for much of a sparring session if you were limited to WTF TKD rules i.e. you can kick and punch but you must remain standing, whereas I use a MMA rule set that allows me to take you to the ground and/or submit you with a lock. That is why two people sparring abide by the same rule set



I just wanted to mention that you _can_ have very productive sparring sessions where the parties involved are operating with different rule sets. When I teach, I very often assign each partner a role with specific limitations and/or objectives. Often this gives better results than purely open-ended sparring.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I just wanted to mention that you _can_ have very productive sparring sessions where the parties involved are operating with different rule sets. When I teach, I very often assign each partner a role with specific limitations and/or objectives. Often this gives better results than purely open-ended sparring.



Seems quite normal to me. What the biggest benefits that you yourself find over open ended sparring?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 30, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Seems quite normal to me. What the biggest benefits that you yourself find over open ended sparring?



a) It gets the students focused on building the specific skills that we are currently working on, instead of just trying to "win" by working their "A" game.
b) It allows for working tactics relevant to self-defense situations, which are typically asymmetric.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> a) It gets the students focused on building the specific skills that we are currently working on, instead of just trying to "win" by working their "A" game.
> b) It allows for working tactics relevant to self-defense situations, which are typically asymmetric.



Not sure what you mean by "typically asymmetric" but sounds a good training method


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 30, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Not sure what you mean by "typically asymmetric" but sounds a good training method


 I mean that in an actual self-defense situation (as opposed to a Monkey Dance consensual fight), the attacker and defender have different objectives and constraints.

If I am the attacker, then I have the goal of hurting/robbing/raping you. I get to choose the time and place of the attack, which means I can stack the odds in my favor with surprise/position/numbers/weapons/etc. I have to bring the attack to you - I can't sit back and be a counter puncher.

If I am the defender, then I have the goal of getting home safe. If I can disengage and get away, that counts as a win for me. If you don't bring the fight to me, then I don't have to worry about breaking through your defenses - I can just leave.

(There can be lots of other asymmetric factors based on the specifics of the situation, but the above is pretty typical.)

When you think about it this way, you realize that the standard approach to sparring, where we square up opposite each other and go at it is more like a duel than a self-defense scenario. You can build useful skills and attributes with that sort of sparring, but you can also build some bad self-defense habits if you aren't careful as well.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I mean that in an actual self-defense situation (as opposed to a Monkey Dance consensual fight), the attacker and defender have different objectives and constraints.
> 
> If I am the attacker, then I have the goal of hurting/robbing/raping you. I get to choose the time and place of the attack, which means I can stack the odds in my favor with surprise/position/numbers/weapons/etc. I have to bring the attack to you - I can't sit back and be a counter puncher.
> 
> ...



Wow, that is some reply. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Bad habits I suppose could be with the same drills over and over?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 30, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Wow, that is some reply. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Bad habits I suppose could be with the same drills over and over?



One form of bad habit is a "dueling mentality", where you get caught up in trying to beat the other guy rather than keeping sight of your current situation and your real objective - getting away unscathed.

Another form of bad habit for self-defense training is "playing to the rules." If you always spar with the same rules, then you can become dependent on tactics which require those specific rules to be in place. One way to avoid that tendency (and develop mental flexibility) is to change up the rules regularly.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 30, 2014)

Sweet. Very good info there. Thanks


----------



## drop bear (Dec 30, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Are you really suggesting that you are the first to question anything, from training methods, to applicability, to, well, sparring vs kata? Seriously? Have you considered that, perhaps, it's just possible that others have already gone through that phase, gotten answers, and understood them to the point that they don't need to continue in that vein anymore? Or that your questions have all actually been answered, you simply have ignored most of what you've been



i have considered that you are now at the point where you have stopped questioning.

pretty much as you said. 

you no longer test or redefine. It is all worked out,laid out and now just needs to be instructed to other people.

like kata.

but that is not conversation.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 30, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> One form of bad habit is a "dueling mentality", where you get caught up in trying to beat the other guy rather than keeping sight of your current situation and your real objective - getting away unscathed.
> 
> Another form of bad habit for self-defense training is "playing to the rules." If you always spar with the same rules, then you can become dependent on tactics which require those specific rules to be in place. One way to avoid that tendency (and develop mental flexibility) is to change up the rules regularly.



i spar three or four different systems.

the dueling  mentality is a tricky one. People look at a sparring session as a whole. For me that is five minute round. (sort of)

now in that five minutes i may spend ten second sets in a toe to toe brawl.(which is a street fight if we go by some of the popular opinion on this). Or ten seconds wearing a flurry like an ambush attack. And so on.

kata has bunkai. Sparring has,i don't know, bits of fighting inside it.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 30, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Seems quite normal to me. What the biggest benefits that you yourself find over open ended sparring?



they don't know what you are going to do. So i do mma for the street. I decide i want to try standing arm locks for work to test a method.

i don't tell them. They just fight me. I either get to apply what i wanted or i get my head punched in.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 30, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha! Okay…
> 
> Look, you are just as affected (not "effected", for the record…) by the OODA loop as anyone… without it, you couldn't make a decision or act. That's just the reality. You may feel that you have sped up your processing of the loop, and you may indeed have… but to ascribe it to "hard sparring" and any associated "problem solving" is to assume a connection that, honestly, doesn't likely exist. You may very well have had your reflexes improved by such methods (not the only way to do so), you may have had your ability to read an opponent honed by them (again, not the only way), as both are very good benefits from sparring training methods. But to say that you're less affected by the OODA loop? Uh… no.



you are telling me this are you?

how did you come to this conclusion? I have had a heap of fights. I have used a heap of different training methods.

i don't ooda loop much. (it is more complicated than that)

i have seen peoples first ring fight. They ooda loop. They don't on subsequent fights. 

you are using kata as conversation here. The theory defining the practical.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 30, 2014)

drop bear said:


> i don't ooda loop much. (it is more complicated than that)


Ummmmmm no that's not how it works.  You ALWAYS ooda loop.  You may be slightly faster then others but you still do it.  

As for the rest of this well you all are getting way to complicated kata is kata sparring is sparring and neither are conversation but carry on 

Here is a good article I use when I discuss ooda loop to police recruits.
Why the OODA Loop is Still Relevant - Article - POLICE Magazine


----------



## drop bear (Dec 30, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Ummmmmm no that's not how it works.  You ALWAYS ooda loop.  You may be slightly faster then others but you still do it.
> 
> As for the rest of this well you all are getting way to complicated kata is kata sparring is sparring and neither are conversation but carry on
> 
> ...



yeah the more complicated part. Was that i switch quickly from plan to plan. 

otherwise ooda as in that article could just as easily be applied to sparring.


----------



## Chris Parker (Dec 31, 2014)

Hey Tony,

In pretty much complete agreement with everything you're saying (I think the distinction could be made between forms of sparring… the most common is really the "sports" style, symmetrical format, which is where the issues are identified… many would consider the asymmetrical format a different type of free-form drill… of course, that comes down to the perspective of the system/individual). Just one thing, though...



Tony Dismukes said:


> I mean that in an actual self-defense situation (as opposed to a Monkey Dance consensual fight), the attacker and defender have different objectives and constraints.



A Monkey Dance isn't a consensual fight… kinda the opposite… it's a display, used to intimidate or avoid conflict, and is rarely symmetrical itself. A consensual fight in this case would be a match fight, whether a challenge in a bar, spilling out to the parking lot, or a sporting form (such as MMA), or anything of the kind.



drop bear said:


> i have considered that you are now at the point where you have stopped questioning.
> 
> pretty much as you said.
> 
> ...



Then you have no idea of how I do things. I question constantly… every time I go through a kata, I'm ensuring it's optimised on both the attacker and defender side, which is done by constantly questioning and checking the technique itself. I also constantly test to see if things need redefining… but frankly, I've been at this some 2 and a half decades or more, so most of the basic questions (that you're dealing with) are well and truly behind me now. That doesn't mean I've stopped questioning, it means that the questions you're bringing up are already answered.



drop bear said:


> but that is not conversation.



Er… what? What isn't? Kata isn't conversation? Are you still repeating the same thing without any acknowledgement of, well, the fact that no-one has suggested it is, or that you're still showing gaps in your understanding of what kata is?

Let's be clear here. Conversation is neither sparring, nor kata. Constantly trying to equate the two is flawed, and inaccurate. Stating that they're not the same thing is redundant, as no-one is arguing that. The only thing that can be said is that sparring can be seen as a form of conversation (but the inverse is not true), and that some aspects of, or forms of kata can be the same. That's it.



drop bear said:


> i spar three or four different systems.
> 
> the dueling  mentality is a tricky one. People look at a sparring session as a whole. For me that is five minute round. (sort of)
> 
> ...



