# Combat between Kiai master and MMA fighter



## wushu_fighter (Mar 17, 2015)

Hello guys, 

sometime ago, I watched this video about a Kiai master that shows his skills in his martial arts school, and also fights against a MMA fighter to demonstrate how good is his art... Uffff! Can you imagine what happened?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 17, 2015)

Interesting first post. 
How about introducing yourself and giving us some information on what you study, how long , etc.  
And why this for an opening post on the forum


----------



## Zero (Mar 17, 2015)

Yes, it's a link that has been discussed at some length and across various different threads here, but thanks for raising again.

Apparently the Kiai master would have soundly defeated the MMA guy, it's just that the MMA guy did not appreciate that he was meant to first put himself into a state where he was susceptible to the Master's power-chi strikes.  If the MMA guy had followed the rules, he clearly could not have won this fight.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 17, 2015)

The mind is an amazing thing, in that case the instructor managed to not only get his own students to buy into the power of his ki, but also has apparently managed to deceive himself as well.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 17, 2015)

Zero said:


> Yes, it's a link that has been discussed at some length and across various different threads here, but thanks for raising again.
> 
> Apparently the Kiai master would have soundly defeated the MMA guy, it's just that the MMA guy did not appreciate that he was meant to first put himself into a state where he was susceptible to the Master's power-chi strikes.  If the MMA guy had followed the rules, he clearly could not have won this fight.



 ummm...and what state might that have been


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 17, 2015)

Blindside said:


> The mind is an amazing thing, in that case the instructor managed to not only get his own students to buy into the power of his ki, but also has apparently managed to deceive himself as well.



And after the match...he still has students and he is still training them in the power of Ki


----------



## thanson02 (Mar 17, 2015)

I have heard stories about these guys but never found any actual footage showing them, not that I was highly motivated to do so.  And the stuff that people choose to believe is dumbfounding.  Just sad....


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 17, 2015)

Does anyone know the "kiai master's" name and where he teaches/taught? I think I may have read the details in one of the earlier threads but I've forgotten. I would be curious to know if he still has students.


----------



## geezer (Mar 17, 2015)

Zero said:


> Yes, it's a link that has been discussed at some length and across various different threads here, but thanks for raising again.
> 
> Apparently the Kiai master would have soundly defeated the MMA guy, it's just that the MMA guy did not appreciate that he was meant to first put himself into a state where he was susceptible to the Master's power-chi strikes.  If the MMA guy had followed the rules, he clearly could not have won this fight.


 
Absolutely. Obviously the Kiai master was holding back so as not to injure the poor "MMA fighter". The fact that he was willing to take it on the nose to protect his opponent is just further evidence of his high level of spiritual attainment. Too bad they didn't list an address on that video so we could all send him cash donations!


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> ummm...and what state might that have been



The theory I have heard around the traps is that fighting competitively makes you resistant to the effects of the hardooken. Because you are already a bit ornery.


----------



## wushu_fighter (Mar 17, 2015)

tshadowchaser said:


> Interesting first post.
> How about introducing yourself and giving us some information on what you study, how long , etc.
> And why this for an opening post on the forum


I am a kung fu practicer. I learn shaolin kung fu and wudang taichichuan and I think that soon I will start with wingchun. I started learning some years ago, but I had a knee injury and I had to stop for some time. A few weeks ago I started practicing another time.

And I started here with this video because, in my opinion, it is really incredible all that is appearing there. It is incredible how students are affected by the energy of their master. Probably they are so influenced by the master that they really "feel" his ki.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 17, 2015)

Zero said:


> Apparently the Kiai master would have soundly defeated the MMA guy, it's just that the MMA guy did not appreciate that he was meant to first put himself into a state where he was susceptible to the Master's power-chi strikes.  If the MMA guy had followed the rules, he clearly could not have won this fight.


|
Now, now....
|
What I see is a staged event.  REality-wise the same effect he shows on the students must work on the MMA competitor.  So to me the total vid is a sham.  And moreover as such, has no relevance to Ki, Chi, Qi, etc.
|
There are other vids out there demonstrating value of same.  There's a story about Jon Bluming traveling to China to investigate some of these claims.  He met with a Chinese Kung fu Master of some internal art.  Reportedly, the Chinese Master gave a non-combat demonstration of Chi which Jon Bluming challenged as "impractical."
|
Whereupon, the Chinese Master, apparently insulted,  walked up to Bluming & punched him in the shoulder.  Bluming--feeling the function of his shoulder disabled, then said, "OK, that's enough."  Jon then turned around and left.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 17, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Now, now....
> |
> What I see is a staged event.  REality-wise the same effect he shows on the students must work on the MMA competitor.  So to me the total vid is a sham.  And moreover as such, has no relevance to Ki, Chi, Qi, etc.
> ...


 
I may be misreading your post, are you saying that the "kiai master" is a total sham or that what the video shows is a total sham?


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 17, 2015)

Blindside said:


> I may be misreading your post, are you saying that the "kiai master" is a total sham or that what the video shows is a total sham?


|
If the purpose of the vid is to show the efficacy of "kiai," then I'm not sure what the distinction is.  Is it not a challenge match vs. "MMA?" Thought this was plain....
|
The "Master" is throwing students all over the place, then gets punched out by Mr. MMA guy? HUH?


----------



## Blindside (Mar 17, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> If the purpose of the vid is to show the efficacy of "kiai," then I'm not sure what the distinction is.  Is it not a challenge match vs. "MMA?" Thought this was plain....
> |
> The "Master" is throwing students all over the place, then gets punched out by Mr. MMA guy? HUH?


 
I'm pretty certain the purpose is to show the lack of efficacy of those practitioners who throw people around without touching them.


----------



## ShotoNoob (Mar 17, 2015)

Blindside said:


> I'm pretty certain the purpose is to show the lack of efficacy of those practitioners who throw people around without touching them.


|
OK, for accuracy the Kiai Master got clocked.  Following on, this raises the question about whether the students were in on a hoax, or merely passively assisting in some form of theoretical demonstration of what they think they are training to do for real.....
|
 To me, it's about the dumbest (if not dumbest) expression of "Mastering" the martial arts out there,,,,
|
I don't have anything else to add in this T.  You guys can go on poking fun.... to me it's a nonsense video in any respect.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 17, 2015)

Unfortunately this stuff isn't even rare, people want to believe that they can learn to do extraordinary things, I don't doubt that the students really believe that they were getting thrown by some unseen force, just another form of hypnosis.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 17, 2015)

AH Mr. Dillman, well what can I say other then he was once darn good but got to believe in some stuff to much and then sold it to his students instead of keeping with the stuff that made him his original reputation


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 17, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> If the purpose of the vid is to show the efficacy of "kiai," then I'm not sure what the distinction is.  Is it not a challenge match vs. "MMA?" Thought this was plain....
> |
> The "Master" is throwing students all over the place, then gets punched out by Mr. MMA guy? HUH?


I think the point of the video is as follows:

1) Ki *is not* the magical force from Star Wars.
2) Some people manage to convince themselves that it _is_ magic and they really _do_ have superpowers. (Possibly because they want so badly for it to be true.) If they are persuasive enough, they may gather a cult of followers who are hypnotized enough to go along with the lunacy.
3) People who delude themselves this way are likely to get hurt when they come up against someone who hasn't been persuaded to share their delusion.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> OK, for accuracy the Kiai Master got clocked.  Following on, this raises the question about whether the students were in on a hoax, or merely passively assisting in some form of theoretical demonstration of what they think they are training to do for real.....
> |
> To me, it's about the dumbest (if not dumbest) expression of "Mastering" the martial arts out there,,,,
> ...



Ok is there an example anywhere of the hardoken working under scientific testing conditions?


----------



## qianfeng (Mar 18, 2015)

There's also videos of him doing sumo where he gets pushed out of the ring in 5 seconds


----------



## Shai Hulud (Mar 18, 2015)

Called it as soon as I read the title, but "incredible" it is not.

