# Sport Fighter



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

Curious, is the term sport fighter, an insulting term to a Martial artist.

I am asking, as it seems some members get insulted when I use this term and unfortunately, the conversations seem to degrade into insults.

So, I thought it would be good to see what people here think.

I can be a little abrupt sometimes without realizing it. Although I see that being abrupt is pretty common on martialtalk, but I am understanding that people have personal definitions for words and phrases.

I thought that maybe the phrase Sport Fighter, can be a little insulting to some.

My definition is - someone that trains exclusively in sport tactics, for sport competition.


----------



## jobo (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Curious, is the term sport fighter, an insulting term to a Martial artist.
> 
> I am asking, as it seems some members get insulted when I use this term and unfortunately, the conversations seem to degrade into insults.
> 
> ...


8n its  not insulting it just means nothing at, what sport at what level, if your saying someone is a state level contender, then that's a extremely high level of fitness and ability,


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Context matters.

First off, a definition.  I define sport fighting as fight training which is for the purpose of competition (even if you don't compete).  This can include boxing, Muay Thai, MMA, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Taekwondo, Kyokushin, or any number of arts.  If the school primarily teaches sport fighting (even if you don't sport fight) then I am including that in the definition.

Others on this forum also lump this into sport fighting, which I would just call a game or drill:  any time you give two players an objective with a win/lose condition.  If you both start kneeling and one person is supposed to bring the fight to the ground, and the other is supposed to stand up, then I would call that a game or a drill, not a sport.


"Sport fighters get a lot of practice sparring and generally train against resistance, which gives them more confidence their abilities will work." - Good assessment of the pros of sport fighting.
"Sport fighters need to be mindful that in the real world, the rules are different, and they need to be aware of how to use their techniques in a real self-defense situation."  - Good assessment of the cons of sport fighting.
"Sport fighting is the only way to learn how to fight, because without competition, your techniques can't be sharpened" - This would be said by a chest-thumping sport fighter.
"Sport fighting sucks because you're learning an art based on rules, and on the street there are no rules.  Fight for life, not for points."  - This would be said by a chest-thumping non-sport-fighter.
If you call someone a sport fighter, because you categorize them as a martial artist who does so for sport, that's not an insult.  If you call someone a sport fighter, because you categorize them as an idiot who fights for sport, then it's an insult.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> Context matters.
> 
> First off, a definition.  I define sport fighting as fight training which is for the purpose of competition (even if you don't compete).  This can include boxing, Muay Thai, MMA, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Taekwondo, Kyokushin, or any number of arts.  If the school primarily teaches sport fighting (even if you don't sport fight) then I am including that in the definition.
> 
> ...


Great answer. I would say that I tend to think what a sport fighter is, would be, in your definition.

If you call someone a sport fighter, because you categorize them as a martial artist who does so for sport,


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 28, 2019)

I don't think there's anything inherently insulting about the term.

Where you might encounter some pushback is when "sport fighter" is used to imply that a boxer/nak mui/savateur/wrestler/jiujiteiro/mma fighter/etc is less skilled, capable, or knowledgeable regarding "real fighting" in "the streets" than a representative of an art which professes to be "too dangerous for competition" or suchlike.

Offhand, that seems to be the context in which I most often encounter the term. It's not a phrase I commonly see from practitioners of combat sports.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I don't think there's anything inherently insulting about the term.
> 
> Where you might encounter some pushback is when "sport fighter" is used to imply that a boxer/nak mui/savateur/wrestler/jiujiteiro/mma fighter/etc is less skilled, capable, or knowledgeable regarding "real fighting" in "the streets" than a representative of an art which professes to be "too dangerous for competition" or suchlike.
> 
> Offhand, that seems to be the context in which I most often encounter the term. It's not a phrase I commonly see from practitioners of combat sports.


I would agree with that assessment. Unless the experience, (techniques to dangerous for sport) is in the streets itself. There is not to much a person can say about it. 

On th flip side, that would be the same for a non sport competitor, claiming expert advice concerning a specific competition.

I am speaking in terms of the fact they have not trained in the competition arena.


----------



## Mitlov (Aug 28, 2019)

If someone refers to a sport fighter as one particular subset of martial artist, the term is not going to offend me.

If someone refers to a sport fighter in the context of "not a real martial artist," I'm going to take offense or get annoyed.

It's like how it's not remotely offensive to use "girl" as an antonym of "boy," but it's very offensive to use "girl" as an antonym of "tough person." It's not the word itself that's offensive, but how it's used within a particular post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Curious, is the term sport fighter, an insulting term to a Martial artist.
> 
> I am asking, as it seems some members get insulted when I use this term and unfortunately, the conversations seem to degrade into insults.
> 
> ...


I don't think most folks would be insulted by it, unless they perceive it's being used in an insulting manner ("You're nothin' but a sport fighter.").


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

Why do you find this annoying?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Why do you find this annoying?


Guthrie, if you quote the message, the right person will know you're talking to them.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

I guess I am a little confused by that view.

An example- there are people that recreate wars, in paintball. They have grenades, tanks, landmines and sometimes 100's of participants. There are local, state and even International competitions.

In doing this sport-would you call them real soldiers?


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Guthrie, if you quote the message, the right person will know you're talking to them.


Yeah, I am still working that out, I thought I did and tried twice. My bad but I will figure it out.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Aug 28, 2019)

Not as big as being strong is to some.    

Its not something i expect anyone to be insulted by TBH.   Unless you get into the moral deminer of prize fighting and basically punching each other for money but thats another thing entirely.


----------



## Mitlov (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I guess I am a little confused by that view.
> 
> An example- there are people that recreate wars, in paintball. They have grenades, tanks, landmines and sometimes 100's of participants. There are local, state and even International competitions.
> 
> In doing this sport-would you call them real soldiers?



Not a good analogy. I wouldn't call paintballers "real soldiers" or "combat veterans", but I wouldn't call non-competitive historical-recreation hobbyists "real soldiers" or "combat veterans" either. 

What's annoying is when the historical-recreation hobbyist turns to the paintball hobbyist and says, "your hobby isn't real life-and-death combat," like somehow theirs is closer to it.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Not a good analogy. I wouldn't call paintballers "real soldiers" or "combat veterans", but I wouldn't call non-competitive historical-recreation hobbyists "real soldiers" or "combat veterans" either.
> 
> What's annoying is when the historical-recreation hobbyist turns to the paintball hobbyist and says, "your hobby isn't real life-and-death combat," like somehow theirs is closer to it.


I get you, but wouldn't the concept of sparring and not sparring, be included with that statement and if not, what is the distinction?


----------



## jobo (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I guess I am a little confused by that view.
> 
> An example- there are people that recreate wars, in paintball. They have grenades, tanks, landmines and sometimes 100's of participants. There are local, state and even International competitions.
> 
> In doing this sport-would you call them real soldiers?


depends who the real soldiers are , at that sort of level of interest, there better trained that most of the real soldiers  from many countries in tthehe world


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 28, 2019)

To me, a "sport fighter" is a guy who doesn't worry about

- take down in the striking game (for example, use very narrow stance).
- striking in the wrestling game (for example, extend head in front of hands).

The sport rule set can help someone to develop bad habit.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I guess I am a little confused by that view.
> 
> An example- there are people that recreate wars, in paintball. They have grenades, tanks, landmines and sometimes 100's of participants. There are local, state and even International competitions.
> 
> In doing this sport-would you call them real soldiers?


Just to be clear, in this analogy the sport fighters are the paintball warriors? They aren't real world fighters because their sport doesn't encompass the street reality of groin kicks, eye gouges, ambushes, multiple attackers, knives, rolling on broken glass, etc, etc?

If that's the case, then let me turn it around a bit. There are martial artists out there who purportedly train for the street, eye gouges, punches to the throat, knives, multiple attackers, the whole bit.

However ...
They don't actually gouge anyone's eyes in training. They may simulate doing so without contact or resistance.

They don't actually punch anyone in the throat. They may simulate doing so without contact or resistance.

They don't actually have partners sucker punch them when they're distracted.

They don't actually stab anyone or have anyone actually try to stab them with a real knife. They may drill with a training knife, but even then they usually don't have the partner with a knife actually try to defeat them in a skilled and determined manner.

They don't actually try defending against multiple attackers who are honestly trying to dogpile them and stomp them in the head. They may play act at fighting multiple opponents, but the attackers either take turns like movie bad guys coming in with single telegraphed attacks or else they lumber in slowly and take a dive  like fragile zombies. (Pro-tip - If you have a 3 on 1 fight, the 1 is going to get stomped unless he has a huge advantage in skill and physical attributes.)

... and so on.

But wait, there's more.

Unless they train like "sport fighters", then they likely have not:

Hit another person as hard as they can and continued to hit them.

Knocked someone out.

Taken a full power shot to the head and continued to fight.

Practiced hitting someone who is trying to avoid being hit and is also hitting back.

Choked someone unconscious.

Thrown someone who is doing their best to fight back and avoid being thrown.

Escaped a bad position that a skilled person is trying their best to hold them in.

... and so on.

If "sport fighters" are just playing a game and are not real fighters, then these "street reality oriented" martial artists are even less so. If sport fighters are akin to paintball warriors, that would make "street reality oriented" martial artists more akin to Civil War re-enactors who play act a battle to a pre-ordained conclusion.*

Of course there are martial artists who have done all the "street" things in real life fights, but I don't know that "sport fighters" are any more or less likely to have been in that situation.

If you're arguing that only people who regularly engage in real world street fights are actually "fighters" and other martial artists can only be labelled as "sport fighters" or "dojo fighters", that's reasonable. It seems like the argument is usually something different.

*(I actually do recognize value in martial arts which have no combat sport component. I even appreciate the potential lessons to be learned in arts which don't have any sparring. I'm just taking your original argument to its logical conclusion.)


----------



## Mitlov (Aug 28, 2019)

The biggest irony of the whole paintball analogy is that the US Army uses paintball in training for real combat. 



> The twist for this particular battle assembly was the usage of paintball guns on a recreation course at Charleston Air Force Base.
> "We wanted to give them the most realistic experience that we could," said Smothers, "to refresh some of those things they haven't done in a long time." Most of the drill sergeants have been doing red and white phase training during their ATs.
> Each task during the four days of training built upon each other and culminated in the paintball exercise. Soldiers separated into two teams and moved from one end of the course to the other, employing the proper movement methods and hand and arms signals, all while trying to shoot the "enemy" and not get shot in the process. Using paintballs brought a new level of reality to the activity.



Paintball enhances realism in Army Reserve unit's training


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just to be clear, in this analogy the sport fighters are the paintball warriors? They aren't real world fighters because their sport doesn't encompass the street reality of groin kicks, eye gouges, ambushes, multiple attackers, knives, rolling on broken glass, etc, etc?
> 
> If that's the case, then let me turn it around a bit. There are martial artists out there who purportedly train for the street, eye gouges, punches to the throat, knives, multiple attackers, the whole bit.
> 
> ...





Actually, I am just looking for the distinction, in why it's different in the martial Arts, compared to other sports.

As, for the paintball, these large games can get pretty brutal and people do get injured.

I used that example, simply because some take it as a serious sport, as do those in the Martial Arts sport!

No real logical conclusion, I am trying to understand the difference in the view, of why martial sport, ups other combat sports (such as paintball) when it comes to claiming the title of "Real".
(Not that there is actually a title)

But, your description of fighters, I do find reasonable as well and no there is not meant to be something different. Just trying to understand the various reasons.

I as well, do find value in some aspects, of the varying sport combat arts.

But, I do think that you (in general) do not truly know, until you actually do. And, that applies to everything you choose to take up..just my opinion though.

The explanation was great by the way.

---EDITED TO FIX QUOTE TAG---


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> The biggest irony of the whole paintball analogy is that the US Army uses paintball in training for real combat.
> 
> 
> 
> Paintball enhances realism in Army Reserve unit's training


Right and those are real soldiers, using something from sport. I get that and understand that.

But, the example I gave is those who do the sport. And, your description would imply that, yes people who do paintball are real soldiers.

Soldiers also train in a Martial Art of some sort. Surely that wouldn't make all martial artist,  soldier's.

But I am sure that is not where you are going with this information.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 28, 2019)

@TonyDismukes for some reason my response didn't attach. But, in short...

There is no other argument, I am trying to understand the difference in perception of reality, from one sport, over another.

And your comment about the fighters, I understand and agree with. But a logical conclusion was not an immediate desire.

Just wanting to understand the various individual definitions.


----------



## jobo (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Right and those are real soldiers, using something from sport. I get that and understand that.
> 
> But, the example I gave is those who do the sport. And, your description would imply that, yes people who do paintball are real soldiers.
> 
> ...


what's your definition of a soldier? 

in a many countries it's any one with a ak47 they are blasting indesciminently in the aproxamete direction of some enemy soldiers who are similarly  randomly returning fire.

in such countries any ma could be a soldier  as could any 12 year old, if you give them an ak47 and point out the direction of the enemy


----------



## Mitlov (Aug 28, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I get you, but wouldn't the concept of sparring and not sparring, be included with that statement and if not, what is the distinction?





Guthrie said:


> Right and those are real soldiers, using something from sport. I get that and understand that.
> 
> But, the example I gave is those who do the sport. And, your description would imply that, yes people who do paintball are real soldiers.
> 
> ...



At this point, I'm not tracking what you're trying to say.

I've trained in "traditional karate" and dabbled in other martial arts where there's no structured competition (from taiji to Krav). I've also trained in martial arts with a substantial sport component (taekwondo, tang soo do). I'm also a civilian who works closely with law enforcement and I'm aware how BOTH of these hobbies deviate from actual life-and-death real life confrontations.

I have no problem with a "traditional karate" talking about sport fighters in a non-judgmental, factual distinction, like when I explain that I'm Oregonian, not Canadian.

It's patronizing and inaccurate when a "traditional karate" person tells me that they're learning "real combat" and I'm not because of how they visualize things when they do Bassai, and all I'm doing is getting punched in the face every time I practice. Both types of karate are different than fighting with a felon in an alleyway, and in my experience, traditional karate isn't any closer to what LEOs do on the street than sport karate is, although certain practitioners like to argue at length that it is.

What part of that do you disagree with?


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, a "sport fighter" is a guy who doesn't worry about
> 
> - take down in the striking game (for example, use very narrow stance).
> - striking in the wrestling game (for example, extend head in front of hands).
> ...



So that takes out Muay Thai and MMA from the "sport" category.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> Not a good analogy. I wouldn't call paintballers "real soldiers" or "combat veterans", but I wouldn't call non-competitive historical-recreation hobbyists "real soldiers" or "combat veterans" either.
> 
> What's annoying is when the historical-recreation hobbyist turns to the paintball hobbyist and says, "your hobby isn't real life-and-death combat," like somehow theirs is closer to it.