This is possibly the most interesting, and insightful thing you've said here. Personally, I'd suggest that there are better ways to address each of those areas, but I appreciate the approach there. Interesting.



drop bear said:


> they don't know what you are going to do. So i do mma for the street. I decide i want to try standing arm locks for work to test a method.
> 
> i don't tell them. They just fight me. I either get to apply what i wanted or i get my head punched in.



Er, no… that's not really anything to do with "open ended sparring" as Tony described… that's more just you trying to apply a single goal… and has nothing to do with the opponent not knowing what you're going to do… in fact, in the "open ended" (asymmetrical) format that Tony was talking about, often both sides know what the respective aims of each other are… so yeah, they do know what you're going to do.



drop bear said:


> you are telling me this are you?



Yes, I am.



drop bear said:


> how did you come to this conclusion? I have had a heap of fights. I have used a heap of different training methods.



I'm sorry, how did I come to the conclusion that you are just as subject to the exact same decision making process that every single person in the world is…? Is that what you're asking? Really?



drop bear said:


> i don't ooda loop much. (it is more complicated than that)



Er… do you actually get what the OODA loop is?



drop bear said:


> i have seen peoples first ring fight. They ooda loop. They don't on subsequent fights.



Everyone "OODA loops" (not sure that really makes sense…). Everyone.

Tell you what, let's look at why you have to run through the OODA loop… it's a sequence that is essential to be able to do anything. First, you observe (O)… seeing what's happening in front of you (notice your opponent)… then, you orient (O) towards what's happening (are they attacking, defending, open to attack?)… decide (D)… chose an action (say, your decision that, as you've observed the opponent is a particular distance, and open to an arm bar)… then act (A)… perform your decided action (move in and attempt to apply your arm bar).

If you don't go through that sequence, you will not be able to pick an appropriate action and act upon it… you're going to not observe (not see what's going on), not orient (not give your attention where it needs to be), not decide (fail to select an appropriate action), or not act (don't do anything). I mean, without it, if you're doing anything at all (having any action), it can only be a random, untargeted, thoughtlessly selected, and inappropriate action. You might as well close your eyes, and randomly swing your arms around while spinning in a circle, hoping to hit something… that's not using the OODA loop… anything where you have a selected action, you've used the OODA loop. You really can't get around that.



drop bear said:


> you are using kata as conversation here. The theory defining the practical.



No, I'm not. I'm using facts to correct your misapplication of various terms.



drop bear said:


> yeah the more complicated part. Was that i switch quickly from plan to plan.
> 
> otherwise ooda as in that article could just as easily be applied to sparring.



Of course the OODA loop applies to sparring… what on earth makes you think it doesn't?!?


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 31, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Of course the OODA loop applies to sparring… what on earth makes you think it doesn't?!?



Is this what you guys are referring to. To me this looks like a business type thing, rather than just applying to sparing/MA.

*Stage 1. Observe*
At this initial point in the loop, you should be on the look-out for new information, and need to be aware of unfolding circumstances. The more information you can take in here, the more accurate your perception will be. Like an F-86 pilot with a wide field of vision, you want to capture as much incoming data as possible. The kind of questions you need to be asking are:


What's happening in the environment that directly affects me?
What's happening that indirectly affects me?
What's happening that may have residual affects later on?
Were my predictions accurate?
Are there any areas where prediction and reality differ significantly?
*Stage 2. Orient*
One of the main problems with decision-making comes at the Orient stage: we all view events in a way that's filtered through our own experiences and perceptions. Boyd identified five main influences:


Cultural traditions.
Genetic heritage.
The ability to analyze and synthesize.
Previous experience.
New information coming in.
Orientation is essentially how you interpret a situation. This then leads directly to your decision.

The argument here is that by becoming more aware of your perceptions, and by speeding up your ability to orient to reality, you can move through the decision loop quickly and effectively. The quicker you understand what's going on, the better. And if you can make sense of the situation and the environment around you faster than your competition, you'll have an advantage.

And it's important to remember that you're constantly re-orienting. As new information comes in at the Observe stage, you need to process it quickly and revise your orientation accordingly.

*Stage 3. Decide*
Decisions are really your best guesses, based on the observations you've made and the orientation you're using. As such, they should be considered to be fluid works-in-progress. As you keep on cycling through the OODA Loop, and new suggestions keep arriving, these can trigger changes to your decisions and subsequent actions – essentially, you're learning as you continue to cycle through the steps. The results of your learning are brought in during the Orient phase, which in turn influences the rest of the decision making process.

*Stage 4. Act*
The Act stage is where you implement your decision. You then cycle back to the Observe stage, as you judge the effects of your action. This is where actions influence the rest of the cycle, and it's important to keep learning from what you, and your opponents, are doing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 31, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Is this what you guys are referring to. To me this looks like a business type thing, rather than just applying to sparing/MA.
> 
> *Stage 1. Observe*
> At this initial point in the loop, you should be on the look-out for new information, and need to be aware of unfolding circumstances. The more information you can take in here, the more accurate your perception will be. Like an F-86 pilot with a wide field of vision, you want to capture as much incoming data as possible. The kind of questions you need to be asking are:
> ...


Yep that's it.  Here's a good article to explain it as it relates to violence and self defense  (kinda it's more geared towards police but you get the gist)
Why the OODA Loop is Still Relevant - Article - POLICE Magazine


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 31, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Yep that's it.  Here's a good article to explain it as it relates to violence and self defense  (kinda it's more geared towards police but you get the gist)
> Why the OODA Loop is Still Relevant - Article - POLICE Magazine



Cheers. I'll have a look at that


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 31, 2014)

I learned about the OODA loop in basic training. It's a useful concept.

Just to be clear, it does not mean that in the heat of a fight you have to be running down a little mental checklist "I've completed step 2, so now I'm on to step 3 where I get to decide." You run through the loop in a time scale appropriate to the situation, which could be months for a business campaign or a split second for a life and death physical confrontation.

I do think that people can and do miss out on the OODA loop in many real life situations, but as Chris notes, the results are likely to be bad.

If you fail to _*observe*_ or _*orient*_, then you are acting without awareness or understanding of what is going on.
(Imagine a soon-to-be mugging victim who fails to notice a pair of potential assailants moving into position around him or who notices but fails to comprehend the threat.)
If you fail to _*decide*_, then you will typically keep moving along whatever path you were already on, whether or not that is appropriate to the situation.
If you fail to _*act*_ (as often occurs when a victim of violence "freezes up"), then you are paralyzed.
If you fail to _*loop*_ (i.e. continue the process) then you will be locked into whatever action you committed to initially, even though it may no longer be a wise course of action. (Imagine that you are beating the crap out of your initial assailant and fail to notice or react to the fact that his six buddies are coming up to help him out.)

When you see a situation that was handled disastrously, it's not that unusual to realize that someone missed one or more of the OODA loop steps.

In the case of a skilled professional dealing with a situation which requires split-second reactions (like a bouncer in a fight or a race car driver on the track)  the loop may be largely subconscious, but it is still there.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 31, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> A Monkey Dance isn't a consensual fight… kinda the opposite… it's a display, used to intimidate or avoid conflict, and is rarely symmetrical itself. A consensual fight in this case would be a match fight, whether a challenge in a bar, spilling out to the parking lot, or a sporting form (such as MMA), or anything of the kind.


Yeah, sorry. I was using that as shorthand for "a consensual fight arising out of the Monkey Dance." The Monkey Dance may be used in an attempt to avoid conflict, but realistically it is just as likely to escalate matters.

My bad for not being clear.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 31, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I just wanted to mention that you _can_ have very productive sparring sessions where the parties involved are operating with different rule sets. When I teach, I very often assign each partner a role with specific limitations and/or objectives. Often this gives better results than purely open-ended sparring.


My teacher says that, and often you should be working on a few things you don't mention. It brings a little mystery to the conversation.


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 31, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> My teacher says that, and often you should be working on a few things you don't mention. It brings a little mystery to the conversation.



Would that not be just initiative. You like listen and digest, then upon you're findings. Yeah, maybe a little simplistic here


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Then you have no idea of how I do things. I question constantly… every time I go through a kata, I'm ensuring it's optimised on both the attacker and defender side, which is done by constantly questioning and checking the technique itself. I also constantly test to see if things need redefining… but frankly, I've been at this some 2 and a half decades or more, so most of the basic questions (that you're dealing with) are well and truly behind me now. That doesn't mean I've stopped questioning, it means that the questions you're bringing up are already answered.




how many times have you changed kata? Seen an issue with it and fixed it?

this is an important question. Because it decides if you are training via dogma.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2014)

Touch Of Death said:


> My teacher says that, and often you should be working on a few things you don't mention. It brings a little mystery to the conversation.



sparring should often be like that because although it feels natural to work on your strengths. You also need to work on your weaknesses.

and in sparring that can cost you a punch in the head.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Of course the OODA loop applies to sparring… what on earth makes you think it doesn't?!?