This actually happens quite often. To me it isn't so much about which art is better, but rather how these things highlight the differences in how we as martial artists train and the goals we set for ourselves. The Kiai master may have excellent form and control and be able to demonstrate the principles of his chosen art form most excellently, but if he doesn't train specifically for high-performance NHB-style combat, of course he's going to get smoked by someone who does in the event that they square off. It 



qianfeng said:


> There's also videos of him doing sumo where he gets pushed out of the ring in 5 seconds


Well, you can see he's trying.


----------



## Zero (Mar 18, 2015)

ShotoNoob said:


> |
> Now, now....
> |
> What I see is a staged event.  REality-wise the same effect he shows on the students must work on the MMA competitor.  So to me the total vid is a sham.  And moreover as such, has no relevance to Ki, Chi, Qi, etc.
> ...



Like Blindside, I am not exactly sure what you are saying was the sham and if that included the entire video.

I don't think the bit at the end when he goes against the mma guy is a sham at all, I don't think that is staged.  He genuinely gets handed his A..


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 18, 2015)

Here's another one;


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 18, 2015)

Shai Hulud said:


> The Kiai master may have excellent form and control and be able to demonstrate the principles of his chosen art form most excellently, but if he doesn't train specifically for high-performance NHB-style combat, of course he's going to get smoked by someone who does in the event that they square off. It


No, he got his butt handed to him because he tried to use fantasy martial arts moves in the real world. The same thing would have happened if he tried to use it against any martial art.


----------



## Zero (Mar 18, 2015)

wushu_fighter said:


> I am a kung fu practicer. I learn shaolin kung fu and wudang taichichuan and I think that soon I will start with wingchun. I started learning some years ago, but I had a knee injury and I had to stop for some time. A few weeks ago I started practicing another time.
> 
> And I started here with this video because, in my opinion, it is really incredible all that is appearing there. It is incredible how students are affected by the energy of their master. Probably they are so influenced by the master that they really "feel" his ki.


You may be right, while I absolutely do not think he is generating any external manifestation of chi, it is possible that his students had bought into his "ability" so much on a mental/subconscious level that, for whatever reason, they were actually "feeling" his "strikes".


----------



## Zero (Mar 18, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Here's another one;


Jedi are out there, watch out.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 18, 2015)

Shai Hulud said:


> Called it as soon as I read the title, but "incredible" it is not.
> 
> This actually happens quite often. To me it isn't so much about which art is better, but rather how these things highlight the differences in how we as martial artists train and the goals we set for ourselves. The Kiai master may have excellent form and control and be able to demonstrate the principles of his chosen art form most excellently, but if he doesn't train specifically for high-performance NHB-style combat, of course he's going to get smoked by someone who does in the event that they square off. It
> 
> ...


This illustrates exactly which art is better, and it wasn't the chi master. If you can't defend a basic straight punch your art has failed you, if fighting ability or self defense is your goal. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of martial artists who don't train for nhb competition specifically that could put up a better fight than that. The ki master may as well be dancing, he may have form and control over his own body but from what we see here he lacks the ability to control another persons body, which is what fighting is all about.


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 18, 2015)

Zero said:


> Jedi are out there, watch out.




Not that, but that video of Ueshiba is very, very edited. Look at the video carefully. In the first second, the guy on the floor is halfway up, but in the next frame isn't. At the 11th second, we all of sudden cut away, and Ueshiba's hands are up and the guy is falling, but nothing is shown before that. At the 16th second there is funky stuff with the frames....

I'm not saying Ueshiba didn't get a little weird in his later years, but Aikido doesn't work like that. I think more likely, Ueshiba was demonstrating some principles, and someone got ahold of the video and edited it.

Especially when you consider that there aren't any other video's of Ueshiba doing this, and he never made any claims about being able to move people without touching them with Ki only.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 18, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Especially when you consider that there aren't any other video's of Ueshiba doing this, and he never made any claims about being able to move people without touching them with Ki only.



Ah, there is another vid. This one clearly shows Ueshiba knocking people down either by barely touching them, or not touching them at all;






It also includes a longer version of the earlier vid. Some of that is almost as bad as the Kiai master stuff.


----------



## Zero (Mar 18, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Ah, there is another vid. This one clearly shows Ueshiba knocking people down either by barely touching them, or not touching them at all;
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good find but look, maybe in this case, it is because Ueshiba is so old and maybe did not want or could not, even though Aikido is not "hard contact", to fully engage and so it was more of a concepts demonstration?...I don't know...would be good to have further views from Spinedoc or others with more aikido knowledge and history to comment.

I do concede that without any context these vids do seem pretty wacked out and akin to that kiai master stuff...


----------



## Instructor (Mar 18, 2015)

A person can spend a lifetime trying to drive a nail into wood with their mind.  But it's so much easier and more expedient to simply pick up the hammer and whack that thing.  Esoteric notions are interesting to consider and think about but when it comes to fighting, K.I.S.S.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 18, 2015)

My suspicions on the videos of the older Ueshiba ...

Some of these guys may have trained with Ueshiba when he was younger and training hardcore. They may have gotten mentally conditioned to throwing themselves to avoid being injured back when he was doing the moves for real.

There may have been a cultural tendency to make a older, revered teacher look good, which may have unconsciously escalated to the point of taking dives for him.

I have actually pulled off a no-touch "throw" one time. There was nothing magical or intentional about it. My sparring partner got mad and came at me with an overcommitted punch. I slipped out of the way at the exact right second so that he ended up throwing himself off his feet head-first into a wall. If I could get that result one time through dumb luck, Ueshiba probably did it a bunch of times - especially if uke was encouraged to over-commit to the attack. If those students attributed the result to magical ki powers, they may have hypnotized themselves into consistently throwing themselves while playing uke for O-sensei.

I don't think there's any question that Ueshiba was a great martial artist, but those videos show that even a great martial artist can be lured into a fantasy world if they aren't getting reality based feedback.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 18, 2015)

I know that there are Aikidoka out there that divide early Ueshiba Aikido with late Ueshiba Aikido, and say that towards the end he started getting more and more wacky and detached from reality. They say that mainstream Aikido suffered as a result, and that old school Aikido was much harder and martial.


----------



## K-man (Mar 18, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> I know that there are Aikidoka out there that divide early Ueshiba Aikido with late Ueshiba Aikido, and say that towards the end he started getting more and more wacky and detached from reality. They say that mainstream Aikido suffered as a result, and that old school Aikido was much harder and martial.


In Ueshiba's latter years Koichi Tohei was the main instructor. He was the only person ranked as 10th dan by Ueshiba. Mainstream Aikido did not suffer as a result of Ueshiba 'becoming wacky'. That is insulting and not true. Ueshiba's Aikido became softer, the better he became. His reliance on atemi all but disappeared. What guys training with him could not understand were his spiritual ramblings. 

Now, Tohei IMHO, surpassed Ueshiba in his understanding and ability. His disagreement with Aikikai and his subsequent departure is what caused a weakening of mainstream Aikido, but even at that stage guys like Saito and Shioda has already left and established their own style of Aikido. Certainly they were harder because those guys had to teach the atemi to make their Aikido effective. Tohei was able to teach a softer style. Both styles are valid.


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 18, 2015)

K-man said:


> In Ueshiba's latter years Koichi Tohei was the main instructor. He was the only person ranked as 10th dan by Ueshiba. Mainstream Aikido did not suffer as a result of Ueshiba 'becoming wacky'. That is insulting and not true. Ueshiba's Aikido became softer, the better he became. His reliance on atemi all but disappeared. What guys training with him could not understand were his spiritual ramblings.
> 
> Now, Tohei IMHO, surpassed Ueshiba in his understanding and ability. His disagreement with Aikikai and his subsequent departure is what caused a weakening of mainstream Aikido, but even at that stage guys like Saito and Shioda has already left and established their own style of Aikido. Certainly they were harder because those guys had to teach the atemi to make their Aikido effective. Tohei was able to teach a softer style. Both styles are valid.