Hey, those paintballs can STING!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To me, a "sport fighter" is a guy who doesn't worry about
> 
> - take down in the striking game (for example, use very narrow stance).
> - striking in the wrestling game (for example, extend head in front of hands).
> ...


I take your point, and I agree that there are some habits that can develop from ignoring things outside the competition rules. But it's only a bad habit outside that competition. If they are really a sport fighter, then they aren't really worrying about outside that context.

In my experience, those habits are fairly easy to offset. Give me a good sport-focused Judo player (what my Judo instructor called us), and they won't need a lot of work to add some reasonable defense against striking. If they're really good at their sport Judo, some of what they're doing already makes it dangerous to try to punch them. Same goes in the other direction for a boxer. A good tool set can be adapted.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> So that takes out Muay Thai and MMA from the "sport" category.


This guy is a "sport fighter".


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This guy is a "sport fighter".



So?


----------



## Martial D (Aug 28, 2019)

A sport fighter..hmm

Someone that participates in some form of organized match or matches. Perhaps those that train exclusively to one ruleset but haven't fought yet.

It doesn't really matter what the style is.

It  seems to me that only styles that teach useful skills have sport versions, otherwise the competitors would have nothing to compete with. I'm wary of styles that do not have competitive versions.

But here's the thing. All of those styles that have competition also have situational 'sd' stuff too, same as the ones that don't compete...they are just able to test it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> The biggest irony of the whole paintball analogy is that the US Army uses paintball in training for real combat.
> 
> 
> 
> Paintball enhances realism in Army Reserve unit's training


To my mind, paintball is like sparring. With the right rules, and against people who know what they're doing, it is a decent way to safely practice with resistance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> In my experience, those habits are fairly easy to offset.


Some technique may give you a winning on the mat, but may get yourself killed in the street.

In SC, if you are on top when both fall, you win that round. This throw will give your opponent a chance to choke you to death. If you keep training this throw without worrying about the choking, there is something wrong in your sport training.


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> But here's the thing. All of those styles that have competition also have situational 'sd' stuff too, same as the ones that don't compete...they are just able to test it.



I was thinking about this today.  I was thinking about some of the submissions we use in Hapkido.  For example, the arm bar we typically use is where our opponent is on their back, we put our foot under their shoulder and pull their arm straight against our knee.  Compare this with the sitting arm bar done in BJJ or Judo, where you are on the ground, pinning your opponent with your legs, while you pull the arm back against your hips.

The biggest difference in the BJJ method is the amount of control you have.  You have a lot more control over your opponent, they have less movement options, and are basically trapped while you can set the armbar at the point where they tap.

The Hapkido position still has some control (especially over a layman), but you don't have as much control as the sitting position.  If I were to do a standing armbar against a completely resisting opponent, at a safe speed which allows him to tap, there's going to be an opening he can take.  If I go at full speed, the arm will break before he can tap.

To be clear - I'm not saying if I were to try this in MMA, that I would break everyone's arm.  However, if I were to do this move in MMA, one of two things would happen:

I set it and hope they tap, but 50/50 they can escape
I apply it in such a way that they can't tap before I destroy their elbow
It would be possible for me to test this against someone in sparring, but not in a match.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Some technique may give you a winning on the mat, but may get yourself killed in the street.
> 
> In SC, if you are on top when both fall, you win that round. This throw will give your opponent a chance to choke you to death. If you keep training this throw without worrying about the choking, there is something wrong in your sport training.


Agreed (assuming by "something wrong", you mean something not good for fighting outside SC). And it wouldn't be hard to fix that habit. A bit of training time with a BJJ or Judo person (or anyone who's adept at chokes and strangles) would probably suffice.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> So?


To be able to move like that on the ground will not help you in real combat. 

Sport is the path. Combat is the goal. IMO, the path should not conflict with the goal,


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Agreed (assuming by "something wrong", you mean something not good for fighting outside SC). And it wouldn't be hard to fix that habit. A bit of training time with a BJJ or Judo person (or anyone who's adept at chokes and strangles) would probably suffice.


The first time when I wrapped my right arm around my opponent's waist and intended to execute a hip throw, my opponent's left hand punched on my head. Since that day, I truly understood the difference between sport and combat. To disable my opponent's arms and legs is my highest priority.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 28, 2019)

I am especially wary of any technique that works at half speed but is 'too deadly' to do live.
Theorizing about woulds and coulds and shoulda is super boring if it doesn't go anywhere.


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> To be able to move like that on the ground will not help you in real combat.
> 
> Sport is the path. Combat is the goal. IMO, the path should not conflict with the goal,



So you would use the term "sport fighter" as an insult.



Martial D said:


> I am especially wary of any technique that works at half speed but is 'too deadly' to do live.
> Theorizing about woulds and coulds and shoulda is super boring if it doesn't go anywhere.



Actually, the technique doesn't work at half speed is my point.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 28, 2019)

One nice thing about the "sport training" is to collect useful data.

For example, I let you to throw punches at me for 5 minutes. I then try to block all your punches. Whether you can hit me on your 1st punch, 2nd punch, …, nth punch, it means how good or how bad that my defense is.

The data will never lie.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I am especially wary of any technique that works at half speed but is 'too deadly' to do live.
> Theorizing about woulds and coulds and shoulda is super boring if it doesn't go anywhere.


In many cases, they are simply extensions of techniques that are tested in sport. We know the workings of arm bars, because there are several variations that get used regularly in sport. We can use those to figure out what makes them work, including what makes them work slow. We even have evidence from sport of what happens if you go too fast, or the person tries to escape hard at the wrong moment. Submissions are typically (I can't think of an exception, but I feel like there are some) completed at a low speed, to give time to tap out. 

The issue with some techniques is that they actually don't work slow, if the other person resists. Standing arm bars are a good example of this - they lack a base to prevent escape. That makes them more likely to be escaped at any speed (so you need a "what's next", as you have for many techniques), but really useless as a submission, so not useful for sport.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the technique doesn't work at half speed is my point.



Wait, so your armlock can be used safely in sparring, but is too deadly for a fight because it would certainly break the arm.

Can you show me a video of this being performed on a non compliant person?


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Wait, so your armlock can be used safely in sparring, but is too deadly for a fight because it would certainly break the arm.
> 
> Can you show me a video of this being performed on a non compliant person?



See Gerry's response.  He said it way better than I could have.  I'm not going to try and reword what he said, because whatever I try and say will be worse.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 28, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> In many cases, they are simply extensions of techniques that are tested in sport. We know the workings of arm bars, because there are several variations that get used regularly in sport. We can use those to figure out what makes them work, including what makes them work slow. We even have evidence from sport of what happens if you go too fast, or the person tries to escape hard at the wrong moment. Submissions are typically (I can't think of an exception, but I feel like there are some) completed at a low speed, to give time to tap out.
> 
> The issue with some techniques is that they actually don't work slow, if the other person resists. Standing arm bars are a good example of this - they lack a base to prevent escape. That makes them more likely to be escaped at any speed (so you need a "what's next", as you have for many techniques), but really useless as a submission, so not useful for sport.


Yes. And there are also lots of 'versions' of working techniques that are absolutely wrong and don't work at all. There's only one way to set them apart.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> See Gerry's response.  He said it way better than I could have.  I'm not going to try and reword what he said, because whatever I try and say will be worse.


His post did not answer my question.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> So you would use the term "sport fighter" as an insult.


CMA has 2 set of skills. Skill that can be used between

1. friendly training partner.
2. unfriendly challenger.

If you only train part 1 without training part 2, you are a "sport fighter" by definition. Many people may be satisfied to train just part 1. I'm not.


----------



## DocWard (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> Context matters.
> 
> First off, a definition.  I define sport fighting as fight training which is for the purpose of competition (even if you don't compete).  This can include boxing, Muay Thai, MMA, wrestling, BJJ, Judo, Taekwondo, Kyokushin, or any number of arts.  If the school primarily teaches sport fighting (even if you don't sport fight) then I am including that in the definition.
> 
> ...



I believe this summarizes my opinion on the matter at least as well as I could.

If someone referred to me as a "sport fighter," I wouldn't be offended if they didn't mean it in a derogatory manner. If it were meant in a derogatory manner, I wouldn't be offended so much as annoyed that someone was stooping to personal attacks, and I wouldn't bother interacting further.



Guthrie said:


> I guess I am a little confused by that view.
> 
> An example- there are people that recreate wars, in paintball. They have grenades, tanks, landmines and sometimes 100's of participants. There are local, state and even International competitions.
> 
> In doing this sport-would you call them real soldiers?



No, as I define (generally) a soldier (or sailor, airman or marine) as a person, whether a volunteer or conscript, who has taken an oath to fight for his or her country, and to die in said country's defense if necessary.

While paintball and AirSoft can replicate the strategic and tactical aspects of warfare in a non-deadly environment, the sports are pursued as hobbies, where everyone anticipates going home after a day or weekend of adrenaline filled fun.



gpseymour said:


> Hey, those paintballs can STING!



Darn skippy they do!



gpseymour said:


> To my mind, paintball is like sparring. With the right rules, and against people who know what they're doing, it is a decent way to safely practice with resistance.



I can say that playing paintball made me a better field soldier, as it allowed me to practice those common tactical tasks important to moving in a contested environment.

As for the part about going "against people who know what they're doing," I'm reminded of one of "Murphy's Laws of Combat:" Professionals are predictable, it's the amateurs who are dangerous!" I played for years on a MilSim paintball team, and all but a couple members of our team were combat arms veterans. It was often most challenging running into another squad that had no clue what they were doing.


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> His post did not answer my question.



Ok.  If I punch you at half speed or full speed, which is more likely to connect with your face?


----------



## Martial D (Aug 28, 2019)

skribs said:


> Ok.  If I punch you at half speed or full speed, which is more likely to connect with your face?


That tells me you forgot the question.

So I'll rephrase it.

Well them

If it works in sparring, why doesn't it work in a fight? Why would the street guy get a broken arm, but the sparring guy wouldn't?

Second, I asked for a video of this technique working on someone that isn't playing along, to make sure we are actually talking about something here, and not one of the many existent 'untestable'(bullsh#t) techniques that exist all throughout tma. Like I said, I don't care about what ifs.


----------



## skribs (Aug 28, 2019)

Martial D said:


> That tells me you forgot the question.
> 
> So I'll rephrase it.
> 
> ...



What specific technique I'm talking about is irrelevant, is part of why I didn't post a video.  There are other reasons, but that's the biggest.  We're talking about the concept of what speed things work at.

The reason I bring up the punch, is because a punch at half speed is significantly easier to avoid.  The same is true of many grappling concepts.  If I go for a double leg by crouching down and duck-walking towards you, it won't work.  At half speed, it doesn't work against resistance.

The other reason I bring up the punch, is because most sparring is done with the effort to not injure your partner.  Taking boxing for self defense would be pointless if you're getting concussions in class every other week.  In light sparring, typically a tag to the head to say "gotcha!" is enough.  Where in a match or a real fight, you throw as hard as you can to try and knock the other person out.  Unfortunately, this can also lead to concussions, which is why I've heard some people quit MMA to focus specifically on grappling competitions.

But back to grappling.  In light sparring or light rolling, if I can get into a position where the submission is available, my partner will usually tap.  When I was a white belt, I went hard on every technique, and what ended up happening is I could barely use my hands the next day because my wrists were so sore from all the wristlock submissions we do.  I learned when to go hard, and when to let my partner drill without sacrificing my body for it.  If my partner does something that would result in my arm being broken had he continued, I will acknowledge his victory.

In a match, that's not the case.  If my winning or losing a tournament is dependent on my tapping, I'm going to do everything in my power to not tap.  If someone has me in a position where I am at the edge of my flexibility, but I have options to brace or roll out of the technique, I'm going to do that.  I'm not going to just give you the submission (*and don't stop reading here), *because I am going to try to roll or brace.

However, the only reason I *can* roll or brace, is because you stopped to give me a chance to tap.  If you wouldn't have given me a chance to figure it out, then my arm would be broken.

Let's go back to the punch.  Because for some reason concussions are okay.  If we're doing light sparring, I'm going to tap you on the head, because I don't want you to suffer permanent brain damage.  If I were to punch that way in a boxing match or MMA fight, it wouldn't work.  Because you would just ignore the tap on the head and keep going.

The same applies to grappling.  In sparring, I can make it work, because people recognize what I could have done if I didn't hold back.  In a match, it won't work, because people won't tap until absolutely necessary, and I'm not going to go full speed on the break because I'm not a sociopath.  But in a real situation when I want to disable my attacker, I'm going to use it full force.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I guess I am a little confused by that view.
> 
> An example- there are people that recreate wars, in paintball. They have grenades, tanks, landmines and sometimes 100's of participants. There are local, state and even International competitions.
> 
> In doing this sport-would you call them real soldiers?



LARPers?


----------



## drop bear (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> What specific technique I'm talking about is irrelevant, is part of why I didn't post a video.  There are other reasons, but that's the biggest.  We're talking about the concept of what speed things work at.
> 
> The reason I bring up the punch, is because a punch at half speed is significantly easier to avoid.  The same is true of many grappling concepts.  If I go for a double leg by crouching down and duck-walking towards you, it won't work.  At half speed, it doesn't work against resistance.
> 
> ...



I don't know I always really made sure I had the guy. Then arm locked them. 

That way I could fight them on in sparring without having to take the arm off. Which gave me a real time experience using them. 

A lot of wrestling underhooks, two on one and head control made what I thought was unworkable to at least a bit workable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2019)

DocWard said:


> I can say that playing paintball made me a better field soldier, as it allowed me to practice those common tactical tasks important to moving in a contested environment.
> 
> As for the part about going "against people who know what they're doing," I'm reminded of one of "Murphy's Laws of Combat:" Professionals are predictable, it's the amateurs who are dangerous!" I played for years on a MilSim paintball team, and all but a couple members of our team were combat arms veterans. It was often most challenging running into another squad that had no clue what they were doing.


I have a theory about that. Paintball has no real penalty. If you get hit, it maybe stings a bit and folks laugh at you maybe. Not like the dangers real tactics are meant to deal with. So there are things that work (perhaps unreliably, perhaps reliably) in paintball that would cause problems in actual combat, and vice versa.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> That tells me you forgot the question.
> 
> So I'll rephrase it.
> 
> ...


The point we've both made is that it doesn't really work in sparring as a destruction (because you can't reasonably destroy in sparring) or a submission (because it doesn't reliably restrain for holding in place). It can be done slowly only if the person is compliant (much like a punch, which I think was the point of Skribs' question).

In a fight, the destruction is available. There's still the danger of escape because of the lack of base, but that's only an issue if you don't control around it - attempting it should put you in a better position, even if you can't complete it.


----------



## DocWard (Aug 29, 2019)

drop bear said:


> LARPers?