That old hack that street isn't sport.  Here is another example that being good at one makes you good at the other.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> No, I'm not. I'm using facts to correct your misapplication of various terms.



no you are just saying facts. An actual fact would have a source.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I learned about the OODA loop in basic training. It's a useful concept.
> 
> Just to be clear, it does not mean that in the heat of a fight you have to be running down a little mental checklist "I've completed step 2, so now I'm on to step 3 where I get to decide." You run through the loop in a time scale appropriate to the situation, which could be months for a business campaign or a split second for a life and death physical confrontation.
> 
> ...



yeah. Look these things are a training aid though rather than an end in itself. And in general i am not a fan of using these concepts. The ooda loop isn't bad as it has a use. But there is a trend to make yourself sound more of an expert than you are by using this jargon.

those stupid colors of awareness fall right in to this. Knowing whether i am in condition red or black is a small comfort if someone is really trying to mess me up.

anyway. Back to understanding the loop. Properly getting that process is neuroscience. Which is more than most people need for practical application.

The Neuroscience of Decision Making The Kavli Foundation


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2014)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, sorry. I was using that as shorthand for "a consensual fight arising out of the Monkey Dance." The Monkey Dance may be used in an attempt to avoid conflict, but realistically it is just as likely to escalate matters.
> 
> My bad for not being clear.



except a challenge at a bar can be predatory.

i have even seen strategic ambushes especially by gang members. 

eg.
we would have a fight in a club,separate tem put one out the front one out the back. 

the guy out the front is getting all monkey dance. The guy out the back is ringing 20 of his friends who will arrive in five minutes with bats and hospitalise the guy.

salt night club was a monkey dance. And i thing 3 people got macheted to death and one guy drowned.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 31, 2014)

Three feared dead after machete attack - theage.com.au

salt night club fight.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 1, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Yeah, sorry. I was using that as shorthand for "a consensual fight arising out of the Monkey Dance." The Monkey Dance may be used in an attempt to avoid conflict, but realistically it is just as likely to escalate matters.
> 
> My bad for not being clear.



Okay, cool… that, I agree with for the most part. I'd still class the Monkey Dance as primarily about establishing dominance, which might (if dominance isn't established by getting the other side to back down, become submissive etc) escalate into a fight… which, due to the opportunity to escape during the rest of the ritual, can be classed as a "mutually consensual fight".



Touch Of Death said:


> My teacher says that, and often you should be working on a few things you don't mention. It brings a little mystery to the conversation.



I'm not sure that's what Tony was getting at, though… he wasn't talking about working on your own, individual game plan, with the aim of surprising your training partner, he was talking about deliberately setting up a free-response training method (a form of sparring) that is asymmetrical… in order to work on specific skills and tactics (not chosen by the individual, but by the training structure).

In other words, you might have a training structure where the "defender" has the aim of escape through a crowd, and the "attackers" don't actually attack, but simply provide obstacles… or that the "defender" has an aim of de-escalating, while the attacker tries to escalate from a verbal threat to a physical one… or, well, anything else.



drop bear said:


> how many times have you changed kata? Seen an issue with it and fixed it?
> 
> this is an important question. Because it decides if you are training via dogma.



I honestly couldn't tell you… I'm always refining my understanding of them, to the point that I'm currently going through the ones I'll be teaching at the first class of the year to see if there's anything to adjust/improve. So… hundreds? Thousands? Who knows…

Of course, when you get to your question of "seen an issue and fixed it", well, that's a bit different… what I've "fixed", really, is my understanding of them. 

Again, I really don't think you get what kata training actually is… not that that's actually anything to do with the topic of the thread… again… 



drop bear said:


> That old hack that street isn't sport.  Here is another example that being good at one makes you good at the other.



What? The OODA loop is the process of decision making… it applies everywhere you make a decision… it has nothing at all to do with "sport vs street", or anything of the kind… I have no idea where you got that idea from. The decision making will be different for each, but that's based on the first two parts of the OODA loop… Observe and Orient (to the context/situation)… so the decision being made will be different… but you still apply the OODA loop.

Seriously, there is absolutely nothing in the construct that shows anything about it being "good at one making you good at the other"… it's a construct to understand a process… and, frankly, you don't seem to get what that actually is.



drop bear said:


> no you are just saying facts. An actual fact would have a source.



What are you after as a "source"? The OODA loop, which has been linked to a number of times by Ballen, written out again by Transk? The Monkey Dance, which we'll get to your errors in in a bit, which you can easily google yourself? The way kata training works, which you've openly denied and refused to listen to any and all explanations of? 

I'll put it this way… anything that requires facts has back-up, much of which is provided in this thread (and elsewhere). Anything that is an explanation of an understanding (such as the reality of kata training), the explanation itself is the back-up, further supported by the experiences and evidence (observational) of those telling you what it is.

You really don't' seem to get how evidence works. I mean… if I'm "just saying facts", then you're accepting that they are facts… in which case, I don't need to provide further sources to show that the facts are facts… they're facts.



drop bear said:


> yeah. Look these things are a training aid though rather than an end in itself. And in general i am not a fan of using these concepts. The ooda loop isn't bad as it has a use. But there is a trend to make yourself sound more of an expert than you are by using this jargon.
> 
> those stupid colors of awareness fall right in to this. Knowing whether i am in condition red or black is a small comfort if someone is really trying to mess me up.
> 
> ...



No.

Neuroscience is a way of mapping the internal (biological) process the brain goes through when making a decision… in other words, it's really just a way of mapping what happens during the OODA loop itself.

Frankly, if you don't want to use the terminology, that's fine… it's your prerogative… but that doesn't change the very, very simple fact that these are simply constructs to allow people to better understand things. 



drop bear said:


> except a challenge at a bar can be predatory.



Well, yeah… 



drop bear said:


> i have even seen strategic ambushes especially by gang members.
> 
> eg.
> we would have a fight in a club,separate tem put one out the front one out the back.
> ...



Well, no.

That's not a Monkey Dance. That's a distraction, which is a completely different tactic.



drop bear said:


> Three feared dead after machete attack - theage.com.au
> 
> salt night club fight.



… and… that shows what exactly to do with this thread, the topic, or anything else? It's a news report on a situation you claim was a Monkey Dance (it wasn't), which has no mention whatsoever of anything close to it, or how it all actually went down… and none of this is anything at all to do with the topic of what conversation is….


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 1, 2015)

drop bear said:


> except a challenge at a bar can be predatory.
> 
> *i have even seen strategic ambushes especially by gang members*.
> 
> ...



The same over here. One of the reasons I just to really not like venues with one main transfer point, IE just the front door area and with a fire exit very close by. One venue, now a Vodka Revolution, has a garden area. One big bin area and driveway to eject people from. Really easy when you can funnel them which ever way you want. Absolute nightmare pending when you have to hold one group. There is always one in a first group that will try to get back in the venue, or try and kick off when some door staff are otherwise engaged. Mind you, can be fun


----------



## drop bear (Jan 1, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> You really don't' seem to get how evidence works. I mean… if I'm "just saying facts", then you're accepting that they are facts… in which case, I don't need to provide further sources to show that the facts are facts… they're facts.



i thought you were saying facts to make it sound cooler than opinion.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 1, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> … and… that shows what exactly to do with this thread, the topic, or anything else? It's a news report on a situation you claim was a Monkey Dance (it wasn't), which has no mention whatsoever of anything close to it, or how it all actually went down… and none of this is anything at all to do with the topic of what conversation is….



there is mis conception of what goes on in a fight and the motivations behind it.

in my opinion.

monkey dance is generally used poorly as a concept. 

i didn't raise the monkey dance. So as a derail it was not mine.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 1, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I'll put it this way… anything that requires facts has back-up, much of which is provided in this thread (and elsewhere). Anything that is an explanation of an understanding (such as the reality of kata training), the explanation itself is the back-up, further supported by the experiences and evidence (observational) of those telling you what it is.



no it really isn't.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 1, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> What? The OODA loop is the process of decision making… it applies everywhere you make a decision… it has nothing at all to do with "sport vs street", or anything of the kind… I have no idea where you got that idea from. The decision making will be different for each, but that's based on the first two parts of the OODA loop… Observe and Orient (to the context/situation)… so the decision being made will be different… but you still apply the OODA loop.



good decision making as described in the links can be produced by good training in sparring.

without the need to over analyze it.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 1, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Of course, when you get to your question of "seen an issue and fixed it", well, that's a bit different… what I've "fixed", really, is my understanding of them.



obviously you would change the kata as your martial art evolves?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 1, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Neuroscience is a way of mapping the internal (biological) process the brain goes through when making a decision… in other words, it's really just a way of mapping what happens during the OODA loop itself.



no it isn't.
Neuroscience - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> i thought you were saying facts to make it sound cooler than opinion.