Even then, Aikikai Aikido is a really broad term. It might be "mainstream" aikido, but different Sensei's have different influences, etc. To say that it was weakened is not necessarily true, I would say that it is slightly different, not stronger, not weaker, just different compared to the earlier Aikido taught.


----------



## K-man (Mar 18, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Even then, Aikikai Aikido is a really broad term. It might be "mainstream" aikido, but different Sensei's have different influences, etc. To say that it was weakened is not necessarily true, I would say that it is slightly different, not stronger, not weaker, just different compared to the earlier Aikido taught.


In fairness, Aikido is a strange animal. People outside Aikido do not understand the art of ukemi and the reasons for training it. I was teaching reversals to my karate guys last night demonstrating the difference of resisting a technique and going with the technique. Then there is the subject of atemi. So many people have the impression there is no striking in Aikido. Another issue I had was finding Aikido guys you could actually make their aikido work. Once I found them I started to understand aikido.

In Krav the other night I did an Aikido technique without thinking and the guys picked up on it wanting to know how I did it. I showed them and suggested they might have to train for a while longer as it took me fourteen months to get it to work properly. That's why Krav is explosive and hard. It utilises techniques that you can learn and apply from day one. Aikido is the 'scenic route' when it comes to martial art.


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 18, 2015)

Agreed with the scenic route. To me, that is the absolute best thing about it. I can study it for my whole life and still be learning and exploring. I don't like quick studies. That's what is so fascinating about Iaido too.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 18, 2015)

K-man said:


> In fairness, Aikido is a strange animal. People outside Aikido do not understand the art of ukemi and the reasons for training it. I was teaching reversals to my karate guys last night demonstrating the difference of resisting a technique and going with the technique. Then there is the subject of atemi. So many people have the impression there is no striking in Aikido. Another issue I had was finding Aikido guys you could actually make their aikido work. Once I found them I started to understand aikido.
> 
> In Krav the other night I did an Aikido technique without thinking and the guys picked up on it wanting to know how I did it. I showed them and suggested they might have to train for a while longer as it took me fourteen months to get it to work properly. That's why Krav is explosive and hard. It utilises techniques that you can learn and apply from day one. Aikido is the 'scenic route' when it comes to martial art.



But the destination is so very awesome!


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 18, 2015)

I would also like to put the aikido clip into a historical perspective.  From my understanding Ueshiba was in the hospital and not doing well. Everyone knew his time was up. He supposedly left the hospital did this one final demonstration then went back to the hospital and died only a few days after. If this is historically correct then it makes total sense that the performance was not at all about martial ability or if what he was doing would or could actually work and was more about seeing him on the floor one last time. doing what he could and giving what little he had left to give at the end of his life. Shame on those who try to pull things out of context.  I would like to see how effective your MA is when you are in your 80,s.  Later in Ueshiba,s life it was more about using motion to explain guiding principals of aiki rather than your egotistical "I can beat up the world"  view point.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2015)

The no touch technique used outside of a martial arts context.





which suggests something about people being conditioned to be receptive to that kind of thing.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 18, 2015)

Drop bear, that's really funny. Great vid


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 18, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I would also like to put the aikido clip into a historical perspective.  From my understanding Ueshiba was in the hospital and not doing well. Everyone knew his time was up. He supposedly left the hospital did this one final demonstration then went back to the hospital and died only a few days after. If this is historically correct then it makes total sense that the performance was not at all about martial ability or if what he was doing would or could actually work and was more about seeing him on the floor one last time. doing what he could and giving what little he had left to give at the end of his life. Shame on those who try to pull things out of context.  I would like to see how effective your MA is when you are in your 80,s.  Later in Ueshiba,s life it was more about using motion to explain guiding principals of aiki rather than your egotistical "I can beat up the world"  view point.


You guys shouldn't get all bent out of shape because people are posting videos and asking questions. If you're explanation is that he was on his deathbed when the video was shot, that gives us something to consider and it's a reasonable explanation. No one expects an 80 year old man to beat up everyone, no one is pulling things out of context, there is no context to the video and it looks questionable and merits an answer.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 18, 2015)

K-man said:


> In Ueshiba's latter years Koichi Tohei was the main instructor. He was the only person ranked as 10th dan by Ueshiba. Mainstream Aikido did not suffer as a result of Ueshiba 'becoming wacky'. That is insulting and not true. Ueshiba's Aikido became softer, the better he became. His reliance on atemi all but disappeared. What guys training with him could not understand were his spiritual ramblings.
> 
> Now, Tohei IMHO, surpassed Ueshiba in his understanding and ability. His disagreement with Aikikai and his subsequent departure is what caused a weakening of mainstream Aikido, but even at that stage guys like Saito and Shioda has already left and established their own style of Aikido. Certainly they were harder because those guys had to teach the atemi to make their Aikido effective. Tohei was able to teach a softer style. Both styles are valid.


Is there any video of atemi actually being used? All i've seen is guys throwing the occasional odd strike with little or no contact. How would an Aikidoka know if they need to use atemi to make a technique work if the training is compliant? and if they aren't making contact with the atemi how do they know how much more effective it makes their techniques? I just haven't seen much Aikido outside of compliant training.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 18, 2015)

In my opinion any and every art and every practitioner is guilty of falsehood and believing in bunk. It's just a matter of degrees. There are thousands of MA practitioners in the world who are taught things they have never done outside of the dojo. Who believe what their teachers have told them and think that what they have spent years training in has some kind of value that will never be tested. We all make leaps of faith that what we train in may actually work if we ever need it.
Master Ken made a joke out of saying every art is BS. But the truth is that he is not wrong. I could take any MA and tear it to shreds. We see this all the time here in the forums.  Reality is that there is good and bad in everything and we tend to only want to see the good and ignore the bad. I think the kiai video is  great reminder to look in the mirror and have an honest look at what is being taught.


----------



## K-man (Mar 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Is there any video of atemi actually being used? All i've seen is guys throwing the occasional odd strike with little or no contact. How would an Aikidoka know if they need to use atemi to make a technique work if the training is compliant? and if they aren't making contact with the atemi how do they know how much more effective it makes their techniques? I just haven't seen much Aikido outside of compliant training.


As Aikido doesn't have competition, apart from Tomiki where the rules preclude striking you aren't going to find a lot on video. We do very little compliant training but we don't do much actual striking either. We don't need to. The strikes are there to check distance and to recognise the opportunity to strike. The technique that follows the strike is there because the strike fails. 

I'll look for some video but in the meantime, here is an interesting interview that addresses Ueshiba's later years.

The not-so-soft traditional Aikido - Takemusu Aiki Australia


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 18, 2015)

As far the the aikido clip I just think it's a cheep shot. If you want to tear apart aikido be my guest. There are hundreds of videos of akidoka that can be posted.  But how about we post videos of an old and decrepit Helio Gracie and how ineffective his techniques are.  Oh and after that we can make fun of Shoshin Nagamini who  lost the controll of the left did of his body due to a stroke.
I'm sorry but critiques on older martial artists just gets under my skin.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 18, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> As far the the aikido clip I just think it's a cheep shot. If you want to tear apart aikido be my guest. There are hundreds of videos of akidoka that can be posted.  But how about we post videos of an old and decrepit Helio Gracie and how ineffective his techniques are.  Oh and after that we can make fun of Shoshin Nagamini who  lost the controll of the left did of his body due to a stroke.
> I'm sorry but critiques on older martial artists just gets under my skin.



Except boxing.which trends towards pensioners beating up people half their age.

why? No idea. Probably chi.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 18, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> As far the the aikido clip I just think it's a cheep shot. If you want to tear apart aikido be my guest. There are hundreds of videos of akidoka that can be posted.  But how about we post videos of an old and decrepit Helio Gracie and how ineffective his techniques are.  Oh and after that we can make fun of Shoshin Nagamini who  lost the controll of the left did of his body due to a stroke.
> I'm sorry but critiques on older martial artists just gets under my skin.