Not so much, at least in my experience, because I've never seen anyone take on a different role or persona. Likewise, the outcome is unknown and unpredictable. I would think historical reenacts are closer to actual LARPers.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> The point we've both made is that it doesn't really work in sparring as a destruction (because you can't reasonably destroy in sparring) or a submission (because it doesn't reliably restrain for holding in place). It can be done slowly only if the person is compliant (much like a punch, which I think was the point of Skribs' question).
> 
> In a fight, the destruction is available. There's still the danger of escape because of the lack of base, but that's only an issue if you don't control around it - attempting it should put you in a better position, even if you can't complete it.


More should/would/could supported only by words and wishes.

If that's enough for you, have at it.

And yes, I understand there are conditions to make techniques work, and one of those might be speed of execution. That's just not relevant to the very specific claims @skribs made that I was addressing before he shifted his goalposts to a generality.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> What specific technique I'm talking about is irrelevant, is part of why I didn't post a video.  There are other reasons, but that's the biggest.  We're talking about the concept of what speed things work at.
> 
> The reason I bring up the punch, is because a punch at half speed is significantly easier to avoid.  The same is true of many grappling concepts.  If I go for a double leg by crouching down and duck-walking towards you, it won't work.  At half speed, it doesn't work against resistance.
> 
> ...


You have some strange ideas about how an actual grappling match happens, or how a fight happens.

You should take a break from dance class and try them out for context.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 29, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Guthrie, if you quote the message, the right person will know you're talking to them.


He usually just needs to click "Reply" doesn't he?


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I get you, but wouldn't the concept of sparring and not sparring, be included with that statement and if not, what is the distinction?


In that absolute context, a MA that doesn't spar or test a persons technique with some kind of resistance should not be call Martial. IMHO


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 29, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Just to be clear, in this analogy the sport fighters are the paintball warriors? They aren't real world fighters because their sport doesn't encompass the street reality of groin kicks, eye gouges, ambushes, multiple attackers, knives, rolling on broken glass, etc, etc?
> 
> If that's the case, then let me turn it around a bit. There are martial artists out there who purportedly train for the street, eye gouges, punches to the throat, knives, multiple attackers, the whole bit.
> 
> ...



Damn, that was very well said!


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 29, 2019)

I think I am more confused than ever.


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> You have some strange ideas about how an actual grappling match happens, or how a fight happens.
> 
> You should take a break from dance class and try them out for context.



I mean, I have 3 years of wrestling experience and 6 years of hapkido experience.  I've been in wrestling matches and real fights.  For what it's worth, I've also done a lot of research on MMA and BJJ.  I think I have at least a decent idea of how it works.



Martial D said:


> More should/would/could supported only by words and wishes.
> 
> If that's enough for you, have at it.
> 
> And yes, I understand there are conditions to make techniques work, and one of those might be speed of execution. That's just not relevant to the very specific claims @skribs made that I was addressing before he shifted his goalposts to a generality.



It's entirely relevant, because that's the whole point of what I was saying!


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 29, 2019)

Personally, I think people need to stop trying to tell other people what they (the other people) do.  People can decide for themselves what it is they do.  Stop labelling others.

Martial arts can have a sporting aspect to them.  If someone likes doing that, all the power to them.  If someone is not interested in that,  All the power to them.

A good sport fighter can certainly defend himself.  
Someone who trains without competition can defend himself.

These all-or-nothing positions really are silly.  Trying to categorically claim that someone MUST train THIS way or THAT way in order to develop effective skills is ridiculous.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 29, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, I think people need to stop trying to tell other people what they (the other people) do.  People can decide for themselves what it is they do.  Stop labelling others.
> 
> Martial arts can have a sporting aspect to them.  If someone likes doing that, all the power to them.  If someone is not interested in that,  All the power to them.
> 
> ...


The question arises, how do they know that they actually can (defend themselves). And, what they tell their students when they haven't, proven that to themselves.

That is the basis of the issue. Most seem to just bypass the proof and say, yes I can.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> The question arises, how do they know that they actually can (defend themselves). And, what they tell their students when they haven't, proven that to themselves.
> 
> That is the basis of the issue. Most seem to just bypass the proof and say, yes I can.


If you can use your hip throw to throw 100 different opponents on the mat, you will have confidence that the chance that you may throw your 101th opponent will be high.

Without the "sport" environment, where can you collect that data?


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 29, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you can use your hip throw to throw 100 different opponents on the mat, you will have confidence that the chance that you may throw your 101th opponent will be high.
> 
> Without the "sport" environment, where can you collect that data?



Reality, it is the ONLY place where you will know 100% but, I also know, that a number of people, will classify it has insane and dangerous.

Up until that point though, the hip throw is hypothetical. As are all techniques, and that is ok.

It is ok to say "I don't know if it works in reality" there is nothing wrong with admitting that.

Although the sport arena is a decent place to test, it is simply a preliminary test. And, to say it is the only place to safely test it, is still putting it in the area of "I don't know"


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Personally, I think people need to stop trying to tell other people what they (the other people) do.  People can decide for themselves what it is they do.  Stop labelling others.
> 
> Martial arts can have a sporting aspect to them.  If someone likes doing that, all the power to them.  If someone is not interested in that,  All the power to them.
> 
> ...



Categorizing something doesn't mean you're telling them how to train.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Reality, it is the ONLY place where you will know 100% but, I also know, that a number of people, will classify it has insane and dangerous.
> 
> Up until that point though, the hip throw is hypothetical. As are all techniques, and that is ok.
> 
> ...


What do you think happens between hip throwing someone in a competition, where the opponent is trying to knock you out, versus doing the same thing in "reality"? Adrenaline, fear, stuff like that comes into play, but the technique itself is still the same. So you know whether or not the technique works-regardless of if you, personally, will be able to defend yourself in "reality".


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Categorizing something doesn't mean you're telling them how to train.


But we do see it a lot, here in the forums.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> What do you think happens between hip throwing someone in a competition, where the opponent is trying to knock you out, versus doing the same thing in "reality"? Adrenaline, fear, stuff like that comes into play, but the technique itself is still the same. So you know whether or not the technique works-regardless of if you, personally, will be able to defend yourself in "reality".


An assumption, is not proof. But, you do stand a good chance or the worst chance, when it actually occurs. It's a crap shoot t the worst time.

That is the point-"How as an individual, without personal experience, can you tell another, 'yes it works in reality' " or "it's the best chance"

It then goes back to, how do you know.

I guess that is really my point.

Should you be teaching a technique, that hasn't been proven by you, yourself and claiming that it works.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> The question arises, how do they know that they actually can (defend themselves). And, what they tell their students when they haven't, proven that to themselves.
> 
> That is the basis of the issue. Most seem to just bypass the proof and say, yes I can.


How do you know that they haven’t proven it to their satisfaction, in other ways?  

Are you still trying to tell other people what they are doing?


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Reality, it is the ONLY place where you will know 100% but, I also know, that a number of people, will classify it has insane and dangerous.
> 
> Up until that point though, the hip throw is hypothetical. As are all techniques, and that is ok.
> 
> ...


I can’t disagree with you here.  

I will say though, that for most reasonable people, there will always be some gap between their training and an actual fight.  Because deliberately looking for a fight, or worse yet, actively starting a fight, for the sake of honing your fighting skills and building your confidence, is insane and stupid and sociopathic.  People go to prison for that behavior.  As they should.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> An assumption, is not proof. But, you do stand a good chance or the worst chance, when it actually occurs. It's a crap shoot t the worst time.
> 
> That is the point-"How as an individual, without personal experience, can you tell another, 'yes it works in reality' " or "it's the best chance"
> 
> ...


yes.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> An assumption, is not proof. But, you do stand a good chance or the worst chance, when it actually occurs. It's a crap shoot t the worst time.
> 
> That is the point-"How as an individual, without personal experience, can you tell another, 'yes it works in reality' " or "it's the best chance"
> 
> ...


But by doing the technique on someone actively trying to beat me up, I _have_ proven that it works. Like I said (or at least implied), the technique itself doesn't change, nor does it's effectiveness. The human body will still move in the same ways as it always has, regardless of the situation around where you choose to apply the technique. There are other factors that you have to teach for self-defense, but the techniques themselves are the same.

Now, if you want to add other stuff into the hypotheticals like saying the dudes on crack or PCP, that's a different story. But I could defend myself in reality with a technique, see that it worked, and tell everyone it's effective. Then someone else tries to use the same technique on a dude that's high and it doesn't work. That issue would still be there no matter what.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 29, 2019)

And around and around we go.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 29, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> How do you know that they haven’t proven it to their satisfaction, in other ways?
> 
> Are you still trying to tell other people what they are doing?


Never once did I try to tell anyone what they are doing. I  may be calling people out, put I have in no way discussed how they should train.

As always, when reality sets in, is when we know.

Why is it, that this is an issue in the martial Arts world. When in all other professions, you are required to prove your experience.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> The question arises, how do they know that they actually can (defend themselves). And, what they tell their students when they haven't, proven that to themselves.
> 
> That is the basis of the issue. Most seem to just bypass the proof and say, yes I can.





Guthrie said:


> Reality, it is the ONLY place where you will know 100% but, I also know, that a number of people, will classify it has insane and dangerous.
> 
> Up until that point though, the hip throw is hypothetical. As are all techniques, and that is ok.
> 
> ...


This is actually a totally legitimate thought to consider. My conclusion has been that the question "can I defend myself" or "will my martial arts work in a real fight" is too broad to be answerable. Do I have the skills to defend myself from a 3-year-old armed with a banana? Yes! Do I have the skills to defend myself from an ambush by a gang of 15 armed thugs out for blood? Almost certainly not. There is a huge range of possibilities between those extremes and I can't say which of those scenarios I might someday encounter.

What I can do is identify those results of my training which I have tested often enough to have confidence in.

I know I can take a reasonably hard hit and keep fighting without panicking or losing my skills. (Not power shots from a heavyweight pro boxer, but a solid shots from a trained fighter.) Could that help in a self-defense situation? Sure. Not in every circumstance, but in many cases it will help.

I know I can land solid blows on an opponent who is defending my shots and trying to hit me back. Could that be useful? Sure. Will it always? Nope.

I know I'm physically and psychologically able to hit a trained fighter in my weight class hard enough to knock them down and even knock them out. How tough of an opponent could I do that to? I don't know. I've never fought a pro for real and I haven't knocked out enough people to have a really accurate gauge. Still, it could potentially be useful in a real fight.

I know that if I am knocked down or taken down to the ground that I can protect myself from strikes and grappling attacks and get back to my feet even when an opponent is trying to hold me down. I know that I can do this fairly reliably unless my opponent has skills and/or physical attributes well beyond 99.9% of the population. Could that be useful?  Sure. Will it always? Nope.

I know that I have some skill in taking opponents to the ground, even when they are trying to hit me and stop the takedown. I also know that skill is mediocre compared to those I would consider true experts. I can take down most people, but not everybody and not right away.  Could that be useful?  Sure. Will it always? Nope.

I know that if I take someone to the ground that I can hold them down, beat them up, choke them unconscious or break their joints unless they have
skills and/or physical attributes well beyond 99% of the population. Could that be useful?  Sure. Will it always? Nope.

I've know I've practiced sparring in a wide variety of environments and seem to be able to adapt on the fly without much effort. That could potentially be useful. I've never done it while going through a full adrenaline dump, though, so perhaps I wouldn't do as well in a real emergency.

I know I can demonstrate techniques from various arts for unarmed defense against a knife. I've even had some success in sparring against training knives, so it's possible I could be successful in a real situation. How likely is that? I honestly don't know, but I wouldn't want to bet on it. I've had failures along with successes in training and knives are ideal ambush weapons which would negate most of my techniques. (Not to mention the extra adrenaline that a deadly weapon brings to the situation.)

I've done enough sparring against multiple opponents to think that I might do okay against multiple (unarmed) attackers if they were not tough, skilled or determined. If they meet one of those criteria, then I still have a chance. If they meet two of those criteria then things get very iffy. If they meet all three, then I better hope I can outrun them. Since I don't think I can necessarily tell at the outset of an encounter which qualifiers might apply, I'm going to opt for skedaddling if at all possible.

I know I've had some success in de-escalating and avoiding potential violent situations in real life. I think my martial arts training has helped with that, but since I have no laboratory for testing that, I honestly don't know how reliable those skills are or how much my training has contributed.

Based on the above, could I defend myself in a real assault? In some situations, yes. In others, no. In others, maybe. 


As a side note, I've been in a few street fights/self-defense situations and I've been in a few sport fights. The sport fights were much more demanding and brutal (both physically and psychologically) than the "real" fights. That doesn't necessarily mean much. In some cases the outcomes of a street fight could be much worse. I've been lucky enough to have never been in that situation.​


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 29, 2019)

By the way, I have never picked a fight in my life. But, people do need protection, and there is an opportunity to walk the talk, for a Martial Artist.

I do agree with desecalation, In my experience, I have found that their was no real intent for fighting, and that is usually why it could be stopped in the first place.

Just my personal experience.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Never once did I try to tell anyone what they are doing. I  may be calling people out, put I have in no way discussed how they should train.
> 
> As always, when reality sets in, is when we know.
> 
> Why is it, that this is an issue in the martial Arts world. When in all other professions, you are required to prove your experience.


See my post number 71 in this thread.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 29, 2019)

Mitlov said:


> The biggest irony of the whole paintball analogy is that the US Army uses paintball in training for real combat.
> 
> 
> 
> Paintball enhances realism in Army Reserve unit's training


That is true but it is used to supplement all the other rigorous training. It would never work well on its own.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Reality, it is the ONLY place where you will know 100% but, I also know, that a number of people, will classify it has insane and dangerous.
> 
> Up until that point though, the hip throw is hypothetical. As are all techniques, and that is ok.
> 
> ...


Essentially what @Kung Fu Wang is saying is practice to increase you percentage of success. A SD situation is never 100%.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> He usually just needs to click "Reply" doesn't he?


Yep. If he's replying with an app, it might be a different process. And on a slow connection (as I'm sometimes on) it can get finicky. Or he might just have a habit from another forum.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Reality, it is the ONLY place where you will know 100% but, I also know, that a number of people, will classify it has insane and dangerous.
> 
> Up until that point though, the hip throw is hypothetical. As are all techniques, and that is ok.
> 
> ...


If by "reality" you mean fights outside sport, even that won't give you 100%. Nothing really will - there are far too many variables.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 29, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> An assumption, is not proof. But, you do stand a good chance or the worst chance, when it actually occurs. It's a crap shoot t the worst time.
> 
> That is the point-"How as an individual, without personal experience, can you tell another, 'yes it works in reality' " or "it's the best chance"
> 
> ...


How many times should someone use a single technique in "real life" combat before they consider it not a fluke? And against what kinds of people? You're making a distinction that doesn't really have a good cutoff to it.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> .
> 
> t's entirely relevant, because that's the whole point of what I was saying!



Sure. 

Our conversations always seem to follow the same pattern.