No. I don't say anything to sound "cooler"… I say them because they're accurate. When I say things are facts, I mean that they are facts.



drop bear said:


> there is mis conception of what goes on in a fight and the motivations behind it.
> 
> in my opinion.



The article didn't have anything to do with that, though… there was no mention of motivations, or anything else. So, again, what was the point?



drop bear said:


> monkey dance is generally used poorly as a concept.



When I see some evidence that you understand the concept, I'll take what you think on board.



drop bear said:


> i didn't raise the monkey dance. So as a derail it was not mine.



I was asking what the article you linked, which you took a new post to do, with nothing else, had to do with the topic or discussion… I mean, I know you didn't bring the Monkey Dance up, that wasn't the point… it was that much of this thread, including most of your posts, are nothing to do with the actual topic you started.



drop bear said:


> no it really isn't.



As I said, I really don't think you get how evidence works.



drop bear said:


> good decision making as described in the links can be produced by good training in sparring.
> 
> without the need to over analyze it.



Of course it can be produced by sparring… or any of a thousand other methods… it's simply a way of understanding the process of making a decision, which can be largely unconscious or automatic… do you really think that sparring is in any way different or unique in this sense? Or that this is anything to do with the topic?



drop bear said:


> obviously you would change the kata as your martial art evolves?



Yeah… no. You're not really getting the way this works… it changes as my understanding and development in the art evolves.



drop bear said:


> no it isn't.
> Neuroscience - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Yeah, look, I was trying to parse some kind of meaning out of your phrasing, which was, for the record: "anyway. Back to understanding the loop. Properly getting that process is neuroscience. Which is more than most people need for practical application."

I mean, that, in itself, doesn't actually make much sense… I have no idea what you actually meant by "properly getting that process is neuroscience"… Neuroscience is a field of study… so, no… as a result, I felt that you meant something like "properly understanding the process (of making a decision) is (explained by this area of) neuroscience". If you were saying that all of neuroscience is about understanding decision making, well, no… it's about understanding a lot of different things, all based around the nervous system, and the brain… of course, as I thought you were addressing it only in relation to the OODA loop, that is where I was aiming my comments… 

Let's put it this way… if you were saying that neuroscience explains the OODA loop without using the construct of the OODA loop, then no, it doesn't… it maps the way the OODA loop affects and operates in the nervous system and the brain… if you were saying that neuroscience (as a whole) means you don't need the construct of the OODA loop, then no, it doesn't… neuroscience is the study of the nervous system, which does include aspects of psychology, but is not psychology itself, meaning that the construct operates independent of, and in alignment with, the study of neuroscience…. 

Neuroscience and the OODA loop construct neither substitute each for the other, nor operate independently… the OODA loop is a psychological construct (understanding of the process) of decision making, and neuroscience explains what's happening during that process. Kay?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> No. I don't say anything to sound "cooler"… I say them because they're accurate. When I say things are facts, I mean that they are facts.



so you are not sure what a fact is.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… no. You're not really getting the way this works… it changes as my understanding and development in the art evolves.



so you make changes to the kata as your understanding of the technique increases.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> so you make changes to the kata as your understanding of the technique increases.


Looks like you need to do less "sparing" and actually read what he is saying.  Its not that hard to understand his point.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Looks like you need to do less "sparing" and actually read what he is saying.  Its not that hard to understand his point.



that he either updates kata or he doesn't. I don't think he has been clear.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> that he either updates kata or he doesn't. I don't think he has been clear.


Then your not paying attention its pretty clear to me


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 2, 2015)

Attention All Users:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.

jks9199
Administrator


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Then your not paying attention its pretty clear to me



then explain it.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 2, 2015)

Drop bear and ballen, please take it easy, this is a good thread


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2015)

Transk53 said:


> this is a good thread


Cant say I agree


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2015)

drop bear said:


> then explain it.


You dont like, and you dont study Kata so I dont think I can in a way you will understand it.  I think your "sparring" again and have no interest in the answer.


----------



## Buka (Jan 2, 2015)

Everyone practices sparring differently, have a wide variety of approaches to it, not to mention experience and informed opinions. Katas are vastly different in every style, and also within the same style in different schools, and probably vary among different teachers in the same school. 

The wide variety of experience and knowledge of forum members around here kind of reminds me of the United Nations. But, the discussion of "Conversation is sparring, not Kata" is purely metaphorical. 

It's kind of like discussing - okay, open your sock drawer, picture your socks as what you believe are the best motor cars in the world and assign each sock to a particular vehicle make and model. Got all that? Good. Now, let's discuss what color the piece of paper in your glove compartment is. 

Which piece of paper? That piece of paper right there.....the one next to your socks.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> You dont like, and you dont study Kata so I dont think I can in a way you will understand it.  I think your "sparring" again and have no interest in the answer.


I wasn't saying this to be a smart a__.  I understand what Chris is saying perhaps because I train Kata and I enjoy kata and I've had the same "ah ha" moments that Chris has.  So what he said makes complete sense.  You don't study kata you don't like kata and quite frankly yiy don't understand kata so I can see why what he says isn't making sense to you


----------



## drop bear (Jan 2, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> I wasn't saying this to be a smart a__.  I understand what Chris is saying perhaps because I train Kata and I enjoy kata and I've had the same "ah ha" moments that Chris has.  So what he said makes complete sense.  You don't study kata you don't like kata and quite frankly yiy don't understand kata so I can see why what he says isn't making sense to you



because his dogmatic approach to training influences his dogmatic approach to conversation.

kata is to be understood from its position of expertise raised almost to god hood. It is not wrong. It does not change. The person who practises kata just does not understand it well enough.

i can also see why that does not make sense to me. As i do a flawed system made up by people. Sometimes i am wrong,sometimes i am right and most times there is a grey area in the middle.

the ooda loop is a flawed system made up by people as well. If we want to tie up some of these derails.

and so conversation can achieve two purposes either we can identify the weaknesses and strengths through testing or we can repeat an adage untill it is perceived as fact.

sparring
kata.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because his dogmatic approach to training influences his dogmatic approach to conversation.
> 
> kata is to be understood from its position of expertise raised almost to god hood. It is not wrong. It does not change. The person who practises kata just does not understand it well enough.
> 
> ...


Nope.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> so you are not sure what a fact is.



I honestly don't know where you got that idea from… I'm fully cognisant of what a fact is… but here's the thing… if you think what I'm saying as facts aren't actually facts (not truthful statements and observations of reality), then I expect you can counter them with facts of your own? Either ones that stand on their own merit (oxygen is needed to survive), or those that require backup… I don't mind which. 



drop bear said:


> so you make changes to the kata as your understanding of the technique increases.



No, not entirely… my performance and understanding of the kata is refined as my understanding of the technique, how it fits, what it represents, and so on improves. That can sometimes mean change, yeah… but that's the least common scenario, and is most commonly when I've gotten things rather wrong, and realised… so the "change" is to take it back to the way it's meant to be done.



drop bear said:


> that he either updates kata or he doesn't. I don't think he has been clear.



Update the kata? Nope. Update my understanding of it? Yep. Update my insight? Yep. Update my approach to it? Yep. Of course, a lot of this comes down to "what is a kata", which gets rather difficult to say in some of my systems… 

I'll put it this way:









Koku of Gyokko Ryu Koshijutsu Advanced Ninjutsu Lessons - YouTube
(the new system won't let me do more than 5 at a time… you'll need to click on that link...)












(at 1:10 for that last one).

These are all clips of the same kata… Koku, the first kata in Gyokko Ryu…  done in many different ways, by a number of different people, in different organisations, at different levels in their understanding. Is the kata the same? Well, yeah… but then again, there are obvious small and large differences… does that make them different? That depends on how you identify what the kata actually is… 

By the same token, you can find different teachers of the same, or different systems teaching the same kata (at it's root), but there will be differences. Are they really different kata? Are the changes really "changes"? Or just specifics altering from one instructor to another?

I strive to always do the kata to the utmost of my ability, understanding, insight, knowledge, and skill. And, while the specifics can change… the kata never does. All that happens is that I refine my performance, refine my understanding, to the point where I can change all the specifics and still do the same kata… but someone at a different level might get all the specifics "right", but not do the kata at all. And all that leads us to is back to the question: What is kata?



drop bear said:


> because his dogmatic approach to training influences his dogmatic approach to conversation.