No art or person is beyond question. I'd be interested to see a video of old Helio, I'd also like to hear you tear him down if you think it's so easy. I don't think it's possible to tear every art down. Any practitioner that is honest about the limitations of his art will have a realistic idea about its usefulness and   Won't be easily taken down.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> No art or person is beyond question. I'd be interested to see a video of old Helio, I'd also like to hear you tear him down if you think it's so easy. I don't think it's possible to tear every art down. Any practitioner that is honest about the limitations of his art will have a realistic idea about its usefulness and   Won't be easily taken down.



From everything I have ever witnessed in real life and read on these forums, I feel I have yet to meet or hear any martial artist who is honest about their chosen arts limitations.
Every other thread on this sight turns into how one persons art is better than everyone else's. Or MMA vs TMA vs CMA etc.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 18, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> From everything I have ever witnessed in real life and read on these forums, I feel I have yet to meet or hear any martial artist who is honest about their chosen arts limitations.
> Every other thread on this sight turns into how one persons art is better than everyone else's. Or MMA vs TMA vs CMA etc.


Well, maybe you're wrong. Have you considered that? I have, and it's helped me realize some new truths.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 18, 2015)

I am wrong more often then not, or so my wife says.  Maybe you misunderstood my intent. My point was, the kiai video is a good reminder that if we look in the mirror we may all be a little guilty of having faith in something that may not reflect the truth. That being said how am I wrong?


----------



## Drose427 (Mar 18, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Well, maybe you're wrong. Have you considered that? I have, and it's helped me realize some new truths.



If you're referring to the "style vs style", I'd believe it more if there haven't been so many cases of Karate\TKD\TSD holding their own or beating each other, MT, and boxing and many other arts In various kickboxing venues and even outs riding each other in the early days of UFC.

Heck, it happens in grappling too. People praise BJJ as the best ground method, but Sakuraba submitted 2 (maybe 3 I cant remember) gravies with only submission wrestling.

Even in modern MMA, Karate\TKD + BJJ  guys have ko'ed Muay Thai + BJJ. (With the striking styles being their foundation,) 

I.e. Pettis, cung le,  and Machidas all very blatantly fought extremely closesly to the fighting style their root styles of TKD and ShotOkan and held their own just fight.

People like to sit and argue that their style is the best method, but for years now various venues have proven style is irrelevant, it's how the student trains.

In early Kickboxing, Point fighters came right out and fought full contact boxers and Muay Thai guys

The only time the style vs style argument has any real merit is when you're talking a grappling style vs a striking style. But they have completely different focuses so it's apples to oranges


----------



## hoshin1600 (Mar 18, 2015)

My comment was about these forums and how people will be discussing karate kata or something similar and before you know it ,it becomes a MMA vs TMA argument and how BJJ is the answer to everything.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 19, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> As far the the aikido clip I just think it's a cheep shot. If you want to tear apart aikido be my guest. There are hundreds of videos of akidoka that can be posted.  But how about we post videos of an old and decrepit Helio Gracie and how ineffective his techniques are.  Oh and after that we can make fun of Shoshin Nagamini who  lost the controll of the left did of his body due to a stroke.
> I'm sorry but critiques on older martial artists just gets under my skin.








Knock yourself out.

I do believe that in those vids, Helio is close to Ueshiba's age was at the time of filming (mid 80s) if not slightly older.

No no touch ki moves there.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> My comment was about these forums and how people will be discussing karate kata or something similar and before you know it ,it becomes a MMA vs TMA argument and how BJJ is the answer to everything.



so this is not specifically about that akido guy trying to win a fight with magic.


----------



## K-man (Mar 19, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Knock yourself out.
> 
> I do believe that in those vids, Helio is close to Ueshiba's age was at the time of filming (mid 80s) if not slightly older.
> 
> No no touch ki moves there.


And about as believable.  I think that it's great that both of them were on the mat in their 80s but let's agree that they were both well past their prime.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Knock yourself out.
> 
> I do believe that in those vids, Helio is close to Ueshiba's age was at the time of filming (mid 80s) if not slightly older.
> 
> No no touch ki moves there.


If this was any other martial arts video you would be saying the following:

1) For a master he certainly moves very slowly.

2) His partners are very compliant.

3) He is not using the techniques against a fully resisting opponent.

4) The attacks are unrealistic.

5) Why is he using so many stances when only a boxing stance is necessary?

6) He has never competed in the UFC so the evidence of his fighting prowess is anecdotal.

7) Need I go on?


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 19, 2015)

K-man said:


> And about as believable.  I think that it's great that both of them were on the mat in their 80s but let's agree that they were both well past their prime.



Let's agree that locks from guard, and standing choke defenses are more believable than someone throwing someone across the room without touching them, or using "ki power" to control their movement.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Let's agree that locks from guard, and standing choke defenses are more believable than someone throwing someone across the room without touching them, or using "ki power" to control their movement.


Any martial arts training is more believable than "someone throwing someone across the room without touching them, or using "ki power" to control their movement".


----------



## Zero (Mar 19, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> Drop bear, that's really funny. Great vid


Not only that, it looks like great fun too!!


----------



## Zero (Mar 19, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> I am wrong more often then not, or so my wife says.  Maybe you misunderstood my intent. My point was, the kiai video is a good reminder that if we look in the mirror we may all be a little guilty of having faith in something that may not reflect the truth. That being said how am I wrong?



Pretty wrong I would say.  I think a lot of people on this site have a good understanding of their art and what that specific art's limitations may be.  I only have faith in my styles (judo and goju ryu) to the extent I have used it and trained in it and put it into action.  In addition, as well as understanding your style's limitations you also need to know your own limitations (ie, if you're out of shape, out of training, don't expect to be able to execute your moves with effect on a non-compliant opponent).  Again, I think a lot of people on this site are more than aware of that also.

Sure, there can be quite a bit of blinkered opinion on here and some worse than others but most seem pretty open minded, I think they are generally the ones that have been about for a while and/or have rolled seriously with others...


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 19, 2015)

Shai Hulud said:


> Called it as soon as I read the title, but "incredible" it is not.
> 
> This actually happens quite often. To me it isn't so much about which art is better, but rather how these things highlight the differences in how we as martial artists train and the goals we set for ourselves. The Kiai master may have excellent form and control and be able to demonstrate the principles of his chosen art form most excellently, but if he doesn't train specifically for high-performance NHB-style combat, of course he's going to get smoked by someone who does in the event that they square off. It
> 
> ...





RTKDCMB said:


> If this was any other martial arts video you would be saying the following:
> 
> 1) For a master he certainly moves very slowly.
> 
> ...


No here has criticized any masters here for moving slowly, it's a demonstration video so most will agree compliance is commonplace in this type of video. Not to mention that Helio has a verifiable fight record and much more video around of less compliant training. 

The problem when a practitioner only puts out demo and compliant videos and doesn't ever have documented fights there is little evidence to verify that the practitioner did any other kind of training. Of course it may actually not be the case but all we have to go on its whats available.


----------



## K-man (Mar 19, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Any martial arts training is more believable than "someone throwing someone across the room without touching them, or using "ki power" to control their movement".


Sorry, but I disagree. If it was anyone else you would be tearing strips off him. I think it's fantastic that he is still rolling but let's stick to reality.

As to 'ki power'. That is a whole different discussion. I don't believe Ueshiba is demonstrating Ki any more than the kiai master, but did you bother to read the link I posted?


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 19, 2015)

K-man said:


> Sorry, but I disagree. If it was anyone else you would be tearing strips off him. I think it's fantastic that he is still rolling but let's stick to reality.





Mephisto said:


> No here has criticized any masters here for moving slowly, it's a demonstration video so most will agree compliance is commonplace in this type of video. *Not to mention that Helio has a verifiable fight record and much more video around of less compliant training.*



Pretty much this. Not to mention his son's fight records, and their open willingness to test their style against noncompliant opponents. If Ueshiba was fighting all comers, and throwing them around the place without touching them, I wouldn't have a problem with those crazy demos.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 19, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> ...
> 
> 2) His partners are very compliant.
> ...