You make a claim I find to be implausible.

I ask you to back it up with evidence.

You refuse,pretend you didn't make said claim, and shift  to something else. I'm not sure why I keep expecting anything different.



> It would be possible for me to test this against someone in sparring, but not in a match.



You wrote that. I quite reasonably asked how you can perform a technique on someone resisting when it's sparring, but at the same time cannot do it in a fight because it's somehow too deadly.

Surely even you can see that is nonsensical?

Especially given that you explicitly stated it can't work at anything less than full speed.
Do you read your own posts?

At this point I'd be absolutely shocked if you gave me a straight answer, or any kind of evidence you are talking about a functional technique and not cooperative tma nonsense.


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> You refuse,pretend you didn't make said claim, and shift to something else. I'm not sure why I keep expecting anything different.



I stand by every claim I make.  If you reword it into a claim I didn't make, that's not my fault.

I don't have video evidence to show you.  So I try and re-word what I'm saying, use metaphors and analogies for you to understand.  Because what we are trying to fix is your lack of understanding of how something works.  I agree a video would be better, but I can't post those.  I won't explain why, because frankly it's none of your business.  I provide the evidence I am capable of providing, in effort to explain to you what I mean.

If you can't see how pulling a punch and pulling an arm break are the same concept, I don't know what to tell you.  I'm not evading the question.  I'm trying to find some way to make you understand what I'm talking about, because you clearly don't with the specific technique in question.



Martial D said:


> You wrote that. I quite reasonably asked how you can perform a technique on someone resisting when it's sparring, but at the same time cannot do it in a fight because it's somehow too deadly.



I fully explained why I thought that way.  If you're going to ignore my explanation and just re-quote what I said earlier, then again - it's not my fault..

I have explained multiple times how the rules of sparring as a simulation, vs. the rules of competition with the goal of winning, affect the outcome.  I have a technique that can break your arm, but will not hold you in place.  This technique will break your arm if used full speed, and give you an opportunity to escape if not used at full speed.

In sparring, if I get to the point where I would break my opponent's arm, they tap.  They recognize what would have happened if I followed through.  (Just like a punch).  They recognize that had this not been a game, their arm would be broken.

In a competition, they may recognize that, but it doesn't matter.  Because that's not the goal.

So let me ask you this:

If you are doing light sparring, should you try to knock out your opponent?
If you are doing light sparring, and your opponent taps you on the jaw, in a perfect position to follow through with a knockout blow, do you acknowledge that he would have KO'd you, or at least rocked you good?  Or do you say "you only tapped me, that didn't count."
If you are in a match, and someone taps you on the jaw, do you tap out because he could have knocked you out?


----------



## Martial D (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> I stand by every claim I make.  If you reword it into a claim I didn't make, that's not my fault.


I actually quoted your exact words. I only did this here because you keep deflecting that claim to mean something other than the words you used.




> I don't have video evidence to show you.  So I try and re-word what I'm saying, use metaphors and analogies for you to understand.  Because what we are trying to fix is your lack of understanding of how something works.  I agree a video would be better, but I can't post those.  I won't explain why, because frankly it's none of your business.  I provide the evidence I am capable of providing, in effort to explain to you what I mean.


I'll just have to go ahead and assume it's because such evidence does not exist. You can't link YouTube videos you say? And it's none of my business why? And the dog ate your homework? LOL.


> If you can't see how pulling a punch and pulling an arm break are the same concept, I don't know what to tell you.  I'm not evading the question.  I'm trying to find some way to make you understand what I'm talking about, because you clearly don't with the specific technique in question.


Right. I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous or are just not getting it. Yes, all of that is obvious. No, it doesn't relate to the words you used or the follow up questions I asked.

If you REALLY meant something else..then..you know what..forget it lol.




> I fully explained why I thought that way.  If you're going to ignore my explanation and just re-quote what I said earlier, then again - it's not my fault..
> 
> I have explained multiple times how the rules of sparring as a simulation, vs. the rules of competition with the goal of winning, affect the outcome.  I have a technique that can break your arm, but will not hold you in place.  This technique will break your arm if used full speed, and give you an opportunity to escape if not used at full speed.
> 
> ...


Oh, so you mean just like every bjj submission. They tap, you stop, but you can fully cripple them if they don't.

There is either time to tap, or there isn't because it's too fast. If there is time it's the exact same as actual working techniques there is evidence for. If there isn't how can the guy in sparring tap?

Why does one guy have time to tap and the other doesn't when it only works at full speed? Lolol


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> I was thinking about this today.  I was thinking about some of the submissions we use in Hapkido.  For example, the arm bar we typically use is where our opponent is on their back, we put our foot under their shoulder and pull their arm straight against our knee.  Compare this with the sitting arm bar done in BJJ or Judo, where you are on the ground, pinning your opponent with your legs, while you pull the arm back against your hips.
> 
> The biggest difference in the BJJ method is the amount of control you have.  You have a lot more control over your opponent, they have less movement options, and are basically trapped while you can set the armbar at the point where they tap.
> 
> ...


This is a major difficulty with standing armbars. It's not that they can't work, because they certainly can. The problem is that because you have less control of your opponent, they only work against a competent, fully resisting opponent if you apply them full speed, which doesn't leave time to tap. That means you can't really test and polish them properly in sparring (assuming you don't have an unlimited supply of training partners willing to have their arms broken). If you are getting taps with a standing armbar in sparring, it means your partners are tapping way early and not fully testing whether they can escape the lock. A lot of the skill involved in reliably finishing a lock comes from trial and error, finding all the subtle points of failure in the last 10% of the technique where you thought you had your opponent caught but the angle or the position or the leverage weren't quite right. With a partner tapping early to your standing armbar, you never get a chance to develop that skill.

This is one reason why, out of thousands of MMA fights, I know of only one that was finished by standing armbar (Shinya Aoki broke Keith Wisniewski's arm with a standing Waki Gatame in 2005) compared to hundreds of finishes via Juji Gatame on the ground.
(The other reason is that the increased control involved in ground submissions makes them inherently higher percentage even if skill levels were equalized.)


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Why does one guy have time to tap and the other doesn't when it only works at full speed? Lolol



Because one is recognizing what would have happened had I not stopped the armbar before your arm broke.



Martial D said:


> Oh, so you mean just like every bjj submission. They tap, you stop, but you can fully cripple them if they don't.



The difference is, in BJJ, most of the time you have to first establish control.  You either pin them or wrap them up in such a way they can't do anything else.  If I'm doing a sitting arm bar, most of my weight is on your neck and chest, pinning you down while I execute the armbar.

In a standing armbar, there is not element of control.  It must be done fast, because if not, you miss the window.  This is why I keep comparing it to a punch.  Because a knockout punch is usually delivered when you have no control over your opponent.  You're both standing, you execute the punch with proper timing and get the knockout blow.

The standing armbar is like that.  If you execute it properly at the right time, you will break the arm.  If you execute it without breaking the arm, you have no control.  Which is why someone in sparring can say "you would have broken my arm" and someone in a match can say "you have no control".


----------



## Martial D (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> Because one is recognizing what would have happened had I not stopped the armbar before your arm broke.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, this is a sub executed without first gaining position or control? Hmm. Righto. I'll believe it when I see it. Unfortunately your story doesn't add up enough to take your word for it.

So now there isn't time to tap..like you said before, but instead the opponent just recognizes it and tells you to stop in the half second it takes to complete it.

Consistency is a boon to credibility they say...

I'll just assume the manure here is quite thick till you can drum up something other than 'your word for it'


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> So, this is a sub executed without first gaining position or control? Hmm. Righto. I'll believe it when I see it. Unfortunately your story doesn't add up enough to take your word for it.



Technically "submission" might not be the right word.  It's more of a limb destruction.  The tap in sparring is to acknowledge it.



> So now there isn't time to tap..like you said before, but instead the opponent just recognizes it and tells you to stop in the half second it takes to complete it.



Nope.  The opponent recognizes it after their arm is already extended.  I stop because I don't want to break their arm, and they tap to confirm their arm would have broken.  



> Consistency is a boon to credibility they say...



I execute the technique in practice, where I take my partner down and am able to immediately extend their arm against my knee, to where if I extend a little more the elbow will be hyperextended and break.  I do not extend further, because I don't want to hurt my partner.

We practice against resistance, and I'm getting to the point I can tell before they land whether this will work or not.  If they will land with their bicep curled (which would prevent the technique) I have other breaks that use a different leverage point than the back of the elbow.



> I'll just assume the manure here is quite thick till you can drum up something other than 'your word for it'



You know, I'm trying to be respectful here.  But when you start calling it "manure" because you don't understand it, you start to sound more and more like a chest-thumping gamer.  It's getting harder and harder to talk to you, when you keep insulting what you don't understand, instead of trying to understand it.


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> So, this is a sub executed without first gaining position or control? Hmm. Righto. I'll believe it when I see it. Unfortunately your story doesn't add up enough to take your word for it.
> 
> So now there isn't time to tap..like you said before, but instead the opponent just recognizes it and tells you to stop in the half second it takes to complete it.
> 
> ...








I found this.  The first break he shows is what I'm talking about.  (_Although he does it at about 1/3 speed even in his "full speed" version, and my Master would have about 5 different things to say if I did my technique the way he does his_).  They're braced against the ground, and there are opportunities to roll or brace against it if given time.  But if I follow through, it will work.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 29, 2019)

Martial D said:


> So, this is a sub executed without first gaining position or control? Hmm. Righto. I'll believe it when I see it. Unfortunately your story doesn't add up enough to take your word for it.
> 
> So now there isn't time to tap..like you said before, but instead the opponent just recognizes it and tells you to stop in the half second it takes to complete it.
> 
> ...


He’s talking about moves like this:




As evidenced in the video, they can work. For the reasons I outlined in my previous post, they’re rather low percentage against quality opponents, especially in MMA where the combatants are sweaty and slippery. They come up a little more often in Judo competition where the gi provides more friction.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> I found this.  The first break he shows is what I'm talking about.  (_Although he does it at about 1/3 speed even in his "full speed" version, and my Master would have about 5 different things to say if I did my technique the way he does his_).  They're braced against the ground, and there are opportunities to roll or brace against it if given time.  But if I follow through, it will work.


Can't tell if it's the same from the angle, but that looks like a knife disarm I know. However, when doing the disarm we have to get a lot more control over the arm then it looks like you have.

How do you know that they wouldn't be able to twist out of the break, without having more control?


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Can't tell if it's the same from the angle, but that looks like a knife disarm I know. However, when doing the disarm we have to get a lot more control over the arm then it looks like you have.
> 
> How do you know that they wouldn't be able to twist out of the break, without having more control?




That's not me.  That's a video I found of someone I don't know.
When I execute this, I usually have their wrist twisted pretty good, which makes twisting much harder.  I also execute it faster than this guy, giving them less time to react.
If they do roll away, I have other options available.  If they land the on their back, for example, I will react with a similar break from a different angle.  (It takes time and training to recognize which way to go).  If they roll completely they will probably break their arm.
The one thing that used to thwart me a lot on this break is to basically to a bicep curl, which means I'm fighting strength-on-strength.  When that happens, I let them bend their arm and I twist the arm back instead (kind of the opposite of a kimura).


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> He’s talking about moves like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not the specific move I was talking about (see my post with the video linked), but it's a similar concept.  That move won't be a break if done at half speed because the person will just move with it (or at the best, be thrown).  But at full speed is a break.

When we do a move like that in class, it's usually half speed and is a throw.


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Can't tell if it's the same from the angle, but that looks like a knife disarm I know.



A lot of the techniques translate very well from one type of defense to the other.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's not me.  That's a video I found of someone I don't know.
> When I execute this, I usually have their wrist twisted pretty good, which makes twisting much harder.  I also execute it faster than this guy, giving them less time to react.
> If they do roll away, I have other options available.  If they land the on their back, for example, I will react with a similar break from a different angle.  (It takes time and training to recognize which way to go).  If they roll completely they will probably break their arm.
> The one thing that used to thwart me a lot on this break is to basically to a bicep curl, which means I'm fighting strength-on-strength.  When that happens, I let them bend their arm and I twist the arm back instead (kind of the opposite of a kimura).


Keep in mind-no experience in using that tech as a break. But if they do a bicep curl, wouldn't it be easier to change your grip to put pressure on the back of a hand for a wrist lock? I can't recall the name of the wrist lock, but looking at that technique, it seems like them curling back would put you in the perfect position for it.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> A lot of the techniques translate very well from one type of defense to the other.


The difference with the knife disarm is that it's not a break, but specifically increasing pressure in a way to force them to release. Looking over the technique, it's different in what your hand is doing, but same positioning to start (except adjust for more control before disarm).


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Keep in mind-no experience in using that tech as a break. But if they do a bicep curl, wouldn't it be easier to change your grip to put pressure on the back of a hand for a wrist lock? I can't recall the name of the wrist lock, but looking at that technique, it seems like them curling back would put you in the perfect position for it.



If we change our grip we get yelled at.  Changing grip is the perfect opportunity for them to slip out of your grip.



kempodisciple said:


> The difference with the knife disarm is that it's not a break, but specifically increasing pressure in a way to force them to release. Looking over the technique, it's different in what your hand is doing, but same positioning to start (except adjust for more control before disarm).



I'll do that and then break the arm (if I can).


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 29, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> They come up a little more often in Judo competition where the gi provides more friction.


Correction - standing arm bars used to be a little more common in Judo, but I guess the current rules have banned them. Probably due to incidents like this one:


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> If we change our grip we get yelled at.  Changing grip is the perfect opportunity for them to slip out of your grip.


A: that's what getting the control first is good for.
B: the way I'm picturing it, you don't actually lose the grip, and use both hands to prevent them from escaping.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Correction - standing arm bars used to be a little more common in Judo, but I guess the current rules have banned them. Probably due to incidents like this one:


The guy who did the arm bar there just looks annoyed.


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Correction - standing arm bars used to be a little more common in Judo, but I guess the current rules have banned them. Probably due to incidents like this one:



I've had similar things happen to me.  Biggest guy in the class took a lot of time to learn how to control those types of take-downs.  There were a couple months where my Master would only pair him up with the 2nd biggest guy, and wouldn't have any smaller guys pair with him, especially for that specific technique.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> If we change our grip we get yelled at.  Changing grip is the perfect opportunity for them to slip out of your grip.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll do that and then break the arm (if I can).





kempodisciple said:


> A: that's what getting the control first is good for.
> B: the way I'm picturing it, you don't actually lose the grip, and use both hands to prevent them from escaping.



Just realized-part of the issue is probably that I'm picturing it from my tech, where the hand starts in a different position. So it might not translate. But grip change technically happens every time you flow from one lock to another.


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> A: that's what getting the control first is good for.
> B: the way I'm picturing it, you don't actually lose the grip, and use both hands to prevent them from escaping.