Well, to begin with, there's little "dogmatic" in my approach to my training… there really isn't. I have absolutely no interest in doing anything "just because" that's the way things are done… my interest is in understanding why that's the way things are done. The reasons for the structure, the sequence, the lessons… 

Let's take it back to the kata above, Koku… the first step is to learn the basic structure and mechanics… which direction do you step with which leg? How do you do the block and strike? What is the attack like? What's the timing? After you've done that, you start to get at the smaller, individual lessons of the kata… the lesson of attacking the attacking limbs… of evading to the inside and outside… of positioning yourself behind the opponent, so that you can perform a "finish" against a target they can't protect, while at the same time, not letting them attack you… then, you start to look at the kata as a whole again, taking the entire sequence as a roadmap, of sorts… teaching you about leading an opponent… about how to be open, or guarded… how to choose… After that, you take an even broader look… you see where Koku sits within the system itself… how it relates to the kata that come after it (and the Kihon that came before). And each time you do this, you go back to the very beginning… looking at the structure and mechanics… ensuring that everything you do matches the way the kata is structured, and the lessons it's teaching… which can alter your timing, your angling, your positioning, your targeting, the exact force used, your breathing, your awareness of yourself and your opponent, and more.

That's starting to get at how kata training works. Just learning "punch, then block, then hit, then kick" really isn't anything to do with actually learning a kata. It's just what you have to do to get to it.



drop bear said:


> kata is to be understood from its position of expertise raised almost to god hood. It is not wrong. It does not change. The person who practises kata just does not understand it well enough.



Actually, you're not too far off there… of course, you've taken it to a ludicrous extreme, but in essence it's pretty much that. It comes down, really, to your perspective.

Many sport systems teach you, and encourage you, to focus on doing what you can to "win" in an individual sense… come up with your own way of doing things, and your own approach… your own tactics and preferred methods, within the construct and context of the chosen competitive format. If you do something that isn't what's taught in that system, but hey, it works for you, and you win the tournament, great, go for it! Thing is… that's kinda the opposite idea of kata training.

Kata training is a distillation of the tactical essence of the system already. You don't need to experiment and apply trial and error, that's already been done… you're being given the game plan already. It's all about learning the way that art chooses to do things… not trying to figure out how you would do them yourself.

Now, if you're just concerned about your own personal sense of "fighting ability", the first method could work fantastically for you… it's geared up for you to have a bit of free-rein, in order to try things out, and see what works for you. But if you're wanting to learn a particular approach, it's simply too random… there's no guarantee you'll actually get the skills the art is wanting you to have. In addition, if you're personally talented, you might do wonderfully well in the "sports" approach… but, if you're less-so, you might flounder. Sparring and sports methodology do rely a fair bit on personal talent after a certain point (and, to be fair, so do the kata-based systems), but the kata-centric will be more able to give the specific lessons intended.

And that's where it comes down to… I, frankly, couldn't care less about being a "fighter". I have no interest whatsoever in the idea. What is my concern is my ability within the construct of my chosen arts… if I'm concerned about being a "fighter", it's only within those arts. I don't train my Kenjutsu to be the greatest swordsman around, but I do train it to be the best practitioner of that system I can be… which does involve being a swordsman and focusing on what that means.

So, to take that back to what you were saying, yes, it's absolutely correct to say that the kata is never "wrong". It can't be. It is the art… the only way it can be "wrong" is to not be the art in the first place… in which case it wouldn't be there. The only side that can be "wrong" is the practitioner… and, if they don't get the kata, then yeah, they haven't understood it well enough yet. It's not the kata's fault. It's like a book on advanced physics or mathematics. If you don't have the requisite experience and knowledge to understand the book, it's not the book that's wrong… it's the person reading it.

Nothing about "god-hood", of course… you're reaching a little desperately there…  



drop bear said:


> i can also see why that does not make sense to me. As i do a flawed system made up by people. Sometimes i am wrong,sometimes i am right and most times there is a grey area in the middle.



Actually, I don't think anyone has said you do a "flawed" system… I certainly haven't. And no, it's not "made up" by people… it's developed by exposure and application within it's context, by experience and experiments of people. Sure, some will come up with something semi-unique, and think they've made it up… but that's pretty much never the case.

What you are doing, though, is highlighting what I mean when I say that a sporting approach is too random and inconsistent for my tastes… it's too reliant on what you might come up with, or what someone else might come up with, rather than looking to what is known to work… of course, "work" is completely contextually reliant as well… 



drop bear said:


> the ooda loop is a flawed system made up by people as well. If we want to tie up some of these derails.



Er, no, it's not. The OODA loop, for the last time now, is not a "system"… it's a construct, a way of explaining a process so that it can be understood, rationalised, identified, refined, and enhanced. You really are looking at it in entirely the wrong way.



drop bear said:


> and so conversation can achieve two purposes either we can identify the weaknesses and strengths through testing or we can repeat an adage untill it is perceived as fact.
> 
> sparring
> kata.



And this is where it all falls apart… you're not allowing anything you're putting forth to be tested for strength or weakness… you're basically being a heavy bag here, which doesn't really change no matter how much it's hit… that's not sparring, it's not kata, and it's not conversation. But, of course, most importantly… conversation is the exchange of ideas and communication… it can involve "testing" such ideas, but not necessarily or by definition… as a result, conversation is simply not sparring. Some forms, sure… but as a whole? No, not by a long shot. Of course… you've been told that a number of times… so I might suggest you consider that idea tested, found to be full of weaknesses, and now you can leave it by the wayside.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> I honestly don't know where you got that idea from… I'm fully cognisant of what a fact is… but here's the thing… if you think what I'm saying as facts aren't actually facts (not truthful statements and observations of reality), then I expect you can counter them with facts of your own? Either ones that stand on their own merit (oxygen is needed to survive), or those that require backup… I don't mind which.



if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.

Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 Which is why i don't think you know what a fact is.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.
> 
> Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Which is why i don't think you know what a fact is.


What statement do you disagree with?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> What statement do you disagree with?



that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.


So nothing related to the actual topic your being confrontational just to be confrontational


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 3, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Many sport systems teach you, and encourage you, to focus on doing what you can to "win" in an individual sense… come up with your own way of doing things, and your own approach… your own tactics and preferred methods, within the construct and context of the chosen competitive format. If you do something that isn't what's taught in that system, but hey, it works for you, and you win the tournament, great, go for it! Thing is… that's kinda the opposite idea of kata training.
> 
> Kata training is a distillation of the tactical essence of the system already. You don't need to experiment and apply trial and error, that's already been done… you're being given the game plan already. It's all about learning the way that art chooses to do things… not trying to figure out how you would do them yourself.
> 
> ...



Interesting.

If I'm reading you correctly, your purpose for training is not to develop tools for addressing whatever your own personal needs in life are. Rather, it's to understand a given martial art for its own sake in its original context, much like a student of art history endeavoring to understand why Rembrandt used the techniques and made the choices he did while painting _The Night Watch_.

I've discussed elsewhere that I have a fundamentally different viewpoint than you seem to regarding martial arts styles as having a unitary ideal Platonic nature, but I can appreciate the historical benefits of trying to understand what the creators of an art were up to on their own terms.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.





ballen0351 said:


> So nothing related to the actual topic your being confrontational just to be confrontational



I think what drop bear is trying to say, in a not entirely articulate fashion, is something like the following:

_"Chris makes statements. He presents these statements not as opinions, but as undeniable facts. He indicates that I should just accept these statements and not challenge them, because he is an authority who knows much more about everything than I do. However, I do not think that I need to take his word that he knows so much more than I do and I don't feel like he has provided evidence to back up his statements that he claims as facts."_ 

Drop bear - if this is indeed an accurate summation of the point you were trying to make, then I might make a few suggestions (some of which go back to my first post in this thread) for more productively engaging with Chris without having to either accept him as an all-knowing authority or waste time with cryptic snark.

a) Make sure you understand what Chris (or anyone else you want to debate with) is trying to say in the first place. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him. That means you should be able to restate his position and when you ask "is this what you are trying to say", he will say "yes." Otherwise you are wasting your time arguing with a strawman you have constructed in your head.

b) If you feel that you need more evidence than he has provided before you accept his point,  then be ready to spell out what sort of evidence you need and why you need it. In an earlier thread, there was discussion of what samurai training methods might have entailed, and as Chris and elder and others outlined the available evidence (historical records, oral traditions, etc) you kept saying "so you have no evidence." Honestly, I have no idea what you were asking for. Were you dismissing the idea of historical records and saying you would settle for nothing less than video footage from the 17th century? Were you asking for links to the original Japanese historical documents? Were you asking for details of which specific historical documents or other primary sources that Chris had personally examined? I have no clue.

c) If you actually want to test your ideas through debate in the manner you originally suggested, then take the time to organize and clearly express them in such a way that the people you are talking to can understand your point. No one can help expose the weaknesses in your argument if they can't understand your argument in the first place.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 3, 2015)

Have to agree with Ballen drop bear. You being confrontational. I do believe you have mentioned keyboard warriors in another thread. I can only surmise that you are after the post count. You weren't this active before the software migration imho. Also when you first joined, you were pretty cool as far as I was concerned. Can't fathom what has changed you're mindset, but you are not being a cool member right now, you know what I am saying!!