That is the one that always most amuses me.  I would encourage anyone who disbelieves, to let a grappler use his techniques to completion at speed and power, and that they should resist.  If you don't move with the technique, there will be pain and/or breakage.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 19, 2015)

There's a big difference between compliance for demo purposes, and supernatural kiai/ki/chi master silliness where people  thrown around without getting touched.

Ueshiba in those vids is definitely a case of the latter.


----------



## Spinedoc (Mar 19, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> Pretty much this. Not to mention his son's fight records, and their open willingness to test their style against noncompliant opponents. If Ueshiba was fighting all comers, and throwing them around the place without touching them, I wouldn't have a problem with those crazy demos.



Aikido wouldn't be fighting all comers because that's not what Aikido is about.

I've only seen one serious injury in Aikido. That was a student who was resisting too much on ikkyo to a first kyu, the problem was he kept resisting all the way down....

He ended up with an AC separation.

You keep trying to compare Aikido to MMA/BJJ with "fight records", etc. Most of us in Aikido simply do not care at all about that stuff. It's like trying to compare Chocolate Cake to Apple Pie, and then complaining that the Apple Pie doesn't taste like Chocolate Cake.

Mike


----------



## Instructor (Mar 19, 2015)

Aikido is like sailing a yacht.  It's enjoyable, beautiful, and about blending with the environment around you and working with it.  BJJ is more like motorboat it's about getting to the destination reliably every time.


----------



## Balrog (Mar 19, 2015)

I want to see a match between the kiai master and this guy:  The Magician s Network Self-Defense System The Art of Destruction

I do believe it would air on Comedy Central.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

oftheherd1 said:


> That is the one that always most amuses me.  I would encourage anyone who disbelieves, to let a grappler use his techniques to completion at speed and power, and that they should resist.  If you don't move with the technique, there will be pain and/or breakage.


I agree but it seems that every time a martial art video like that comes up someone points out that they are only doing it on compliant partners offering little resistance and that, as a result, it is unrealistic.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

K-man said:


> Sorry, but I disagree. If it was anyone else you would be tearing strips off him. I think it's fantastic that he is still rolling but let's stick to reality.
> 
> As to 'ki power'. That is a whole different discussion. I don't believe Ueshiba is demonstrating Ki any more than the kiai master, but did you bother to read the link I posted?


I know Uesheba was a great martial artist who could most likely take care of himself very well, he was not what I was referring to. The Kiai master was obviously delusional thinking he could use no touch knockouts on an unwilling fighter.

Using 'Ki power' would require physical contact, projecting it through empty space is pure fantasy.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> The problem when a practitioner only puts out demo and compliant videos and doesn't ever have documented fights there is little evidence to verify that the practitioner did any other kind of training. Of course it may actually not be the case but all we have to go on its whats available.


Documenting fights in a competition martial art/combat sport is easy for a martial art that is only used for self defense it is a lot harder. There is evidence that a self defense martial art works but it is usually not so public and readily available unless someone just happens to get it on video and even then it is hard to tell if the art being used was trained mainly for self defense or sport.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 19, 2015)

Spinedoc said:


> Aikido wouldn't be fighting all comers because that's not what Aikido is about.




Wasn't my point. My point is that throwing people around with no hands would be more believable if there was actually evidence of him using it against someone non-compliant.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 19, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Documenting fights in a competition martial art/combat sport is easy for a martial art that is only used for self defense it is a lot harder. There is evidence that a self defense martial art works but it is usually not so public and readily available unless someone just happens to get it on video and even then it is hard to tell if the art being used was trained mainly for self defense or sport.



but you also can't not fight anybody and then run around saying you could if you really wanted to.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Mar 19, 2015)

hoshin1600 said:


> Shame on those who try to pull things out of context. I would like to see how effective your MA is when you are in your 80,s





hoshin1600 said:


> As far the the aikido clip I just think it's a cheep shot. If you want to tear apart aikido be my guest. There are hundreds of videos of akidoka that can be posted. But how about we post videos of an old and decrepit Helio Gracie and how ineffective his techniques are. Oh and after that we can make fun of Shoshin Nagamini who lost the controll of the left did of his body due to a stroke.
> I'm sorry but critiques on older martial artists just gets under my skin.



I don't think anyone is criticizing Ueshiba for being old and decrepit and not able to fight for real in his 80's. At that age, just being able to demonstrate techniques with a compliant uke is impressive and a service to the younger generation of students. Even if he couldn't demonstrate the techniques any more and could only coach others to improve their technique, that would be completely respectable.

The criticism comes when he puts on a demonstration but _isn't actually doing the techniques_. Waving your hands and having your uke fall over without being touched doesn't demonstrate anything and is completely pointless.



K-man said:


> And about as believable. I think that it's great that both of them were on the mat in their 80s but let's agree that they were both well past their prime.



Helio was about 85 in that clip. I think we can agree that he didn't have the speed, strength, or fluidity any more to pull off most of those moves in a real fight against a serious attacker of Rener's size. Nevertheless, he was actually demonstrating real techniques with reasonably correct form. (I could nitpick some details about his technique, but I don't know whether that comes down to his physical limitations or disagreement about what the ideal form should be. BJJ has evolved since the days when Helio set the curriculum.) If you were a Gracie student, you could actually learn the fundamentals of the techniques from watching him.



RTKDCMB said:


> If this was any other martial arts video you would be saying the following:
> 
> 1) For a master he certainly moves very slowly.
> 
> ...



I understand your irritation with Hanzou's dogmatism, but that's not a particularly accurate presentation of his approach:

1) Yep, he moves slowly. He no longer had the speed to keep up in a real fight, which is why he wasn't fighting any more at that point in his life, just teaching. If he had been claiming to still be able to win fights in the ring at that point in his life, Hanzou would be just as quick to call BS on the claim as you or I would.

2 & 3 & 4 ) (These are all pretty much the same thing) : Hanzou has never expressed opposition to demos with a compliant uke or even training with a compliant partner. His skepticism kicks in when compliant demos and compliant training are the _only_ thing ever seen from a given art or practitioner.

5) What? I can't recall Hanzou ever saying anything like that.

6) Hanzou has never claimed or even implied that the UFC is the only venue to demonstrate fighting ability. Helio's fight record is a matter of public record. We have eyewitness accounts, newspaper records, and even some film footage. Helio was never as badass as he advertised himself as being, but we have plenty of non-anecdotal evidence for his fighting accomplishments.

7) Here's a more accurate version of what Hanzou might normally criticize from a clip like that: "_Some of those moves (like the armbars) are valid, but some of those other moves (like the wristlock against a rear choke) I've never seen anyone use in a fight. I'm skeptical until I see some evidence that those work in a real fight."_


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> 5) What? I can't recall Hanzou ever saying anything like that.


I am pretty sure he has said that a number of times, if I remember correctly.


----------



## Zero (Mar 19, 2015)

Balrog said:


> I want to see a match between the kiai master and this guy:  The Magician s Network Self-Defense System The Art of Destruction
> 
> I do believe it would air on Comedy Central.


It was such a good read I got to the end of the web page, where I saw a link to the "Sexual Institute of Kung Fu".  It seems they have all bases covered.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

drop bear said:


> but you also can't not fight anybody and then run around saying you could if you really wanted to.



That is a bit of a straw man.

I could just as easily say:
"You can't win a few competitions in a sport martial art and then run around saying you could use it for self defense if you really wanted to."

It depends on the context. If I heard someone who has never fought in a competition say that he could win the UFC championship I would tend to agree with you. If I heard someone who had been learning a martial art of self defense for a while and haven't had to use it yet say they could probably defend themselves if they need to then I would have to look at how good they were or how well they've trained to determine if their statement could be accurate.


----------



## Lestat83 (Mar 19, 2015)

Just as a side note...i am recruiting gullible females for my sexual kung fu seminar! Lol there are plenty of tickets left lol


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

Zero said:


> "Sexual Institute of Kung Fu".