My Master teaches Hapkido with the exact opposite principle as BJJ.  There isn't time to work on control and positioning.  If there's another person there, you only have a second or two before you need to switch opponents.  If we take more than a few seconds, my Master tells us we failed and need to start over.



kempodisciple said:


> The guy who did the arm bar there just looks annoyed.



When we do sparring in Hapkido, one person will grab the other in random ways.  The way I grabbed my partner set it up so all he had to do was tap my hands and my thumbs were almost dislocated.  He was really mad at how easy it was.  I also learned how not to grab an opponent.


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Just realized-part of the issue is probably that I'm picturing it from my tech, where the hand starts in a different position. So it might not translate. But grip change technically happens every time you flow from one lock to another.



We try and maintain the same grip from start to finish.  Sometimes our support hand changes, but we try to let go or shift our grip as little as possible.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 29, 2019)

skribs said:


> My Master teaches Hapkido with the exact opposite principle as BJJ.  There isn't time to work on control and positioning.  If there's another person there, you only have a second or two before you need to switch opponents.  If we take more than a few seconds, my Master tells us we failed and need to start over.
> 
> 
> 
> When we do sparring in Hapkido, one person will grab the other in random ways.  The way I grabbed my partner set it up so all he had to do was tap my hands and my thumbs were almost dislocated.  He was really mad at how easy it was.  I also learned how not to grab an opponent.



I could probably write an essay on exactly why I disagree with that, but it's more a difference in philosophy than anything else, so I don't think there's a purpose to it (plus I'm feeling lazy )


----------



## skribs (Aug 29, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> I could probably write an essay on exactly why I disagree with that, but it's more a difference in philosophy than anything else, so I don't think there's a purpose to it (plus I'm feeling lazy )



I'm perfectly fine with arguing with a difference in philosophy, as long as it doesn't boil down to "you're stupid because you don't do things the way I do it."


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> If we change our grip we get yelled at.  Changing grip is the perfect opportunity for them to slip out of your grip.


If you get the grip that you want, you will not let go. But before you get your favor grips, you may move around a lot to achieve that.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you get the grip that you want, you will not let go. But before you get your favor grips, you may move around a lot to achieve that.



If we don't get the grip we want from the start, we have to use a technique that fits the grip that we got.  (For the most part).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> He’s talking about moves like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I view these as "try it if it won't make it worse" moves. They can be done in the process of breaking structure. In many cases, the actual lock doesn't hold up in the transition of the person's structure breaking down (if they bend over fast, for instance, the lock gains too much slack) but they leave you in a better (or at least not worse) position. Getting a feel for how they disintegrate can make them useful for transition to other moves. And there are a couple of variations of standing arm bars that are pure targets of opportunity during a scramble (I'll see if I can find a decent video of a wrap-around arm bar, which makes no sense in any context but that, IMO).


----------



## Martial D (Aug 30, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> He’s talking about moves like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. So at least now I know what buddy was talking about.

We both know that was a 1 off of the sort of getting a cartwheel kick ko or jumping off the wall into a spinning headkick. The stars pretty much aligned to make that happen

Regardless, I was only interested in a specific claim that has since been waffled away, so.

Enjoy your Friday


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 30, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I view these as "try it if it won't make it worse" moves. They can be done in the process of breaking structure. In many cases, the actual lock doesn't hold up in the transition of the person's structure breaking down (if they bend over fast, for instance, the lock gains too much slack) but they leave you in a better (or at least not worse) position. Getting a feel for how they disintegrate can make them useful for transition to other moves. And there are a couple of variations of standing arm bars that are pure targets of opportunity during a scramble (I'll see if I can find a decent video of a wrap-around arm bar, which makes no sense in any context but that, IMO).


Yep. 99% of the time against a skilled fighter a standing lock is just a threat which can force a reaction. It’s still useful to have them in your toolbox as long as you’re not attached to the idea of actually finishing them.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

A lot of great valuable points, I have a lot to think about concerning this subject.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ok. So at least now I know what buddy was talking about.
> 
> We both know that was a 1 off of the sort of getting a cartwheel kick ko or jumping off the wall into a spinning headkick. The stars pretty much aligned to make that happen
> 
> ...



Did you ignore my posted video?

He posted 2 videos of it being done in different competitions (one in what looks like either Muay Thai or MMA, one in Judo).  There were rules made about it (according to Tony's posts).  So it's not just a one-off.

You're also ignoring Jerry's contributions to the discussion.

You are given evidence of it working, and still you treat it as a fluke, something not worth even considering.  This is why I don't like bothering to do the research for you.  Because the research is done, and you just disregard it, because of whatever reasons you can find.  You are so dogmatic in your views on martial arts, that anything that contradicts what you know is manure, is a 1-off, is whatever excuse you can find for it to not be a viable technique or training strategy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> This is a major difficulty with standing armbars. It's not that they can't work, because they certainly can. The problem is that because you have less control of your opponent, they only work against a competent, fully resisting opponent if you apply them full speed, which doesn't leave time to tap. That means you can't really test and polish them properly in sparring (assuming you don't have an unlimited supply of training partners willing to have their arms broken). If you are getting taps with a standing armbar in sparring, it means your partners are tapping way early and not fully testing whether they can escape the lock. A lot of the skill involved in reliably finishing a lock comes from trial and error, finding all the subtle points of failure in the last 10% of the technique where you thought you had your opponent caught but the angle or the position or the leverage weren't quite right. With a partner tapping early to your standing armbar, you never get a chance to develop that skill.
> 
> This is one reason why, out of thousands of MMA fights, I know of only one that was finished by standing armbar (Shinya Aoki broke Keith Wisniewski's arm with a standing Waki Gatame in 2005) compared to hundreds of finishes via Juji Gatame on the ground.
> (The other reason is that the increased control involved in ground submissions makes them inherently higher percentage even if skill levels were equalized.)


I really like this post, I think you’ve made clear points and described them eloquently.

The truth is, there are techniques that are inappropriate in competition because they do not work at anything less than full commitment, which results in injury and destruction.  If they are dialed back to avoid that kind of injury, then they do not work and they leave you exposed.  These kinds of techniques need to be practiced in a more controlled setting, and yes that does mean they have the drawbacks you describe in developing skill with them.

The problem is that all too often this is turned around and ridiculed under “too deadly for competition” and accusations are made of using that as a cover for not wanting to compete or not placing a lot of emphasis on sparring.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I really like this post, I think you’ve made clear points and described them eloquently.
> 
> The truth is, there are techniques that are inappropriate in competition because they do not work at anything less than full commitment, which results in injury and destruction.  If they are dialed back to avoid that kind of injury, then they do not work and they leave you exposed.  These kinds of techniques need to be practiced in a more controlled setting, and yes that does mean they have the drawbacks you describe in developing skill with them.
> 
> The problem is that all too often this is turned around and ridiculed under “too deadly for competition” and accusations are made of using that as a cover for not wanting to compete or not placing a lot of emphasis on sparring.



I think it stems from people wanting to believe their methodology is perfect.  If there are pros and cons compared to another style, then your methodology isn't perfect, because there's cons.  So people get defensive about everything regarding their chosen training method, and anything that is not like theirs is wrong.

That's not to say people think it should be perfectly like theirs.  But the core of what they consider to be important, they consider that to be the only core philosophy.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think it stems from people wanting to believe their methodology is perfect.  If there are pros and cons compared to another style, then your methodology isn't perfect, because there's cons.  So people get defensive about everything regarding their chosen training method, and anything that is not like theirs is wrong.
> 
> That's not to say people think it should be perfectly like theirs.  But the core of what they consider to be important, they consider that to be the only core philosophy.


I think you nailed thi


gpseymour said:


> How many times should someone use a single technique in "real life" combat before they consider it not a fluke? And against what kinds of people? You're making a distinction that doesn't really have a good cutoff to it.


Not necessarily a technique, but personal skill, should be tested.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

My personal bias is when I hear someone say, "It will work in the street" but then admits that they have never been in a real situation.

To me that is a con-artist hard at work.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> My personal bias is when I hear someone say, "It will work in the street" but then admits that they have never been in a real situation.
> 
> To me that is a con-artist hard at work.



So, should martial artists seek out street fights in order to prove their effectiveness?

The experience of others counts for something.  I trust in the experience of my Master, and what he says will work in the streets, based on his past and credentials.  When he says something works in the streets, he's saying from experience.  When I say the same thing works in the streets, I'm saying from his experience.  Does that make me a con artist and my techniques untested?  In my biased opinion, no it does not.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> So, should martial artists seek out street fights in order to prove their effectiveness?
> 
> The experience of others counts for something.  I trust in the experience of my Master, and what he says will work in the streets, based on his past and credentials.  When he says something works in the streets, he's saying from experience.  When I say the same thing works in the streets, I'm saying from his experience.  Does that make me a con artist and my techniques untested?  In my biased opinion, no it does not.


How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.

We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.

Example- I assume that the earth is round, as to available information. But, I have no personal individual experience to say that it is.

If you trust your instructor and his "credentials, and he tells you it does work and has shown that to you...that is still assumed knowledge. Until you yourself test it, it will remain assumed knowledge.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.
> 
> We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.
> 
> ...



So should I go around picking street fights and trying to break people's bodies and give them concussions?  Should I seek to bludgeon people bloody and risk assault and batter charges, just so I'm not a "con artist"?


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> So should I go around picking street fights and trying to break people's bodies and give them concussions?  Should I seek to bludgeon people bloody and risk assault and batter charges, just so I'm not a "con artist"?


Well no, that is just ignorance, but if you haven't, as an instructor, you should be honest with your students and say.."I don't know" if you do not say that...

Yes you are a con-man and a charlatan as well. You are calling something truth, when you yourself, do not actually know.

What else should a person like that be called?


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Well no, that is just ignorance, but if you haven't, as an instructor, you should be honest with your students and say.."I don't know" if you do not say that...
> 
> Yes you are a con-man and a charlatan as well. You are calling something truth, when you yourself, do not actually know.
> 
> What else should a person like that be called?



I am calling something truth, which I believe to be truth.  That does not make me a con-man or a charlatan.

There are a lot of lessons in life that can be learned vicariously.  There's things that have happened in history, that we learn about today.  There's lots of things you can know, without ever having experienced, because of the knowledge and experience of others.  Now, there is no substitute for your own experience.  But saying "this will work on the street", because I've seen it work on the street, is not a lie.  It is an observation.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> I am calling something truth, which I believe to be truth.  That does not make me a con-man or a charlatan.
> 
> There are a lot of lessons in life that can be learned vicariously.  There's things that have happened in history, that we learn about today.  There's lots of things you can know, without ever having experienced, because of the knowledge and experience of others.  Now, there is no substitute for your own experience.  But saying "this will work on the street", because I've seen it work on the street, is not a lie.  It is an observation.


All assumed knowledge. And, that is ok...but, it doesn't mean you have the personal experience.

And, you should have the integrity to say so or its is just a false statement, Regardless of if you think it's truth.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.
> 
> We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.
> 
> ...


By that logic, no matter what everything is assumed knowledge. No matter how many times you use a technique in a real fight, you have no idea that it will work for anyone else in that same situation, or will work for you in a slightly different situation (how do you know that a move which worked on main street will still work on 2nd street?)


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> All assumed knowledge. And, that is ok...but, it doesn't mean you have the personal experience.
> 
> And, you should have the integrity to say so or its is just a false statement, Regardless of if you think it's truth.



If I think it's truth, how would I honestly say it's a false statement?


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> By that logic, no matter what everything is assumed knowledge. No matter how many times you use a technique in a real fight, you have no idea that it will work for anyone else in that same situation, or will work for you in a slightly different situation (how do you know that a move which worked on main street will still work on 2nd street?)


Most things are assumed knowledge, until you experience it personally, it is assumed knowledge.

And, that is the point, if you have never tested at all, you won't even know if it has a chance of working on main Street or any street for that matter and if you are not sure why teach it?

Even though you stretched your point a little bit, it made some sense.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> If I think it's truth, how would I honestly say it's a false statement?


Truth needs to be proven, or it is not even in the realm of truth.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> So should I go around picking street fights and trying to break people's bodies and give them concussions?  Should I seek to bludgeon people bloody and risk assault and batter charges, just so I'm not a "con artist"?



You just don't say you know what you don't know. 

That is one thing I like about sports fighting is the language is a bit better. We go from "this works"  to "I have had some success when"

It is a more personal more reflective mindset.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Truth needs to be proven, or it is not even in the realm of truth.



Apparently that kind of talk upsets people.

So the best explanation I got was from this guy.

"Ok.. so..

Truth is analytic, so generally it applies to propositions..

Truth is usually a quality of propositions

There are ‘kinds’ of truth

For example a truth can be conditional

“Today is Sunday” is false

But there will be conditions where that will be true


Facts are empirical observations, like ‘that car is red’

So in science it would go in this order

Hypothesis,
Speculation really

Then fact,
Empirical observation

Example, fish species a swims better in 29 degree water then 30 degree water

Inferences are greater then fact, but can be wrong, inference have the ability of prediction, they are considered higher then fact because multiple facts are required to make an inference

Example

Fact 1
Fish x survive better in 29 degrees

Fact 2
Pond 1 is 32 degrees

Fact 3
Pond 2 is 29 degrees

Inference,
Fish x will survive better in pond 2 then pond 1

Then above fact you have laws, like the law of gravity, it is true across all times and is completely consistent

Then above law you have.. believe it or not theory
(When people say ‘that’s just a theory’ they mean to say, ‘that’s just a hypothesis’)
Theories require multiple laws, and sometimes inferences between laws

Example
The theory of relativity describes and contains many laws


Don’t quote me on this one, I think if it’s a priori (usually maths) they are called Theroms
Eg, a triangle has 3 sides
And if they are a posteriori they are usually empirical

So science uses models to describe the natural world

Logic uses deduction from premises to conclusions
(Though premise are not usually deductive, they usually use inductive or analogical reasoning for example)

So if you think of a word like necessary, it’s an analytical word, if something is necessary, it means for it not to be true there is a contradiction..

My brother is male is necessarily TRUE because if it was false, there would be a contradiction

So terms like ‘true’ typically are analytical, so they are logical in nature, they refer to reasoning using mathematical deduction

And terms like Fact are scientific in nature, they refer to empirical observations

Colloquially, they are all misused

But.. in conclusion you’re a right

To bring ‘memory’ into it makes it more stupid and nonsensical.. You’re then in the field of cognitive science, you’re talking about the equipment we see the work through

Challenging memory is like saying the telescope is broken in science

Propositions need to be falsifiable in science..

10 mins ago, the whole world was created, including your memories, including historical  facts.. you can’t falsify it, not can you verify it

Clams about memory should be made in the fields cognitive science, psychology, philosophy of mind, maybe law

Claims about truth should be made in the field of logic

Claims about facts belong to science"


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Most things are assumed knowledge, until you experience it personally, it is assumed knowledge.
> 
> And, that is the point, if you have never tested at all, you won't even know if it has a chance of working on main Street or any street for that matter and if you are not sure why teach it?
> 
> Even though you stretched your point a little bit, it made some sense.