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 3, 2015)

Now who doesn't know what a fact is? 



drop bear said:


> or we can repeat an adage untill it is perceived as fact.



An adage can contain a fact but does not become a fact no matter how many times you repeat it.



drop bear said:


> if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.


A statement is not a fact it is a statement, a statement can contain a fact but does not become one.

You strike me as someone who does not believe something unless you see it with your own eyes which makes it difficult to anyone to prove anything to your satisfaction.

If you directly observe something then you have observational evidence.

If you tell someone about it it becomes eyewitness testimony. to them but observational evidence.to you and they can chose to accept it or not based on your credibility and  their knowledge of what is or isn't probable.

If they tell someone about what you told them then it becomes hearsay to them, eyewitness testimony to the person you told and observational evidence.to you. The person who is presented with the hearsay can choose to accept it or not based on the credibility of you and the person you told and  their knowledge of what is or isn't probable.

Whether each subsequent person accepts what you observed or not does not change the facts of what you have observed.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> if you make the statement then it is up to you to support it. Sorry its a real rule. Otherwise it is not a real fact.
> 
> Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Which is why i don't think you know what a fact is.



No.

If I make a statement that is presented as a fact, which is shown to be lacking in support, is not credible, is contradictory to previously established understanding and knowledge, then sure, question it, and ask for more evidence or support. But burden of proof doesn't apply to everything just because… if that was the case, then no-one could say anything.

And that brings us to the real issue here… I have supported my statements many times over. We have explained that you don't appear to understand kata training, and I have gone into a fair amount of depth as to what kata training is, how it's designed, how it's meant to be trained, and more… but you're still saying that you're not being given anything to support my statements. That, simply, is not the case. The sheer, simple fact is that you are refusing to accept pretty much any form of evidence that's presented… in other words, while burden of proof is on the person making the statement, you also have the burden of actually taking the evidence on board. And that is something you seem unwilling, or unable to do.



drop bear said:


> that Chris understands what a fact is and who has the burden of proof when he makes a statement.its important because I could say Santa clause is real. You cant prove he isn't.



Actually, you can. You can point to the fact that all evidence is fictionalised story-telling, you can use photos and surveillance of the North Pole to demonstrate that there is no habitable abode there, you can get expert witnesses in the form of parents to corroborate the story of Santa being an invention, you can look at how the character developed and evolved, all the way from the origins of "Saint Nicholas", through the various incarnations (such as "Black Pete"), each giving aspects to the eventual (current) image, including the colour scheme, which comes from Coca-Cola advertising earlier in the 20th Century (which is why "Santa" is dressed in red… it's Coke's colours… prior to that, he was commonly dressed in greens and browns…), and so on.

In other words, you're conflating a plausible story, no matter how well known to be false, with the idea of something presented as fact without evidence… I mean… if we're going to argue as to who understands what a fact is or not, you're not really getting them right on your end… 

In the end, listen to what Tony says in post #141… 

Speaking of Tony...



Tony Dismukes said:


> Interesting.
> 
> If I'm reading you correctly, your purpose for training is not to develop tools for addressing whatever your own personal needs in life are. Rather, it's to understand a given martial art for its own sake in its original context, much like a student of art history endeavoring to understand why Rembrandt used the techniques and made the choices he did while painting _The Night Watch_.



Hey, Tony.

This is where it gets tricky… the answer is yes, however that doesn't mean that one necessarily precludes the other… in order to understand and gain skill in a particular art, I need to gain an understanding and skill in the arena of combative abilities within the context of that system. So it's not quite the same as a more purely academic understanding… that's part of it, but if that's all you do, it's not really studying the art, it's studying the history of the art.

And, realistically, by training in a particular art, I am training to develop tools that can be taken elsewhere in my life… but those tools might not be as immediately transferable, or as instantly recognisable. But, really, you gotta remember mate, I'm Koryu… the context is a bit different to you guys, ha!

That said, realistically, whenever you choose to train in a particular art, no matter what it is, it's because you see the value in that art… whether it's a traditional system, modern combatives system, sport system, armed, unarmed, or whatever. So, you're primary aim has to be to learn the art… which means, well, you need to follow what the art is teaching, and put aside what you think things should be, at least until you have a real thorough grounding in the system. It doesn't matter if it's BJJ, MMA, Kyudo, or whatever… if you're not following the way the art is teaching you to behave, think, act etc, get out of the system… you're not there to learn.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I've discussed elsewhere that I have a fundamentally different viewpoint than you seem to regarding martial arts styles as having a unitary ideal Platonic nature, but I can appreciate the historical benefits of trying to understand what the creators of an art were up to on their own terms.



Yeah… to be honest, I don't think you've quite grasped what I was saying. For one thing, I have never said that anything is "static"… in fact, quite the opposite. I have always included the fact that, for some systems, the idea of constantly evolving, developing, adapting is very much part of what makes that art what it is… bluntly, you're ascribing a far too concrete application of what I was saying than I ever actually said myself.

I mean, I get what you're saying… but feel you're missing a lot of what I was saying in the first place. Of course, this is a discussion for a different place.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think what drop bear is trying to say, in a not entirely articulate fashion, is something like the following:
> 
> _"Chris makes statements. He presents these statements not as opinions, but as undeniable facts. He indicates that I should just accept these statements and not challenge them, because he is an authority who knows much more about everything than I do. However, I do not think that I need to take his word that he knows so much more than I do and I don't feel like he has provided evidence to back up his statements that he claims as facts."_
> 
> ...


Perhaps but when I asked what specifically he didn't agree with he wants to argue his definition of a "fact"  Not specifically what Chris said just that its not a "fact"
I think he is just purposely fighting to fight or "spar" because he believes that's a "conversation"  Its just not the case.  I have conversations with my wife all the time and we don't "spar"  Its not adversarial or confrontational is a conversation. We share ideas.  He may be closer in saying a debate is like sparing if he insists on using the metaphor but I just think the entire topic is flawed


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 3, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> This is where it gets tricky… the answer is yes, however that doesn't mean that one necessarily precludes the other… in order to understand and gain skill in a particular art, I need to gain an understanding and skill in the arena of combative abilities within the context of that system. So it's not quite the same as a more purely academic understanding… that's part of it, but if that's all you do, it's not really studying the art, it's studying the history of the art.



Right, I didn't mean that you were working for understanding strictly in an intellectual textbook fashion. That really would be missing out on most of what makes up the martial arts experience.  To extend my original metaphor, you would be like a student who attempts to understand Rembrandt in part by learning to use the same techniques and tools that he did.



Chris Parker said:


> And, realistically, by training in a particular art, I am training to develop tools that can be taken elsewhere in my life… but those tools might not be as immediately transferable, or as instantly recognisable. But, really, you gotta remember mate, I'm Koryu… the context is a bit different to you guys, ha!



Right, the tools can be transferable to other contexts. However I get the impression that this is more of a fringe benefit for you than the main reason for study.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… to be honest, I don't think you've quite grasped what I was saying. For one thing, I have never said that anything is "static"… in fact, quite the opposite. I have always included the fact that, for some systems, the idea of constantly evolving, developing, adapting is very much part of what makes that art what it is… bluntly, you're ascribing a far too concrete application of what I was saying than I ever actually said myself.



I didn't say you viewed systems as static. Sorry if I gave that impression. You _do_ speak as if a martial art is a single, unified thing that exists outside of the individuals who practice it. I have rather a different outlook.



Chris Parker said:


> I mean, I get what you're saying… but feel you're missing a lot of what I was saying in the first place. Of course, this is a discussion for a different place.



I'd love to get a thread started on the subject. I think some of our different outlooks on the matter is an unstated subtext in many different discussions we've had around here.

I probably won't have a chance to organize my thoughts for starting such a thread tonight. (I'm busy working on writing a book review.) If you feel up for starting one, feel free. Otherwise maybe I'll be able to get to it tomorrow.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> If I make a statement that is presented as a fact, which is shown to be lacking in support, is not credible, is contradictory to previously established understanding and knowledge, then sure, question it, and ask for more evidence or support. But burden of proof doesn't apply to everything just because… if that was the case, then no-one could say anything.
> 
> And that brings us to the real issue here… I have supported my statements many times over. We have explained that you don't appear to understand kata training, and I have gone into a fair amount of depth as to what kata training is, how it's designed, how it's meant to be trained, and more… but you're still saying that you're not being given anything to support my statements. That, simply, is not the case. The sheer, simple fact is that you are refusing to accept pretty much any form of evidence that's presented… in other words, while burden of proof is on the person making the statement, you also have the burden of actually taking the evidence on board. And that is something you seem unwilling, or unable to do.



no.

you are repeating your statements. Not supporting them.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> Perhaps but when I asked what specifically he didn't agree with he wants to argue his definition of a "fact" Not specifically what Chris said just that its not a "fact"
> I think he is just purposely fighting to fight or "spar" because he believes that's a "conversation" Its just not the case. I have conversations with my wife all the time and we don't "spar" Its not adversarial or confrontational is a conversation. We share ideas. He may be closer in saying a debate is like sparing if he insists on using the metaphor but I just think the entire topic is flawed



that was the simplest to find rather than having to grind though threads and find all the inconsistencies. Which is impossible to argue due to this idea that every thing he says is fact. And it is fact because he says it.

i mean if you wanted confrontation then all you would need is two people doing that.

it would wind up like an argument with a three year old.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> that was the simplest to find rather than having to grind though threads and find all the inconsistencies. Which is impossible to argue due to this idea that every thing he says is fact. And it is fact because he says it.


nonsense


> i mean if you wanted confrontation then all you would need is two people doing that.


kinda like your doing now?