They could probably put a couple of extra letters after the 'Fu'.


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 19, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Documenting fights in a competition martial art/combat sport is easy for a martial art that is only used for self defense it is a lot harder. There is evidence that a self defense martial art works but it is usually not so public and readily available unless someone just happens to get it on video and even then it is hard to tell if the art being used was trained mainly for self defense or sport.


I agree, a non competitive instructor is going to have a lot less documentation available than a competing fighter. That's why I enjoy and encourage instructors to show video of them or their students in action. Problems arise for me when people act as though a competing fighter or a person that trains a competitive art is not prepared for the street. Compliant training is important to understanding techniqur and building skill, but the proof is in the pudding (or however that cliche goes). If you want the respect of an accomplished fighter, you'll need to be able to prove it to those that don't train with you if you truly care.


----------



## Zero (Mar 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> I agree, a non competitive instructor is going to have a lot less documentation available than a competing fighter. That's why I enjoy and encourage instructors to show video of them or their students in action. Problems arise for me when people act as though a competing fighter or a person that trains a competitive art is not prepared for the street. Compliant training is important to understanding techniqur and building skill, but the proof is in the pudding (or however that cliche goes). If you want the respect of an accomplished fighter, you'll need to be able to prove it to those that don't train with you if you truly care.



Not saying a disagree with you there but how many do you think actually want the respect of an accomplished fighter?  To such instructors or their students, what would that be worth exactly and why should they truly care about that?


----------



## Mephisto (Mar 19, 2015)

Zero said:


> Not saying a disagree with you there but how many do you think actually want the respect of an accomplished fighter?  To such instructors or their students, what would that be worth exactly and why should they truly care about that?


Why do you see these guys tearing down mma and sport martial arts? Obviously they care about something or else they'd just do their own thing.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> If you want the respect of an accomplished fighter, you'll need to be able to prove it to those that don't train with you if you truly care.


The only people I truly care about the gaining respect of is students (and potential students) of my art. And you get that by teaching correctly.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 19, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> the proof is in the pudding


It's the fruitcakes you have to look out for.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> That is a bit of a straw man.
> 
> I could just as easily say:
> "You can't win a few competitions in a sport martial art and then run around saying you could use it for self defense if you really wanted to."
> ...



except if they don't fight at all because they are fundamentally opposed to the whole concept. You will never be able to get an idea.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

Being able to demonstrate your method in a controlled environment is better evidence than just having a theory about a more realistic environment.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> except if they don't fight at all because they are fundamentally opposed to the whole concept. You will never be able to get an idea.


And again it depends on how you define fighting.We have already covered this.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> And again it depends on how you define fighting.We have already covered this.



well it depends how you define proof. If I have super fu that I say is a good system. The onus is on me to prove it works. Not for you to disprove it.

If it works in the street then you would need to prove that.


----------



## clfsean (Mar 20, 2015)

wushu_fighter said:


> I am a kung fu practicer. I learn shaolin kung fu and wudang taichichuan and I think that soon I will start with wingchun. I started learning some years ago, but I had a knee injury and I had to stop for some time. A few weeks ago I started practicing another time.



So how's your sanda? Why do you think you'll start Wing Chun? You shouldn't need to with what you're already doing. 



wushu_fighter said:


> And I started here with this video because, in my opinion, it is really incredible all that is appearing there. It is incredible how students are affected by the energy of their master. Probably they are so influenced by the master that they really "feel" his ki.



No it's just an example of PT Barnum's "there's a sucker born every minute" and then the ring leader was called out & lost. He gets points for stepping up, but he knew what was going to happen.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> well it depends how you define proof.



Proof is for mathematicians and makers of alcohol. How one defines fighting is not dependent on how one defines proof.



drop bear said:


> If it works in the street then you would need to prove that.



If it works in the street then why would I have to prove it to you? It only matters that it works, whether you personally think it does or it doesn't is irrelevant.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Proof is for mathematicians and makers of alcohol. How one defines fighting is not dependent on how one defines proof.
> 
> 
> 
> If it works in the street then why would I have to prove it to you? It only matters that it works, whether you personally think it does or it doesn't is irrelevant.



You have confused proof with opinion. It does not matter what i think or what you think if the statement is backed by evidence.

So it works on the street.(include evidence here)

Or there is no evidence it works on the street.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Proof is for mathematicians and makers of alcohol. How one defines fighting is not dependent on how one defines proof.
> 
> 
> 
> If it works in the street then why would I have to prove it to you? It only matters that it works, whether you personally think it does or it doesn't is irrelevant.



suggesting something works in the street but is unable to be seen or quantified is covered as a logical fallacy. The example is the celestial teapot. (which I had the link and then lost) 

I can not disprove it but I don't have to.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You have confused proof with opinion. It does not matter what i think or what you think if the statement is backed by evidence.
> 
> So it works on the street.(include evidence here)
> 
> Or there is no evidence it works on the street.


And so again we are back to if its not on YouTube it doesn't exist.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> And so again we are back to if its not on YouTube it doesn't exist.








pretty much.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> suggesting something works in the street but is unable to be seen or quantified is covered as a logical fallacy. The example is the celestial teapot. (which I had the link and then lost)


If you want a logical fallacy how about an argument from personal incredulity?. Or moving the goal posts?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> pretty much.


Pretty much no. I have eyewitness accounts of my art working at what it was designed for.


----------



## Zero (Mar 20, 2015)

Mephisto said:


> Why do you see these guys tearing down mma and sport martial arts? Obviously they care about something or else they'd just do their own thing.


What guys?  I don't see anyone other than a few guys on youtube with a potential agenda or axe to grind.

But from my 2 yrs in wing chun a while back, which was when UFC was starting to get a large following and mma was growing in popularity (Pride had been a large draw-card for sometime already by then), I never saw any bagging of mma from that corner, at least not at my WC school. 

I have never seen any tearing down of mma in the goju ryu clubs I train at (or other karate clubs I have visited).  In fact, my old goju club was very much into freestyle sparing and we did a lot of submission training with the jujitsu guys that also trained in the club and wrestling (one of the fight coaches did wrestling on the side).  In any event it was my goju sensei that got me started competing in mma fights as he knew I had my judo and grappling background.

For the ones that are trying to tear down other styles or sports, I would suggest you don't let this get to you, let them go on their rants.  My view:
Those that have the time and energy to bag other styles are clearly not putting the time and energy into their own style and training.


----------



## Zero (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Pretty much no. I have eyewitness accounts of my art working at what it was designed for.



Sorry RTKDCMB, nothing you nor your sensei says counts for anything if it pre-dates the age of youtube!

Any information of the masters of old or that cannot be uploaded is simply not credible.  You are training in a dead art that cannot be substantiated.  Sorry to break it to you!   Although, I'm in the same boat though!!     I trained under a highly accomplished fighter but most of his karate fights were in the Eighties and most of these were not recorded or at least not uploaded.  He must be a sham and none of his teaching can be proven!!  We've all been had!!!

I'm joining up with the local mma club tomorrow. Hey, they're crap at stand up and kicking and only passable at ground work (can't match it with most judoka or bjj guys) although they are pretty solid at the shoot game. But the key thing is that all their stuff is proven, as it's on youtube.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> If you want a logical fallacy how about an argument from personal incredulity?. Or moving the goal posts?



Hardly.
 If there is no evidence of street. Then there is no evidence. Simple as that. If there was evidence and I found it unlikely. That would be applicable here.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Pretty much no. I have eyewitness accounts of my art working at what it was designed for.



Are these eyewitness accounts like our teapot? It is definitely there we just cant see them.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Are these eyewitness accounts like our teapot? It is definitely there we just cant see them.