Do you know how many streetfights I'd have to be in, in order to take my "assumed knowledge" and make it "real knowledge"?
No technique is 100% effective.  That means even more fights until you have found some where the technique works and can "factually" say it works.
As a martial artist, my first goal is to avoid fights altogether.  Getting into fights in order to claim I've used the techniques is counter-productive to that goal.



Guthrie said:


> Truth needs to be proven, or it is not even in the realm of truth.



There are lots of things that are true that I haven't personally proven.  When I get sick, and the doctor tells me I have a bacterial infection, I don't have to go out and run my own lab results before I take antibiotics.  I trust that my doctor is correct, based on her experience and her knowledge, and that when she tells me what will work to kill the bacteria, she is correct.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Apparently that kind of talk upsets people.



When he calls me a liar and a con-man because I'm smart enough to avoid streetfights, yes.  (And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's said in this thread or another, that the only knowledge that matters is if you've used martial arts to save your life, so that throws out all of the in-ring fighting as well).



drop bear said:


> You just don't say you know what you don't know.
> 
> That is one thing I like about sports fighting is the language is a bit better. We go from "this works" to "I have had some success when"
> 
> It is a more personal more reflective mindset.



Outside of the context of this conversation I'd agree with you more.  I do agree that personal experience is valuable, and there's nothing that can compete with live repetitions in terms of fully understanding the techniques.

However, in the context of this conversation, I don't like the side you've chosen.  Because it's the side that's calling me a liar, a cheat, a charlatan, a con-man, all because I'm smart enough to avoid a street fight.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> Do you know how many streetfights I'd have to be in, in order to take my "assumed knowledge" and make it "real knowledge"?
> No technique is 100% effective.  That means even more fights until you have found some where the technique works and can "factually" say it works.
> As a martial artist, my first goal is to avoid fights altogether.  Getting into fights in order to claim I've used the techniques is counter-productive to that goal.
> 
> There are lots of things that are true that I haven't personally proven.  When I get sick, and the doctor tells me I have a bacterial infection, I don't have to go out and run my own lab results before I take antibiotics.  I trust that my doctor is correct, based on her experience and her knowledge, and that when she tells me what will work to kill the bacteria, she is correct.


That is actually a good point, but it was your own personal experience, that made you go to the Doctor in the first place and if it works, then you now have personal experience that it does..

But until then, you do not actually know.

I have watched a lot of medical reality shows, just send me a message and I will diagnose your illness next time.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> When he calls me a liar and a con-man because I'm smart enough to avoid streetfights, yes.  (And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's said in this thread or another, that the only knowledge that matters is if you've used martial arts to save your life, so that throws out all of the in-ring fighting as well).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah..I see, it is not meant to be a personal attack against you.

But, I do believe that an Instructor has the responsibility, to be honest with those they teach. If you don't that is your own personal right.

But, if I say I can build you a house, but have zero experience doing it and take your money, and the structure of the house fails, wouldn't I be a con-man and a liar?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Most things are assumed knowledge, until you experience it personally, it is assumed knowledge.
> 
> And, that is the point, if you have never tested at all, you won't even know if it has a chance of working on main Street or any street for that matter and if you are not sure why teach it?
> 
> Even though you stretched your point a little bit, it made some sense.


Assumed knowledge is good enough to teach for actual knowledge, though. For instance: I can calculate how quickly a brick will drop if I drop it from the second story of a floor to the first story. I don't know for certain that it will drop at that speed, but I wouldn't be lying to people if I say "When I let go of this brick, it will fall at a rate of X" (assuming I was someone who actually knew what X was).


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Ah..I see, it is not meant to be a personal attack against you.
> 
> But, I do believe that an Instructor has the responsibility, to be honest with those they teach. If you don't that is your own personal right.
> 
> But, if I say I can build you a house, but have zero experience doing it and take your money, and the structure of the house fails, wouldn't I be a con-man and a liar?



No, you'd have either A) made a mistake or B) simply been incompetent.

I would only consider it to be a con-job or a lie in the events that:

You gave me credentials which were untrue
You purposefully cut corners in order to build the house cheaper
You took the money and did not build the house
Everyone who has ever built a house, has built a house at one point with no prior experience.  The fact you have not built a house and think you can, is not a con job or a lie.  If you know you don't know how, then it's a con job.

Similarly, if I say a technique will work on the street, it is based on a combination of my experience in class, along with my trust in my Master's experience in real life.  If someone asks if I've personally used it, I will say "no".  I won't lie and say I've used it.  But I have enough understanding of the mechanics of the techniques, and enough trust in my Master's credentials, that I believe it to be true.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> All assumed knowledge. And, that is ok...but, it doesn't mean you have the personal experience.
> 
> And, you should have the integrity to say so or its is just a false statement, Regardless of if you think it's truth.



I've never personally performed a kidney transplant. But I know for a fact that they work.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> When he calls me a liar and a con-man because I'm smart enough to avoid streetfights, yes.  (And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he's said in this thread or another, that the only knowledge that matters is if you've used martial arts to save your life, so that throws out all of the in-ring fighting as well).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You conclusions are incorrect. You are referencing street fights without evidence.

That's the issue.

You can teach self defense without street fights but you would need to reference facts or qualified experts.

If you can fight you can fight. Street fighting has smaller issues. Like for example I always kasegetami because concrete is hell on my knees. But you could take the scrapes and still win.

Most of it isn't that big a deal.

(Now I am trying to think of a deal breaker that martial arts does that will just not work in a street fight)


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've never personally performed a kidney transplant. But I know for a fact that they work.



Do you teach people to transplant kidneys?

The kind of standards that are put on medicine would be a fantastic benchmark to put on martial arts.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You can teach self defense without street fights but you would need to reference facts or qualified experts.



That's what we're saying, but @Guthrie is saying you can't reference facts or qualified experts - you HAVE to have the first-hand knowledge.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> The kind of standards that are put on medicine would be a fantastic benchmark to put on martial arts.



I think that it takes a lot more schooling to know how to properly heal a person than to properly destroy a person.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> I've never personally performed a kidney transplant. But I know for a fact that they work.


Depends on the individual.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> No, you'd have either A) made a mistake or B) simply been incompetent.
> 
> I would only consider it to be a con-job or a lie in the events that:
> 
> ...


That is exactly what an Instructor does when he says something works, without personal proof.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> I think that it takes a lot more schooling to know how to properly heal a person than to properly destroy a person.



Not at all. 
Faith healers have no formal training at all.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> That's what we're saying, but @Guthrie is saying you can't reference facts or qualified experts - you HAVE to have the first-hand knowledge.



I don't think Trent from punchy technically counts as a qualified expert.

(I would post a video but super sweary)


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I don't think Trent from punchy technically counts as a qualified expert.
> 
> (I would post a video but super sweary)



Now you're just trying to argue.  I'd reference qualified sources, not unqualified sources.


----------



## Mitlov (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Do you teach people to transplant kidneys?
> 
> The kind of standards that are put on medicine would be a fantastic benchmark to put on martial arts.



And if we did that, an hour of karate instruction would cost as much as an hour of an orthopedic surgeon's time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Not necessarily a technique, but personal skill, should be tested.


That still leaves the same question. What level of "real life" is required, and how many times? And against whom?

See, if I get in tussles with a few gumbies (thanks @drop bear for introducing me to that word!), we can't really tell much about my skill. If I get stomped by some absolute monsters, we still can't tell much about my skill. This is why I think the sport folks make a good point about the value of hard sparring and competition. Even moderate sparring, I get a chance to see how my overall skill level holds up against people of various levels. Take that to actual competition (which I haven't) and you get more levels of input, with more control over the variables (you actually know something about the skill of the opponent).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> My personal bias is when I hear someone say, "It will work in the street" but then admits that they have never been in a real situation.
> 
> To me that is a con-artist hard at work.


If the "it" is a given technique, then isn't it enough to see evidence of it being used in the wild by some folks? We wouldn't know if a specific person's skill with that technique is sufficient to those same situations, but we'd be able to see that the technique can have an effect.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.
> 
> We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.
> 
> ...


None of us are hopefully going to get to test our whole range of techniques in the wild. Finding folks who have depended upon certain tactics and techniques at least points us to something that's more likely to be worth developing skill at.

Otherwise, we'd all have to go out and get in more fights all the time, to keep finding out if our current skill level is still sufficient. And the only safe-ish way I know to do that would be back to sport...and that's still just an approximation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Depends on the individual.


That's equally true of many fighting techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Not at all.
> Faith healers have no formal training at all.


I think you missed the term "properly". Unless I missed your point.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 30, 2019)

@Guthrie you've been asked this by a few people in different words, but haven't answered. Based on your view, is anyone qualified to teach self defense? Or is everyone just screwed?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Do you teach people to transplant kidneys?



No. But there are plenty of examples. I have never personally performed a lateral canthotomy. But I know they work, and I know I am capable of performing one if it was necessary. I also have no doubt that I could teach someone with the proper background to perform one, even though I've never done one. That procedure is, when you get down to it, about as difficult as executing most self defense techniques, so it's probably a better analogy than transplantation.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Not at all.
> Faith healers have no formal training at all.



They also are not healing anybody.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That still leaves the same question. What level of "real life" is required, and how many times? And against whom?
> 
> See, if I get in tussles with a few gumbies (thanks @drop bear for introducing me to that word!), we can't really tell much about my skill. If I get stomped by some absolute monsters, we still can't tell much about my skill. This is why I think the sport folks make a good point about the value of hard sparring and competition. Even moderate sparring, I get a chance to see how my overall skill level holds up against people of various levels. Take that to actual competition (which I haven't) and you get more levels of input, with more control over the variables (you actually know something about the skill of the opponent).



First off, I've found the secret to your post count.  Reply to every individual post as its own individual reply. 

Second, I think it's funny that me and you were both arguing against the gung-ho sports guys in another thread, and we're both applying their logic to this thread.  (To be clear - I agree with the logic of why sport fighting works, but not the gung-ho logic that nothing else works).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 30, 2019)

skribs said:


> First off, I've found the secret to your post count.  Reply to every individual post as its own individual reply.
> 
> Second, I think it's funny that me and you were both arguing against the gung-ho sports guys in another thread, and we're both applying their logic to this thread.  (To be clear - I agree with the logic of why sport fighting works, but not the gung-ho logic that nothing else works).


I'm just too scatter-brained to gather posts into a single reply. I see, I reply. I'm just naturally gifted at posting. 

And, yep, I think the sport angle gets overstated at times, but I came up through some training that lacked resistance much of the time, and I see a problem with that. I think having competition is a good way to ensure compliant practice doesn't lead people astray. For folks who don't want to actually enter competitions, doing the thing (setting up some rules and going at each other at varying levels of intensity) outside of organized competition is also effective.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> @Guthrie you've been asked this by a few people in different words, but haven't answered. Based on your view, is anyone qualified to teach self defense? Or is everyone just screwed?


I believe a lot of people are qualified..do I believe everyone is. If they have no personal experience, I would see it as sketchy at best.

Let me ask you this, what makes a person qualified in any area of expertise?

What separates the apprentice stonemason, from a master stonemason.

What separates all Instructors, from video instruction in the martial Arts.

By a majority of logic, watching and practicing is enough, which would even negate the need for resistance training and sparring.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I believe a lot of people are qualified..do I believe everyone is. If they have no personal experience, I would see it as sketchy at best.


So here's the issue with your logic.
Here is your logic

1: You believe that you need to have personal experience using a technique to defend yourself, in order to be qualified to teach it.
2: You believe the only way to get that experience is in a real life situation, as the person needs to use the technique in a specific situation to be able to use it.
3: You've acknowledged that each situation is different, and something being effective in one situation might not be effective in another. Or by another person. 

Point 1/2 were directly stated by you. Point 3 I've gathered from my own experience in fights, and you agreed on it. 

Here is the issue that comes from your logic. 

4: Based on those three things, it is impossible to be qualified to teach a technique for self defense, as you cannot know that what you are teaching will be effective.
5:  If it is impossible to be qualified to teach a single technique for self-defense, then it stands to reason that being qualified to teach a system (composed of techniques) would also be impossible. 
6: If no one is qualified to teach...what then? Can no one learn self-defense? Do we have to all discover it on our own? Is there a solution to this?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> What separates the apprentice stonemason, from a master stonemason.


As for the answer to this-I've no idea. I'm not a stonemason. If you are one, feel free to tell me what makes the difference.

All of us are putting in comparisons and analogies though, and I'm being reminded of my issue with those things to begin with.

Analogy is a great teaching school, because it compares to something you already know, and/or simplifies something. It's a much worse discussion/debate tool, as analogies in general are simplified and lack the complexity of the primary issue. That's what makes them great for teaching, but also what makes them problematic for debating. You can see this just reading along some of the 10 pages of debates on this forum, where the last five pages is people arguing about an analogy, rather than the issue itself.

I'm guilty of that myself a ton.


----------



## skribs (Aug 30, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I believe a lot of people are qualified..do I believe everyone is. If they have no personal experience, I would see it as sketchy at best.
> 
> Let me ask you this, what makes a person qualified in any area of expertise?
> 
> ...



Watching is enough to know what works and what doesn't.  It's not enough to know how to do it yourself.  Practice (which includes resistance training) is how you get competent.  It is the combination of this knowledge and practice which comes to play.

If I've seen someone get knocked out with a sleeper hold, and I've trained how to set up and apply a sleeper hold, then I know I can put someone to sleep, without having to have done it.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> As for the answer to this-I've no idea. I'm not a stonemason. If you are one, feel free to tell me what makes the difference.
> 
> All of us are putting in comparisons and analogies though, and I'm being reminded of my issue with those things to begin with.
> 
> ...


As am I. And, this thread is full of those.

The point was a simple one,

"The experience of doing the job, honing and re-honing the skill and then testing that skill in a real world scenario."

Personal Experience.




skribs said:


> Watching is enough to know what works and what doesn't.  It's not enough to know how to do it yourself.  Practice (which includes resistance training) is how you get competent.  It is the combination of this knowledge and practice which comes to play.
> 
> If I've seen someone get knocked out with a sleeper hold, and I've trained how to set up and apply a sleeper hold, then I know I can put someone to sleep, without having to have done it.



No you still only have assumed knowledge, it is not actual knowledge, until you have done it. It never will be, sure you can have confidence in the practice...but you do not know, until you do.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 30, 2019)

But this discussion, will go on and on. So, I will concede, and it might not seem like it, but I do respect the varying opinions.

It gives me things to consider...


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2019)

@Guthrie: How many fights, on the street, do I need to get into before I can justify being a martial arts instructor?  

Straight up question.  Please give me an answer.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> They also are not healing anybody.



Is that a claim we can make though?