> it would wind up like an argument with a three year old.


I know the feeling


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> b) If you feel that you need more evidence than he has provided before you accept his point, then be ready to spell out what sort of evidence you need and why you need it. In an earlier thread, there was discussion of what samurai training methods might have entailed, and as Chris and elder and others outlined the available evidence (historical records, oral traditions, etc) you kept saying "so you have no evidence." Honestly, I have no idea what you were asking for. Were you dismissing the idea of historical records and saying you would settle for nothing less than video footage from the 17th century? Were you asking for links to the original Japanese historical documents? Were you asking for details of which specific historical documents or other primary sources that Chris had personally examined? I have no clue.



they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.

i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 3, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> nonsense
> 
> kinda like your doing now?
> 
> ...



these sort of posts are an example of what i am getting at. This is how you get a confrontational conversation.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.
> 
> i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.


Here we get back to a) in my previous comment, understanding what the other person is saying. I can 100% guarantee that Chris is not claiming to be a samurai, live a samurai existence, or even train to be a samurai. He also did not claim that samurai didn't engage in life-or-death duels, because we have historical records that many of them did so.

The claim was that the samurai were not killing each other as part of normal training, which is very different from killing each other in duels or warfare. As one line of evidence, Chris offered his familiarity with classical ryu which have preserved training methods of the time period via unbroken teacher-to-student transmission and written documentation. (Note, training in such a ryu does not make someone a samurai and no one I know who trains in such an art claims that it does.)

You could ask to see the written documentation, but unless you read Japanese I don't know how much good it would do you.

You can still be skeptical if you want, but it might be helpful to clarify where exactly your skepticism lies.

Do you doubt that Chris actually trains in a classical ryu and has collected information from others who train in other koryu systems?

Do you doubt that the koryu systems have accurately preserved the training methods of their founders?

Do you doubt that any historical records exist concerning how the samurai lived and trained?

If you clarify where your skepticism lies, then others have a chance of addressing it if they choose to do so.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> these sort of posts are an example of what i am getting at. This is how you get a confrontational conversation.


When you post nonsense you get nonsense back


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2015)

drop bear said:


> they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.
> 
> i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.


Where did I post about Samurai duels?  I don't remember


----------



## drop bear (Jan 4, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Here we get back to a) in my previous comment, understanding what the other person is saying. I can 100% guarantee that Chris is not claiming to be a samurai, live a samurai existence, or even train to be a samurai. He also did not claim that samurai didn't engage in life-or-death duels, because we have historical records that many of them did so.
> 
> The claim was that the samurai were not killing each other as part of normal training, which is very different from killing each other in duels or warfare. As one line of evidence, Chris offered his familiarity with classical ryu which have preserved training methods of the time period via unbroken teacher-to-student transmission and written documentation. (Note, training in such a ryu does not make someone a samurai and no one I know who trains in such an art claims that it does.)
> 
> ...



except what would be the point? He claimed he does address it by making the statement in the first place. That is his proof.

not once have i seen him back a statement with a source. If i back a statement with a source he just says that isn't the case and we are back to square one.

i have never known an authority on any topic that operates that way.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 4, 2015)

ballen0351 said:


> When you post nonsense you get nonsense back



because..................


conversation is sparring.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> except what would be the point? He claimed he does address it by making the statement in the first place. That is his proof.
> 
> not once have i seen him back a statement with a source. If i back a statement with a source he just says that isn't the case and we are back to square one.
> 
> i have never known an authority on any topic that operates that way.



as far as my doubts. I don't think Chris has much practical knowledge in areas like self defence.

so in the texts there are portions telling me what a fight is like. Even a fun portion on why bouncers lift weights. 

it is a style thing rather than a specific thing. He is absolutely sure he is correct every time he makes a point.  That is why i compared it to kata. Because of that backwards thought process.

eg. Kata is correct. Now we have to find out why it is correct.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because..................
> 
> 
> conversation is sparring.


Nope your still wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.


----------



## Gnarlie (Jan 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> because..................
> 
> 
> conversation is sparring.


IMO there would be elements analogous to both kata and sparring in language and conversation.

Kata would be analogous to the vocabulary (techniques) and grammar (accepted conventions for use and structure of vocabulary / technique - this would equate to tactics). Kata could also be compared to the principles of logic - expressions of general principles that would hold true for particular contexts. 

Sparring would be analogous to practising the use of vocabulary (techniques), grammar (convention /tactics) and rules of logic, say in the context of writing a paper or formulating a rebuttal in a court room - situations where one party tries to impose his will and view on another. But a friendly conversation it is not. 

Maybe conversation here in this friendly martial arts forum should not be like that. Maybe conversation here should be more like a trade - one person gives another something in exchange for something else, to mutual benefit.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 4, 2015)

Hey Tony,



Tony Dismukes said:


> Right, I didn't mean that you were working for understanding strictly in an intellectual textbook fashion. That really would be missing out on most of what makes up the martial arts experience.  To extend my original metaphor, you would be like a student who attempts to understand Rembrandt in part by learning to use the same techniques and tools that he did.



Hmm… yeah, that's closer… still not quite it, though, but it's certainly closer.



Tony Dismukes said:


> Right, the tools can be transferable to other contexts. However I get the impression that this is more of a fringe benefit for you than the main reason for study.



Again, that's kind of a "yes and no" situation… yes, it's a fringe benefit, but by the same token, it's a primary drive as well… if there's no "connection" to the outside life, it's rather pointless.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I didn't say you viewed systems as static. Sorry if I gave that impression. You _do_ speak as if a martial art is a single, unified thing that exists outside of the individuals who practice it. I have rather a different outlook.



Okay… I was taking your phrasing from your blog there. Of course, yeah, I do talk about a martial art (specific system) as being a single unified "thing"… what that is changes from system to system, of course, but I also hold that my belief is correct. Honestly, it's held up by every observation I've ever made, as well as any and all systems I've come across. The idea of a system (say, BJJ) continuing to evolve, adapt, and add to itself through it's developmental model doesn't deny that… it's simply part of what makes BJJ "BJJ"… but it's still within it's own defined parameters. BJJ is hardly about to add Lichtenhauer and Fiore methods and claim it's still BJJ in that area, to take an extreme example.

And, as far as it existing "outside of the people who practice it", well again, yeah. The art is an addition to the person… it is transmitted through the persons practicing it, and if there are no longer any practitioners, it will also cease to exist… but that doesn't change the idea that the art is separate and external to the practitioners.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I'd love to get a thread started on the subject. I think some of our different outlooks on the matter is an unstated subtext in many different discussions we've had around here.



Yeah, possibly.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I probably won't have a chance to organize my thoughts for starting such a thread tonight. (I'm busy working on writing a book review.) If you feel up for starting one, feel free. Otherwise maybe I'll be able to get to it tomorrow.



Cool. I'll leave it to you. Might be best if we continue it there, then.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 4, 2015)

drop bear said:


> no.
> 
> you are repeating your statements. Not supporting them.



You're really going to have to be more specific in your complaints… I mean, you've been given a range of supporting evidence, you've been given videos (which you seem to feel constitutes "evidence"), you've had things explained at length, you've had the source of information explained again and again, and bluntly, no-one besides you has had a problem with what's been posted constituting evidence and support. Again, I suggest you really don't get what evidence and support is in this context… as you continue to misunderstand what you've being told, even with regard to the nature of support and evidence itself.



drop bear said:


> that was the simplest to find rather than having to grind though threads and find all the inconsistencies. Which is impossible to argue due to this idea that every thing he says is fact. And it is fact because he says it.



Yeah… again, you've completely missed what you've been told. Facts aren't facts just because I say them… or even just because I say they are. Facts are facts regardless. But here's the thing… you have never, not once, actually queried me on any facts… you've simply started commenting on the nature or appearance of "facts". So I'll put it bluntly: If you have a question about anything I've stated, ask it. If you want clarification, ask for it. If you still don't understand, keep asking. But simply denying anything you're told isn't an issue of people not giving you facts, or not supporting them… it's you being… well… the words aren't really allowed here.



drop bear said:


> i mean if you wanted confrontation then all you would need is two people doing that.