No they are eyewitness accounts, and I can see them just fine.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

Zero said:


> Sorry RTKDCMB, nothing you nor your sensei says counts for anything if it pre-dates the age of youtube!
> 
> Any information of the masters of old or that cannot be uploaded is simply not credible.  You are training in a dead art that cannot be substantiated.  Sorry to break it to you!   Although, I'm in the same boat though!!     I trained under a highly accomplished fighter but most of his karate fights were in the Eighties and most of these were not recorded or at least not uploaded.  He must be a sham and none of his teaching can be proven!!  We've all been had!!!
> 
> I'm joining up with the local mma club tomorrow. Hey, they're crap at stand up and kicking and only passable at ground work (can't match it with most judoka or bjj guys) although they are pretty solid at the shoot game. But the key thing is that all their stuff is proven, as it's on youtube.


And unfortunately I don't carry a camera crew around with me so if and when I do have to defend myself I wont be able to get it on video to prove it happened.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Hardly.
> If there is no evidence of street. Then there is no evidence. Simple as that. If there was evidence and I found it unlikely. That would be applicable here.


You don't get how evidence works do you?

If I see or experience it it is observational evidence to me.

If I tell someone what happened it is eyewitness testimony to them.

If that someone tell someone else what I told him it is hearsay to them.

I find it ironic that you ask for evidence of everyone else but only a form of evidence that it is satisfactory to you yet you have offered absolutely no evidence of anything you or your school working for anything or any evidence that you even do any kind of martial art other than what you post. You have never shown one single video of you doing anything yet demand that others do so.

So it is time (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) to put up or shut up.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> And unfortunately I don't carry a camera crew around with me so if and when I do have to defend myself I wont be able to get it on video to prove it happened.


mate seriously did you watch that vid?

because that is exactly why that teapot argument doesn't work. 

It is up to you to prove this street business. Not up to me to disprove it.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> You don't get how evidence works do you?
> 
> If I see or experience it it is observational evidence to me.
> 
> ...



No that is opinion. And lets keep using this teapot idea. Because if i say I saw it. It does not really prove it exists.

otherwise i think you are confusing a concept with a personal attack. And I have put up evidence supporting the concept. That was the celestial teapot video.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> mate seriously did you watch that vid?
> 
> because that is exactly why that teapot argument doesn't work.
> 
> It is up to you to prove this street business. Not up to me to disprove it.


Using the teapot in an attempt to move the goal posts is just a deflection. Since you can not 'prove' that anything you do will work or has worked in the street why should I have to?

I do not have videos of people from my art defending themselves in the street, if and when I do I will gladly post them for you.

I was not asking you to disprove anything say I am asking you to prove what you say. I have videos of me in the Gallery, I have provided websites and videos of my art in action, which is more than what you have. When you have something comparable then we will talk more.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No that is opinion. And lets keep using this teapot idea. Because if i say I saw it. It does not really prove it exists.


No, an opinion is if someone sees it and says It happened this way because...

Rules of Evidence TAE
a simple way to classify evidence is to use three types:


*Direct Evidence* – things that we, as assessor, observes first-hand, eg, observation, work samples
*Indirect Evidence* – things that someone else has observed and reported to us, eg, third party reports
*Supplementary Evidence* – other things that can indicate performance, such as training records, questions, written work, portfolios


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Using the teapot in an attempt to move the goal posts is just a deflection. Since you can not 'prove' that anything you do will work or has worked in the street why should I have to?
> 
> I do not have videos of people from my art defending themselves in the street, if and when I do I will gladly post them for you.
> 
> I was not asking you to disprove anything say I am asking you to prove what you say. I have videos of me in the Gallery, I have provided websites and videos of my art in action, which is more than what you have. When you have something comparable then we will talk more.



Um... you want a video of mma working in the street?

You want videos of my art in action?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Um... you want a video of mma working in the street?
> 
> You want videos of my art in action?


You could show me a video of MMA working in the street or your art in action but that will not prove that you do MMA, study the art you show, or how competent you are at it Only a video of YOU doing your art will do that.


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> That is a bit of a straw man.



And



			
				RTKDCMB said:
			
		

> 5) Why is he using so many stances when only a boxing stance is necessary?



Is not?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 20, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> Is not?


If you read through his past post you will see him say it.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> You could show me a video of MMA working in the street or your art in action but that will not prove that you do MMA, study the art you show, or how competent you are at it Only a video of YOU doing your art will do that.



I am not proving I do mma or am competent. I am proving that the street is rarely proof. 

Why does everybody make every discussion about mma?


----------



## K-man (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> mate seriously did you watch that vid?
> 
> because that is exactly why that teapot argument doesn't work.
> 
> It is up to you to prove this street business. Not up to me to disprove it.


No. That is the straw man arguement. None of us need to prove anything. The stupid part is most people here have displayed a fair amount of knowledge in their posts, at least enough to demonstrate credibility. You are one of those that has made a number of claims but has, to my satisfaction, proven nothing. This is the internet. You could be a thirteen year old child with a fertile imagination for all we know.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

K-man said:


> No. That is the straw man arguement. None of us need to prove anything. The stupid part is most people here have displayed a fair amount of knowledge in their posts, at least enough to demonstrate credibility. You are one of those that has made a number of claims but has, to my satisfaction, proven nothing. This is the internet. You could be a thirteen year old child with a fertile imagination for all we know.



Ignoring the silly personal attack. How is it a straw man?


----------



## K-man (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Ignoring the silly personal attack. How is it a straw man?


It is not a personal attack. It is a comment on your constant demanding of others to provide proof if what most of us already understand an accept. 

Straw man arguements are what you have been pushing all along. You post a statement and ask for proof to the contrary. When it is provided you never accept it but misrepresent it continue to ask for more proof.



> A *straw man* is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
> 
> The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
> 
> This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue.


As it says in the quote, a straw man arguement "requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed", something that most of the people posting here are not.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

K-man said:


> It is not a personal attack. It is a comment on your constant demanding of others to provide proof if what most of us already understand an accept.
> 
> Straw man arguments are what you have been pushing all along. You post a statement and ask for proof to the contrary. When it is provided you never accept it but misrepresent it continue to ask for more proof.
> 
> ...



Ok the proof that you are accepting though is the statement "i saw it" from a random person on the internet. Who as you said could be a 13 year old with an active imagination.

Or that there are ideas that are commonly accepted and so are somehow proof. Which is all that dogma that gets touted.

And suggesting that neither one is actually any sort of substantial proof is hardly a straw man. 

But it goes a long way towards explaining why people can knock a whole class over with magic.


----------



## K-man (Mar 20, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Ok the proof that you are accepting though is the statement "i saw it" from a random person on the internet. Who as you said could be a 13 year old with an active imagination.
> 
> Or that there are ideas that are commonly accepted and so are somehow proof. Which is all that dogma that gets touted.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what you are saying here. I addressed your question about straw men. That is nothing to do with magic or anything else. You continue to deny the training that others do even when they explain to you their training rationale. Worse that that, you constantly rephrase the explanation you are given so it is presented in a different light and quote it as true. Sorry, that is straw man.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 20, 2015)

K-man said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying here. I addressed your question about straw men. That is nothing to do with magic or anything else. You continue to deny the training that others do even when they explain to you their training rationale. Worse that that, you constantly rephrase the explanation you are given so it is presented in a different light and quote it as true. Sorry, that is straw man.



ok. So you accept anecdotes as proof?


----------



## K-man (Mar 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> ok. So you accept anecdotes as proof?


I don't ask for proof and I don't need proof unless it is someone with no experience in the field making claims that are at odds with my first hand knowledge. 

For example, *Dirty Dog* has worked in ER since Adam was a boy. If he posts anything regarding emergency medicine I'll accept what he says without question. A number of the guys are LEOs. When they talk from their experience I listen. Guys like *Brian VanCise *and *Rich Parsons* are RB guys. I'm more than happy to learn from their experience. I happen to have made a reasonably intensive study of kata and kata bunkai. I would like to think I can contribute something in that field.

But when it comes to something of which I have no knowledge I shut up and take on board what others with the experience are saying. If I have a sensible question I will ask it but I don't go out of my way to derail the thread by demanding proof of everything that is posted that is outside my understanding.