It seems a bit petty to assume just because Faith healing doesn't work that we should criticise it.

So long as people are happy is what is important.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. But there are plenty of examples. I have never personally performed a lateral canthotomy. But I know they work, and I know I am capable of performing one if it was necessary. I also have no doubt that I could teach someone with the proper background to perform one, even though I've never done one. That procedure is, when you get down to it, about as difficult as executing most self defense techniques, so it's probably a better analogy than transplantation.



And I am sure you are great at it and all. But given the choice I would go to a doctor to have that done.

And basically that encapsulates my entire outlook on martial arts.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> If the "it" is a given technique, then isn't it enough to see evidence of it being used in the wild by some folks? We wouldn't know if a specific person's skill with that technique is sufficient to those same situations, but we'd be able to see that the technique can have an effect.



Body punches is a good example here because almost nobody can do them right. They are the black magic of striking.

And so yeah. Body punches melt guys. But you will need a lot more than having been assured they work.

You need to be personally good at them or you are wasting your time.


----------



## Buka (Aug 30, 2019)

Would somebody ask @Guthrie a question for me, as my guess is he has me on ignore. 

I believe he studies Karate. I'd like to know if he's ever actually seen his instructor in a street fight. Or if he's taking instruction on faith.


----------



## Buka (Aug 30, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Body punches is a good example here because almost nobody can do them right. They are the black magic of striking.
> 
> And so yeah. Body punches melt guys. But you will need a lot more than having been assured they work.
> 
> You need to be personally good at them or you are wasting your time.



I think it's important to differentiate between a regular body punching and a punch that hits to the liver. (Perhaps more technically appropriate would be a shot that impacts the liver) Hitting the liver is a crap shoot.

But you are correct, body punching sure does melt guys. And it is an art that appears in boxing more than any other form of combat fighting I've trained in. It's not something you learn in a year, either. But man, it sure is worth it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2019)

> Would somebody ask @Guthrie a question for me, as my guess is he has me on ignore.
> 
> I believe he studies Karate. I'd like to know if he's ever actually seen his instructor in a street fight. Or if he's taking instruction on faith.



@Guthrie, we’ve got a question from Buka.

Would like an answer to my question as well.

Thanks.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 30, 2019)

Buka said:


> Would somebody ask @Guthrie a question for me, as my guess is he has me on ignore.
> 
> I believe he studies Karate. I'd like to know if he's ever actually seen his instructor in a street fight. Or if he's taking instruction on faith.


Your request is being handled.  Please be patient...


----------



## Buka (Aug 30, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Your request is being handled.  Please be patient...



Yes sir, sure will. 

Fascinating thread. Very thought provoking, regardless of opinion.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 30, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think it's important to differentiate between a regular body punching and a punch that hits to the liver. (Perhaps more technically appropriate would be a shot that impacts the liver) Hitting the liver is a crap shoot.
> 
> But you are correct, body punching sure does melt guys. And it is an art that appears in boxing more than any other form of combat fighting I've trained in. It's not something you learn in a year, either. But man, it sure is worth it.



I am just getting the trick of it now.

And that is the thing. 80% of people trained in body punching you could let wail on your body and do nothing. 

It works. But making it work is another matter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Body punches is a good example here because almost nobody can do them right. They are the black magic of striking.
> 
> And so yeah. Body punches melt guys. But you will need a lot more than having been assured they work.
> 
> You need to be personally good at them or you are wasting your time.


And this is an area where some type of sport usage (whether formal competition or not) is really handy. I know I can punch a bag really well with my left hand to about the right spot. Unless I land that with some effect on a person - even if it's only hard enough to see that it hit the right spot, without dropping them - I'm still not sure I'm going to land it right. And in a given fight/match/session, it might take a few tries to land it right (and a few tries, each time, to set it up).


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 31, 2019)

skribs said:


> Watching is enough to know what works and what doesn't.  It's not enough to know how to do it yourself.  Practice (which includes resistance training) is how you get competent.  It is the combination of this knowledge and practice which comes to play.
> 
> If I've seen someone get knocked out with a sleeper hold, and I've trained how to set up and apply a sleeper hold, then I know I can put someone to sleep, without having to have done it.



I have a hard time with "watching is enough". I will use an analogy. I have been to many seminars or other schools and such and saw someone passionately teaching a technique that they made seem worked very well but in real application did not. In other words, they had a really good sales pitch. A good stage, a compliant partner, a loud voice, an alpha personality, etc...
I agree, each person has to practice to mastery and as instructors we sometimes get caught up in unimportant details and slow the process. One of the hardest things to do is watch a person and understand that their body makeup is why a certain technique looks slightly different. If their technique works well, talk it out and move on. 
I think the western culture has pretty much acknowledged most of its ancient mysticism is just that, ancient. It had a time and place but that is long gone and does not apply to todays society. Hard as some people still try.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 31, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> @Guthrie: How many fights, on the street, do I need to get into before I can justify being a martial arts instructor?
> 
> Straight up question.  Please give me an answer.


4385


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 31, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> @Guthrie, we’ve got a question from Buka.
> 
> Would like an answer to my question as well.
> 
> Thanks.


I am a little concerned that a "supporting member" will help someone bypass the ignore option and not one moderator, has given a warning concerning this.

My time here as been enjoyable, but I can not support bullying.

Go in peace.


----------



## skribs (Aug 31, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> I have a hard time with "watching is enough". I will use an analogy. I have been to many seminars or other schools and such and saw someone passionately teaching a technique that they made seem worked very well but in real application did not. In other words, they had a really good sales pitch. A good stage, a compliant partner, a loud voice, an alpha personality, etc...
> I agree, each person has to practice to mastery and as instructors we sometimes get caught up in unimportant details and slow the process. One of the hardest things to do is watch a person and understand that their body makeup is why a certain technique looks slightly different. If their technique works well, talk it out and move on.
> I think the western culture has pretty much acknowledged most of its ancient mysticism is just that, ancient. It had a time and place but that is long gone and does not apply to todays society. Hard as some people still try.



You have to be able to discern it based on the available evidence.  How much do you know about the person demonstrating the technique?  Where have you seen the technique?

If you're being shown a technique by someone who has been in real life-or-death fights, who has shown you a bunch of other techniques that have worked in the past, that's a lot different than going to a seminar by someone you don't know.


----------



## skribs (Aug 31, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I am a little concerned that a "supporting member" will help someone bypass the ignore option and not one moderator, has given a warning concerning this.
> 
> My time here as been enjoyable, but I can not support bullying.
> 
> Go in peace.



Other people don't know who you have on ignore.

For someone who doesn't support bullying, you've been calling people a lot of names in this thread (or at least hinting they deserve it) for your unfairly high standards.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 31, 2019)

skribs said:


> So, should martial artists seek out street fights in order to prove their effectiveness?
> 
> The experience of others counts for something.  I trust in the experience of my Master, and what he says will work in the streets, based on his past and credentials.  When he says something works in the streets, he's saying from experience.  When I say the same thing works in the streets, I'm saying from his experience.  Does that make me a con artist and my techniques untested?  In my biased opinion, no it does not.





Guthrie said:


> How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.
> 
> We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.
> 
> ...


I think there are a few things going on here that we can break down...

_Can_ a technique work in real life? Under what circumstances? What skills or attributes do you need to make it work? How reliable is it? What evidence do we have to inform the answers to the previous questions?

(Notice I said _can _it work, not _does _it work. No technique will work 100% of the time and only an exceptionally bad technique* will fail 100% of the time.)

*(I have been taught a few of those along the way.)

Along the same lines, we can ask can I personally make the technique work in real life? Under what circumstances? How reliably? What details in my execution would make it more or less likely to succeed? Do I even understand al the relevant details? What evidence do I have to support my answers to these questions?

Finally, there's the matter of being open and honest (with ourselves and others) about the answers to the above, including any limits to the evidence we have.

Let me give some examples to make this more concrete ...

Consider the basic rear cross, a staple of boxing and probably a solid majority of striking arts. Can it work? How reliable are the results? Let's look at the evidence.

We have video of literally hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) of rear crosses being thrown in street fights, boxing matches, karate matches, kickboxing matches, MMA matches, almost every context imaginable. We can see them missing, hitting with minimal damage, hitting with significant damage, and causing knockouts. We can analyze the results based on physical attributes, training, technical details, and more.

We have the collected experience of tens of thousands of professional and amateur fighters who have personally used the rear cross and had it used against them thousands of times.

I think we can be highly confident in our knowledge regarding the general effectiveness of the rear cross. Now, how about my personal understanding of and ability with, the rear cross?

I have used the rear cross in street fights, knocking my opponent down in one instance. I've used it in kickboxing matches, achieving a knockout in one instance. I've used it in sparring (light, medium, and hard contact) with a wide variety of training partners, including boxers, kickboxers, karateka, kung fu practitioners, MMA fighters, and untrained individuals. I've been hit with numerous rear crosses, including shots that didn't phase me at all and others which knocked me down. I've been taught to use the cross by teachers who were successful professional fighters (including one 2x boxing world champion) and whose fights I've seen in person or on video*.

*(Not to denigrate the honesty of anyone's instructor, but there's a difference in the reliability of evidence between "I saw my instructor do this with my own eyes" vs "My instructor told me about this time he did so and so.")

Based on the above, I have a fairly good notion of my ability with the rear cross, but not as good a notion as I would have if I had been in more real fights and/or full contact competition.

Now let's consider something different, standing arm bars (breaks). What is the available evidence regarding these?

We have video evidence of one particular standing straight arm bar (waki gatame) working at least a handful of times in competition. I haven't been able to find examples from a street fight yet, but there may be some out there. I have some anecdotal second or third hand accounts of standing arm locks working in real fights. Some of those are in the context of a bouncer or LEO controlling a noncompliant suspect or belligerent drunk patron rather than in the context of an all-out fight. We have the fact that a wide variety of martial arts with different origins include these techniques. Presumably they were added for some reason, but we don't know the history of how they entered the art or how they were tested.

So we know that at least one form of standing arm lock _can _work, but we don't have enough data to say a lot about reliability or what it takes to be successful.

What about my personal knowledge? I've been taught a variety of standing straight arm breaks, by instructors who were credentialed in their various arts. I've never used one in a real fight. As far as I know, none of my instructors ever used one in a real fight. I don't know if their instructors or their instructor's instructors ever used one in a real fight. I have occasionally used the threat of the standing arm bar in sparring to force a reaction by my opponent. For reasons discussed in previous posts, I don't attempt the arm bar in sparring with the speed which would be required to prevent an escape. So … maybe I might, in the right circumstances, be able to complete the standing arm bar in a real fight. However I just don't have the evidence to know how likely that would be. I do know that against a competent opponent, even the opportunity to make the threat doesn't come up very often. So if I did have success, it would probably be against an unskilled adversary.

When I teach my students, I try to focus on techniques I have personally been successful with (at least in sparring) and that I have seen others be successful with in real life or in high-level competition. I also try to be open about my personal competence with a technique and the evidence I have for its general applicability.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 31, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> I am a little concerned that a "supporting member" will help someone bypass the ignore option and not one moderator, has given a warning concerning this.
> 
> My time here as been enjoyable, but I can not support bullying.
> 
> Go in peace.


Let the record show that @Guthrie will not answer the question.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 31, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> 4385


Let the record show that @Guthrie will not answer the question.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 31, 2019)

Buka said:


> Yes sir, sure will.
> 
> Fascinating thread. Very thought provoking, regardless of opinion.


Thank you for your patience.  An answer will not be forthcoming.


----------



## skribs (Aug 31, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> When I teach my students, I try to focus on techniques I have personally been successful with (at least in sparring) and that I have seen others be successful with in real life or in high-level competition. I also try to be open about my personal competence with a technique and the evidence I have for its general applicability.



I try and do the same.  I don't teach anything I'm not sure of.  If I don't know how to do it correctly yet, I either try and troubleshoot, or ask my Master.  I don't teach that in which I am not confident, based on my training.

I also agree there is a sort of hierarchy of proof:

Something I saw in a movie or in WWE
Something I saw on the internet as a self-defense technique
Something I saw on UFC / learned in a seminar
Something I trained in class that one time
Something I've drilled in class repeatedly
Something I've used in MMA / Streetfight
However, having not been in a fight since I started my adult martial art training, my experience doesn't extend to the high level of proof that is being asked for in this debate.  In my opinion, the burden of proof can be anything in the top 3 (drilled in class repeatedly, successful use in a match or real situation).  Of course there's caveats, such as the level of resistance in the drill, but I'm trying to give a general description and not focus too much on the minutia in this post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2019)

skribs said:


> I try and do the same.  I don't teach anything I'm not sure of.  If I don't know how to do it correctly yet, I either try and troubleshoot, or ask my Master.  I don't teach that in which I am not confident, based on my training.
> 
> I also agree there is a sort of hierarchy of proof:
> 
> ...


My approach has been that in-dojo proof counts somewhat less than in-fight (competition or street) proof, both when firsthand and when secondhand. So a bit of octagon proof is as good as a bunch of in-dojo proof. Said the other way around, I need a bunch of in-dojo proof to feel the confidence in a technique that @Tony Dismukes got from some kickboxing fights.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 31, 2019)

Honesty in teaching is important.  I think we can all agree with that.  I would never suggest that someone should tell their students that they have done things that they have not.  Do not claim to have had fights that you have not had.  Do not claim to have used techniques successfully, that you have not.

Honesty is one reason I no longer train some of the systems that I have trained in the past: I did not trust much of the curriculum, I did not have faith that I could use it effectively, and I therefor could not, in good faith, teach it to someone else.

However, some of the comments in this thread seem to suggest that a teacher needs to make what amounts to a disclaimer at the beginning of each class: “hello everyone and welcome to class.  I want to point out that I have never been in a real fight in my life, I have never used these techniques and methods to save my life from ruffians, so I cannot claim to know what I am talking about.  I have only my teacher’s word of honor that he has single-handedly slain an army of spearmen and mounted cavalry with the techniques we are about to practice.  Now let’s get started...”

That is asinine.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 31, 2019)

skribs said:


> I try and do the same.  I don't teach anything I'm not sure of.  If I don't know how to do it correctly yet, I either try and troubleshoot, or ask my Master.  I don't teach that in which I am not confident, based on my training.
> 
> I also agree there is a sort of hierarchy of proof:
> 
> ...


I’d lay out that hierarchy of proof a bit differently. (I'd also refer to "evidence" rather than "proof",)

Seeing something in a movie or in WWE or on the internet as a self-defense technique is no evidence at all that the move can even work at all under any circumstances, let alone that you could use it.

Being taught something in class or in a seminar is probably (but not necessarily) evidence that the instructor thinks the technique could work. Unless you know what criteria the instructor has for making that determination, then you don't know what value to put on that opinion. If they believe it works because it's what they were taught by their instructor, then it's not worth much as evidence. If they believe it works because they've used it personally and/or seen it used repeatedly in real fights or full contact competition, then that's more useful. 