Yeah.. because two people coming in armed with facts makes for a good argument… "Hey, I said the sky is blue!" "Yes, it is!" 

Hmm...



drop bear said:


> it would wind up like an argument with a three year old.



You're kidding, right? You, whose entire arguments against relatively lengthy, detailed posts and answers have been "Nope. Sorry. Still wrong.", and "So… no evidence." (after being given multiple sources and supported statements detailing why you were being told the information you were), and so on… but you're now saying that it's other people making these threads like arguing with a three year old?

Really?



drop bear said:


> they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.
> 
> i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.



Well, your memory is completely out, and you were given all of that (and then some) at the time. But, to go back to what was actually said, let's take a look at it… it's in this thread, by the way: Boy dies from headlock. Are you prepared MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

On page one, you made the comment that BJJ's choking had "removed it's lethality" by having a safe training practice (tapping)… it was pointed out that that was an incorrect take on the matter (the lethality of the action itself was not mitigated by a safe training practice, it was still just as potentially lethal) by Elder, using a form of reducto ad absurdum by asking if you really thought that the samurai, in employ of a Daimyo (feudal lord), training to be lethal (for warfare) "regularly choked each other to death in practice"… The next page, you asked Elder if he had any evidence of samurai training methodology (ignoring the flat-out ludicrousness of your question, or the fact that it's based in a deliberately ridiculous construct) that wasn't "based in (his) imagination"… Elder responded with first hand, eye-witness, documentary, second hand, contemporary, and supported observation forms of evidence.

You then said "Do you have any evidence outside of your imagination of how samurai trained." Uh, yeah… all the stuff you'd already been given… in fact, what you'd specifically quoted in your response… and then, you started getting even more bizarre… which I didn't think was really possible. You continued to ignore all evidence given to you, claiming everything was in either Elder's, or my imagination, started saying that we were "living the life of a samurai", and saying we were suggesting that we were there back in the day… 

I do, of course, invite everyone interested to read the actual thread to see just how oddly you were coming across there… and just how much you were refusing to acknowledge any evidence you were presented with, even though, in your own comments, you stated you had no idea of the realities yourself.



drop bear said:


> these sort of posts are an example of what i am getting at. This is how you get a confrontational conversation.



And none of that is on your head? Really?



ballen0351 said:


> Where did I post about Samurai duels?  I don't remember



You didn't… Elder did, drop bear got confused. Mind you, we weren't addressing duels… we were addressing training practices… duels were mentioned by Elder in post #37, specifically in contrast to training practices, but that's about it… which is nothing at all, of course, like the comments that drop bear is making above (that anyone, Elder, myself, or anyone else, stated that samurai didn't engage in life or death duels… "or something").



drop bear said:


> except what would be the point? He claimed he does address it by making the statement in the first place. That is his proof.



And, in some cases, that is very much the way it works. If you ask me about training in my arts, if you ask me about training "back in the day", then I will give you an answer based on decades of training, education, experience, and knowledge. That doesn't have a web-page to cite, you understand… the source is me. If you don't think I have credibility, if you think that my comments don't stand, that's one thing. But to demand further evidence is like me asking you to provide photographic evidence of your evening meal last March 14th in order for me to believe that you eat vegetables.



drop bear said:


> not once have i seen him back a statement with a source. If i back a statement with a source he just says that isn't the case and we are back to square one.



Except, of course, when I pull apart your source, I do it by examining why it's not correct, or relevant. Oh, and I have supported plenty… and have provided more when asked, if it's possible… such as when Steve was asking about definitions differentiating between "choke" and "strangle", and I was saying that the way he knew it was actually opposite to the medical definitions (post #34)… 



drop bear said:


> i have never known an authority on any topic that operates that way.



Except, of course, you do. And you've had the examples of such given to you again and again… such as "expert witness testimony", properly credentialed individuals, and more. That you choose to ignore reality really doesn't help you.



drop bear said:


> as far as my doubts. I don't think Chris has much practical knowledge in areas like self defence.



And it's fine if you have doubts… but that's got nothing to do with your insistence on ignoring all forms of evidence you're given. But here's the thing… if what I say doesn't hold water, then question it. If what I say makes sense, is agreed upon by the majority, and fits with all other understandings and evidence, then perhaps it's possible that I really do know what I'm talking about… something to consider… 



drop bear said:


> so in the texts there are portions telling me what a fight is like. Even a fun portion on why bouncers lift weights.



Wow, that's one way to take things completely out of context… 



drop bear said:


> it is a style thing rather than a specific thing. He is absolutely sure he is correct every time he makes a point.  That is why i compared it to kata. Because of that backwards thought process.



I only post when I'm confident of what I'm saying, yeah. And that's drawn from decades at this… but you're really off base in your take on the thought process. I'm confident because I've spent years questioning my understanding and improving my knowledge… and I continue to do that to today… what you're getting here is the end result of my journey thus far… and, as a result, it's as far from the "backwards thought process" you're ascribing as you can get. I'm not confident because I'm saying it, I'm saying it because I'm confident.



drop bear said:


> eg. Kata is correct. Now we have to find out why it is correct.



Well, you don't have to find out, it's been explained to you (frankly, in a far clearer and more detailed way that was ever explained to me… I've spent many, many years coming to that understanding… you're welcome, by the way)… and, really, if you're not interested in kata, then there's no reason for you to even care about if it's correct or not, let alone why. But, if you're going to attack it, it really helps if you have the first clue what you're talking about… which, so far, you have shown no evidence of at all. Despite all the assistance you've been given.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 4, 2015)

Chris Parker said:


> Of course, yeah, I do talk about a martial art (specific system) as being a single unified "thing"… what that is changes from system to system, of course, but I also hold that my belief is correct.


 Well, it's neither "correct" or "incorrect". It's not a testable factual claim. It's a perspective - a way of looking at the world. As such, it can be more or less useful depending on your circumstances.

If I can finish this piece I'm working on writing today, I'll try to get that other thread started to discuss the issue.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Well, it's neither "correct" or "incorrect". It's not a testable factual claim. It's a perspective - a way of looking at the world. As such, it can be more or less useful depending on your circumstances.
> 
> If I can finish this piece I'm working on writing today, I'll try to get that other thread started to discuss the issue.


Yes.  Exactly.   Very well said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## TSDTexan (Sep 6, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.
> 
> And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.


Hatches plan to get all the way to 2nd black in BJJ... And create number of two man Kata. That are required before anything else after warmups.


----------



## Koshiki (Sep 7, 2015)

Believe you me, that after a year and a half absence from this forum, and after reading all nine pages of the thread, (for some twisted, id-based reason, no doubt) believe you me, I say, that I have no idea why THIS particular thread is what has drawn my attention enough to convince me to post.

I suppose though that the original question, had it perhaps been worded in slightly different manner, and posed with a different intent, is a question central to my training. 

Let me explain. We all have, I'm sure, slightly to extremely different things in mind when we use the word "sparring." For me, sparring is about as close to conversation as the martial arts get. Personally, my sparring is nearly entirely formed from my understanding of kata in its analysis. Sparring, as I understand and utilize it, is why I love the martial arts. Sparring, as I do it, has only that one underlying rule of the martial arts; try not to break your partners. Sparring should be something that you can do, with no preamble or discussion, with anyone from any style or lack thereof.

Keep in mind that my "sparring" bears next to no resemblance to two evenly matched guys with some assortment of protective gear both trying to defeat each other in grappling, kickboxing, faux versions of either, or any combination of the aforementioned. I do at times stand five feet away and dodge in and out with extended jabs and reaching round kicks to the legs and head, but those instances are rare, and are either as a goof, or just to mix things up so my partner(s) has/have something new to work with. With most people I play with and have played with, it works something like this:

We both attempt to practice techniques/skills/tactics at the expense of the other, unplanned, uncoordinated, and in direct opposition to one another, but with the common goal of learning. This usually lasts until the first even slightly interesting/painful/unusual thing happens, whatever that may be. It's a bit like the first piece of juicy gossip in a sea of otherwise bland and boring small talk.

At that point, sparring tends to disintegrate, while the interesting "gossip" is asked about, explained, tested, attempted, altered to fit, tested again, played with... At some point, sparring returns, but generally with an undercurrent of trying to implement whatever unusual thing has just been examined.

It is, for me, very like the give and take, the sharing and disagreeing and learning and exploring that a good conversation is about. Now, it can range from sparring or conversation that is as bland and gentle as talking about weather and upcoming BBQs; to sparring that is as driven and polemic and unyielding (and painful) as any Oxford debate. But in all cases, the two actions, at least to me, bear a notable resemblance to one another.

And in all cases, the language that *I* at least am speaking when sparring, is built of words which can all (ok, mostly) be found within the dictionary that is Kata.


----------