Seeing the technique used in street fights or MMA or other forms of full contact competition gives evidence that it can work. Seeing it used repeatedly with a high percentage of success gives more evidence that it's actually a reliable technique. (It doesn't offer any evidence regarding your own abilities, of course.) 

Training/drilling a technique improves the odds that you can demonstrate the technique correctly according to the standards laid out by your instructor. It doesn't offer evidence about whether the technique is generally effective or reliable or whether you personally can execute it in a fight. However _if_ the technique is a sound one and_ if_ your instruction is good and _if_ you have the other skills and attributes necessary to handle yourself in a fight, then it also improves the odds that you could have success with the technique in a fight.

Using a technique in sparring offers evidence that you personally can actually use it under pressure in a real fight. Sparring with higher intensity, harder contact, fewer restrictions, and tougher opponents offers better evidence than sparring with low intensity, light contact, many restrictions, and poor quality opponents. Sparring hard contact under MMA rules against a pro fighter or under Dog Brothers rules against a Kali expert is much better evidence than light point sparring with 75% of target off limits against a new white belt. 

Using a technique in a real fight (on the street or in full contact competition) offers even better evidence for our personal ability with a technique, but practical and/or ethical concerns limit how much of this sort of evidence most of us can or should gather. That's where sparring can come in handy. I've had thousands of rounds of sparring under various rulesets. If I had been in thousands of real fights I'd probably be dead, crippled, or in prison.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Aug 31, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> However, some of the comments in this thread seem to suggest that a teacher needs to make what amounts to a disclaimer at the beginning of each class: “hello everyone and welcome to class. I want to point out that I have never been in a real fight in my life, I have never used these techniques and methods to save my life from ruffians, so I cannot claim to know what I am talking about. I have only my teacher’s word of honor that he has single-handedly slain an army of spearmen and mounted cavalry with the techniques we are about to practice. Now let’s get started...”


That would be an awesome introduction to class. I'd want to know whether my teacher's teacher was an immortal highlander or if he just used a time machine to go in search of pre-gunpowder armies to challenge. 

I do try to remember to offer a disclaimer when I teach something that I have less practical experience in. For example, the shoulder throw (seio nage). Because of my height (6'4") this isn't a good fit for me. I hardly ever pull it off in sparring. However I know the technical details and I do teach it because it's a valuable technique for people with a different body type. So I tell my students up front that they will almost never see me use the throw, but it may work out better for them. I have taught the throw and then had students use it successfully in sparring afterwards. If that never happened, then I'd probably leave it to someone else to teach the technique.


----------



## skribs (Aug 31, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Seeing something in a movie or in WWE or on the internet as a self-defense technique is no evidence at all that the move can even work at all under any circumstances, let alone that you could use it.



That's why it's at the top of the list.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 31, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That would be an awesome introduction to class. I'd want to know whether my teacher's teacher was an immortal highlander or if he just used a time machine to go in search of pre-gunpowder armies to challenge.
> 
> I do try to remember to offer a disclaimer when I teach something that I have less practical experience in. For example, the shoulder throw (seio nage). Because of my height (6'4") this isn't a good fit for me. I hardly ever pull it off in sparring. However I know the technical details and I do teach it because it's a valuable technique for people with a different body type. So I tell my students up front that they will almost never see me use the throw, but it may work out better for them. I have taught the throw and then had students use it successfully in sparring afterwards. If that never happened, then I'd probably leave it to someone else to teach the technique.


That is an absolutely reasonable and appropriate disclaimer to make.  I would do the same, every time.

Some of the comments in this thread suggest that if someone has not had a real fight, he then has a duty to undermine his own credibility as a teacher.  Never mind his history of training 12 hours a week for twenty-some years working with his teacher, his classmates, and on his own, in his efforts to understand the method and develop some skills, and the approval of his teacher to teach.

I think such a person has a legitimate claim to understand the methods and to be a capable teacher.


----------



## skribs (Aug 31, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> That is an absolutely reasonable and appropriate disclaimer to make.  I would do the same, every time.
> 
> Some of the comments in this thread suggest that if someone has not had a real fight, he then has a duty to undermine his own credibility as a teacher.  Never mind his history of training 12 hours a week for twenty-some years working with his teacher, his classmates, and on his own, in his efforts to understand the method and develop some skills, and the approval of his teacher to teach.
> 
> I think such a person has a legitimate claim to understand the methods and to be a capable teacher.



Similarly, I've been in other discussions where people talk about "old, fat guys who can't kick over their waist", and have no idea why that's happened.  Someone who is 60 years old, who isn't in the best shape anymore, may have forgotten more than you've ever learned in martial arts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 31, 2019)

skribs said:


> Similarly, I've been in other discussions where people talk about "old, fat guys who can't kick over their waist", and have no idea why that's happened.  Someone who is 60 years old, who isn't in the best shape anymore, may have forgotten more than you've ever learned in martial arts.


And as has been pointed out, that person’s current physical condition may have no bearing on his ability to effectively teach.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I’d lay out that hierarchy of proof a bit differently. (I'd also refer to "evidence" rather than "proof",)
> 
> Seeing something in a movie or in WWE or on the internet as a self-defense technique is no evidence at all that the move can even work at all under any circumstances, let alone that you could use it.
> 
> ...


The only thing I'll add to this is that there are some areas of evidence that are difficult to get in the chaos of a fight, but easy to get (with caveats) in the lab. If I have questions about a technique, I can have a partner present specific resistance, to see if that breaks the technique. If I find enough different ways a technique breaks, I might decide - without needing any fight evidence - that technique isn't terribly useful. Conversely, if I find reasonable solutions to a lot of different challenges, using that technique, it raises my confidence in it. This is important, because some successes with techniques are context-sensitive (think of the way Judo competition rules affect tactics used, for instance), so success in one context still needs some lab testing to see if it's likely to be generalized.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That would be an awesome introduction to class. I'd want to know whether my teacher's teacher was an immortal highlander or if he just used a time machine to go in search of pre-gunpowder armies to challenge.
> 
> I do try to remember to offer a disclaimer when I teach something that I have less practical experience in. For example, the shoulder throw (seio nage). Because of my height (6'4") this isn't a good fit for me. I hardly ever pull it off in sparring. However I know the technical details and I do teach it because it's a valuable technique for people with a different body type. So I tell my students up front that they will almost never see me use the throw, but it may work out better for them. I have taught the throw and then had students use it successfully in sparring afterwards. If that never happened, then I'd probably leave it to someone else to teach the technique.


I also give a similar disclaimer to techniques that I see as teaching principles, rather than being actual applicable techniques. (This is an area where "classical" training gets a bad rap - I think some of the "techniques" are really drills to force working on specific principles.)


----------



## skribs (Aug 31, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I also give a similar disclaimer to techniques that I see as teaching principles, rather than being actual applicable techniques. (This is an area where "classical" training gets a bad rap - I think some of the "techniques" are really drills to force working on specific principles.)



I like that disclaimer.  That way I know what I'm working on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2019)

skribs said:


> I like that disclaimer.  That way I know what I'm working on.


I started sharing it regularly, because I saw folks at some schools working really hard to figure out the practical applications of those techniques. I considered it wasted time.


----------



## Buka (Aug 31, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Thank you for your patience.  An answer will not be forthcoming.



I in no way, shape or form did I mean to insult, upset or bully him. I thought it a question germane to the thread, which is a really cool thread that he started. And thank you for passing it on.

I don't think many folks, if any folks, have seen their instructors engage in street combat. Yet, we train under them. And why wouldn't we?

Again, apologies all around, especially to Guthrie if it upset him. I hope he jumps back in, it's a great thread he posted.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> And this is an area where some type of sport usage (whether formal competition or not) is really handy. I know I can punch a bag really well with my left hand to about the right spot. Unless I land that with some effect on a person - even if it's only hard enough to see that it hit the right spot, without dropping them - I'm still not sure I'm going to land it right. And in a given fight/match/session, it might take a few tries to land it right (and a few tries, each time, to set it up).



It is weirder than even that you can hit and do nothing or hit and cripple top conditioned guys.

It is one of the least intuitive techniques I know about.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> 4385



You also could have done Vin Deisels 500 fights scene which is pretty cool.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> That would be an awesome introduction to class. I'd want to know whether my teacher's teacher was an immortal highlander or if he just used a time machine to go in search of pre-gunpowder armies to challenge.
> 
> I do try to remember to offer a disclaimer when I teach something that I have less practical experience in. For example, the shoulder throw (seio nage). Because of my height (6'4") this isn't a good fit for me. I hardly ever pull it off in sparring. However I know the technical details and I do teach it because it's a valuable technique for people with a different body type. So I tell my students up front that they will almost never see me use the throw, but it may work out better for them. I have taught the throw and then had students use it successfully in sparring afterwards. If that never happened, then I'd probably leave it to someone else to teach the technique.



I have only had one guy at the start of class say that he didn't want to be taken at his word and does want people to challenge him on his ideas. 

Same guy I got that quote about facts.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2019)

Buka said:


> I in no way, shape or form did I mean to insult, upset or bully him. I thought it a question germane to the thread, which is a really cool thread that he started. And thank you for passing it on.
> 
> I don't think many folks, if any folks, have seen their instructors engage in street combat. Yet, we train under them. And why wouldn't we?
> 
> Again, apologies all around, especially to Guthrie if it upset him. I hope he jumps back in, it's a great thread he posted.



I have seen a few. Not my coach but others.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 31, 2019)

Buka said:


> I in no way, shape or form did I mean to insult, upset or bully him. I thought it a question germane to the thread, which is a really cool thread that he started. And thank you for passing it on.
> 
> I don't think many folks, if any folks, have seen their instructors engage in street combat. Yet, we train under them. And why wouldn't we?
> 
> Again, apologies all around, especially to Guthrie if it upset him. I hope he jumps back in, it's a great thread he posted.


I believe that you in no way acted like a bully, particularly in asking this question.  If he indeed has you on ignore, I guess he has his reasons but I can’t fathom why, because you are consistently one of the easiest persons on this forum to get along with.

When someone is making claims and statement such as Guthrie  did, it is appropriate for others to ask for clarification and to point out issues with those statements and claims.  That is not bullying.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is weirder than even that you can hit and do nothing or hit and cripple top conditioned guys.
> 
> It is one of the least intuitive techniques I know about.


It’s one of those things I train for, but don’t depend on. I intend it as a distraction (get guard low), and might get lucky and get more.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 31, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I have only had one guy at the start of class say that he didn't want to be taken at his word and does want people to challenge him on his ideas.
> 
> Same guy I got that quote about facts.


I tell people I’m not the font. I pass along what I know, and will make mistakes. The best I can do is share my reasoning, so they can consider it.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 31, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> It’s one of those things I train for, but don’t depend on. I intend it as a distraction (get guard low), and might get lucky and get more.



Where for me it is my sparring punisher. So say someone gets exited and wants to bang and I don't want to hand out a concussion. I will drop them with body shots.


----------



## Buka (Sep 1, 2019)

Body shots are a beautiful thing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 1, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Where for me it is my sparring punisher. So say someone gets exited and wants to bang and I don't want to hand out a concussion. I will drop them with body shots.


Good usage. I need to polish mine some more to rely on it for that.


----------



## dvcochran (Sep 1, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Where for me it is my sparring punisher. So say someone gets exited and wants to bang and I don't want to hand out a concussion. I will drop them with body shots.


As a kicker who is getting older (wait, I am already old) I have learned more body shots and ways to land them. I can frustrate the heck out of a sparring partner by keeping them off of me with body kicks.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Sep 1, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> That is an absolutely reasonable and appropriate disclaimer to make.  I would do the same, every time.
> 
> Some of the comments in this thread suggest that if someone has not had a real fight, he then has a duty to undermine his own credibility as a teacher.  Never mind his history of training 12 hours a week for twenty-some years working with his teacher, his classmates, and on his own, in his efforts to understand the method and develop some skills, and the approval of his teacher to teach.
> 
> I think such a person has a legitimate claim to understand the methods and to be a capable teacher.


I think that if instructors are honest and realistic with themselves, that will take care of most of the problems.

Early in my martial arts career I trained with some instructors who taught me techniques that, as far as I know:
They had never used in a fight (street or competition) or seen used in a fight (street or competition).
Their teachers had never used in a fight (street or competition) or seen used in a fight (street or competition).
Their teacher's teachers had never used in a fight (street or competition) or seen used in a fight (street or competition).

In a few cases, I was taught techniques that I'm pretty certain have never been used in the history of human fights and will very probably never be used in any fight in the future. (Only a few of these. Most of the techniques were at least plausible and some of them probably have been used successfully, even if not by my teachers.)

These teachers weren't frauds or con men. They honestly believed in what they were teaching and worked hard at their art. They just accepted what they had been told without putting it to a proper test. If they had been more self-aware about the limits of their experience then they and their students would have benefited.


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 1, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think that if instructors are honest and realistic with themselves, that will take care of most of the problems.
> 
> Early in my martial arts career I trained with some instructors who taught me techniques that, as far as I know:
> They had never used in a fight (street or competition) or seen used in a fight (street or competition).
> ...


I’ve had similar experiences as well.  And I agree, I don’t believe there was deliberate fraud happening; I think these people just believed.  Some of them were/are very very capable martial artists, but I don’t believe that every piece of the curriculum was viable.  Some things are simply bad ideas, and they don’t require a lot of experimentation to be able to recognize that.  Some things, on their face, just don’t pass the nonsense-sniffer.

Yet as capable martial artists, they still have a lot of legitimacy and good instruction to offer.  Even tho some things are clearly questionable, other things are clearly functional.  In my opinion, people need to not become too attached to a curriculum that someone else set up, or something that has perhaps become part of an older curriculum where it’s value or function has been lost or forgotten.  

Really, it is OK to ditch some things.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 1, 2019)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Early in my martial arts career I trained with some instructors who taught me techniques that, as far as I know:
> They had never used in a fight (street or competition) or seen used in a fight (street or competition).
> Their teachers had never used in a fight (street or competition) or seen used in a fight (street or competition).
> Their teacher's teachers had never used in a fight (street or competition) or seen used in a fight (street or competition).


You go to a teacher to learn

1. basic/foundation - you may not care about his fighting experience here.
2. his special door guarding skill - you do care about his fighting experience here.

I have always told my students, after they have learned head lock and single leg, they can leave and find themselves another teacher. My whole fighting strategy (rhino guard, double spears, zombie's arms, octopus, …) is centered on the head lock strategy.


----------



## Hanzou (Sep 7, 2019)

I was once attacked by a crazed, overweight teenager armed with a hammer.

He knocked me on my back, got on top of me and tried to bash my head in. I used the guard and a triangle choke (two "sport" techniques) to escape that situation. 

Thank god for sport fighters and sport martial arts.


----------