Now if someone with no knowledge in a particular area keeps posting information that is mostly garbage then I'm happy to believe that what they are posting of their own training is probably just as bad. Therefore you lose credibility by posting stuff that those of us training it know first hand is wrong. We don't have to prove anything as I have said before. I don't give a toss whether you want proof or not. If you want proof go and find it yourself. If you don't want proof then don't ask for it. How much time have we wasted supplying video and making detailed replies just to have it dismissed out of hand?

As to the straw man. The number of times I have gone out of my way to post information that might satisfy your questions only to have it distorted and quoted back out of context means that I won't be bothered doing it again.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Ok the proof that you are accepting though is the statement "i saw it" from a random person on the internet. Who as you said could be a 13 year old with an active imagination.



I have provided the means for you to see I am older than a 13 year old in the gallery.



drop bear said:


> But it goes a long way towards explaining why people can knock a whole class over with magic.


And do you think I fall into that category?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 21, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> I have provided the means for you to see I am older than a 13 year old in the gallery.
> 
> 
> And do you think I fall into that category?



yes and no. What I have explained is not my concept but an important logical step that really should be taken into account.

So that we discuss what can be believed and what we can hold suspect regardless as to how high esteem we hold the person saying it.

Imagine Kai master. He is an expert in his field. And I am not so by what standard do we hold my evidence that it is rubbish via a you tube clip and his personal testimony that chi balls work due to the many years studying and applying it?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 21, 2015)

In fact we could not show that something like chi balls are just plain crazy talk.

Bear with me here.

Ok there is a video of him being smashed.
Answer. Chi balls are for the street

How do you know chi balls work in the street when we just saw you get smashed?.
Answer. I have used them in self defence situations.

Ok but that sounds a bit unbelievable can you show evidence.
Answer my first hand account is evidence.

Ok but we don't see chi balls working for people anywhere.
Answer. Because you have not studied chi balls and do not understand them.

Ok but I have a bit of common sense and chi balls sound silly.
Answer common sense is not extensive training in chi balls again you cannot understand what you have not studied.

I don't think there would be a way to break that logic cycle but it validates the effectiveness of basically magic powers.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> yes and no. What I have explained is not my concept but an important logical step that really should be taken into account.
> 
> So that we discuss what can be believed and what we can hold suspect regardless as to how high esteem we hold the person saying it.
> 
> Imagine Kai master. He is an expert in his field. And I am not so by what standard do we hold my evidence that it is rubbish via a you tube clip and his personal testimony that chi balls work due to the many years studying and applying it?



You use your intelligence and evaluate the claims based on your assessment on whether the claims are logical or not. If I made claims that I was invincible or could knock people out by throwing Chi Balls at them then anyone can rightly assume that I am a liar and a fraud. If someone has been training in a martial art of self defense for 25 years or more and claims that he and other people from his art are capable of defending themselves and in fact have done so and that person can show you videos of them training yet can still find both claims are equivalent than you have failed to use logic. 

What you have done is commit a string of logical fallacies to support you preconceived notion that your martial art is the only style of martial art that works and that every other style is inferior.You see the Kiai master's video and then try to paint every other martial art with the same brush.

You are like an armchair expert:
Urban Dictionary Armchair Expert

For all anyone knows you are a 13 year old boy wearing a Tapout T-shirt who watches MMA fights on YouTube and then goes on martial arts forums to talk big, a living example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I don't think that is true but you have provided no evidence to the contrary.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> In fact we could not show that something like chi balls are just plain crazy talk.
> 
> Bear with me here.
> 
> ...


Yes you can, Chi balls are not consistent with physics, physical techniques from a martial art of self defense are. 

You can not do tests on imaginary Chi balls to apply to real life.

With this you can, just apply punch on board to persons head instead:






The two things (Chi ball and punch) are not equivalent.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 21, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Yes you can, Chi balls are not consistent with physics, physical techniques from a martial art of self defense are.
> 
> You can not do tests on imaginary Chi balls to apply to real life.
> 
> ...



Because if it didn't happen on youtube it didn't happen.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 21, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> You use your intelligence and evaluate the claims based on your assessment on whether the claims are logical or not. If I made claims that I was invincible or could knock people out by throwing Chi Balls at them then anyone can rightly assume that I am a liar and a fraud.



ok apart from just making an assumption. How are you getting to that conclusion.

In theory we are supposed to approach martial arts ideas with an open mind.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> ok apart from just making an assumption. How are you getting to that conclusion.



Physics.



drop bear said:


> In theory we are supposed to approach martial arts ideas with an open mind.



There's a difference between having an open mind and believing every wild claim you hear.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Because if it didn't happen on youtube it didn't happen.


I am just using your standard of evidence. That is me doing the punch by the way.


----------



## K-man (Mar 21, 2015)

drop bear said:


> In theory we are supposed to approach martial arts ideas with an open mind.


Really?  Except that to change your 'open mind' you need irrefutable proof!

Which leads us to your mantra .....



drop bear said:


> Because if it didn't happen on youtube it didn't happen.



Yeah, right!


----------



## drop bear (Mar 22, 2015)

K-man said:


> Really?  Except that to change your 'open mind' you need irrefutable proof!
> 
> Which leads us to your mantra .....
> Yeah, right!



 proof there becomes the difference between what we Think is right and what is right. 

Otherwise we have dogma. Which generally sounds a lot better.

There seems to be this idea that I hate these unfounded martial arts ideas. I would love for chi balls to be a real thing. But it just isn't.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 22, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Physics.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between having an open mind and believing every wild claim you hear.



You can't just say physics. I mean ok chi balls work because "physics"

Nice board break by the way.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You can't just say physics. I mean ok chi balls work because "physics"



No, Physics says Chi balls DON'T work. That is one way to separate fact from fiction, by using science.



drop bear said:


> Nice board break by the way.



Thanks.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> No, Physics says Chi balls DON'T work. That is one way to separate fact from fiction, by using science.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.



Lol. No physics does not say chi balls don't work not even in upper case.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Lol. No physics does not say chi balls don't work not even in upper case.


Have you ever studied physics?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

Either that is me or I have paid a homeless guy to hold a sign


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Have you ever studied physics?



Poorly. Never got to anything about chi balls


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Poorly. Never got to anything about chi balls


Well I did an entire degree (a double major with chemistry) and the subject of Chi balls never came up.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> View attachment 19226
> 
> Either that is me or I have paid a homeless guy to hold a sign


Now all you need to do is show a video of yourself doing something martial arty. You can hold up your little sign if you like.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2015)

I don't much care about qi balls but Beijing University of Traditional Chinese medicine did study Qi and from that they feel external qi (the stuff you see with you hit a Shaolin Monk with a club and the club breaks is easy to prove. The other stuff, qi projection, "Qi balls", no touch knockouts...since they can find no scientific way to measure it...they call it fake.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> View attachment 19226
> 
> Either that is me or I have paid a homeless guy to hold a sign



So...who is the homeless guy


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> I don't much care about qi balls but Beijing University of Traditional Chinese medicine did study Qi and from that they feel external qi (the stuff you see with you hit a Shaolin Monk with a club and the club breaks is easy to prove. The other stuff, qi projection, "Qi balls", no touch knockouts...since they can find no scientific way to measure it...they call it fake.



That is also my physics argument. The may take the stance that there is no evidence to support. But not that there is no such Thing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2015)

Well they did say "Fake" so interpret it any way you like


----------



## Steve (Mar 23, 2015)

Just a couple of quick thoughts.  Evidence isn't the same thing as proof.  Evidence doesn't have to be concrete.

There is nothing at all wrong with accepting that the opinions of some are given more weight because they have established that they are credible.  For example, there is not a doubt in my mind that K-man is a credible source for Aikido, Krav Maga and Okinawan Karate. 

So, if K-man says, "we do this," or, "i've seen this and it is true," that's enough for me.  Is it "proof?"  No.  But it's reliable evidence. 

The hazard here is just to remember that expertise in one area should not necessarily imply expertise in other superficially related areas.

As for chi balls and such, it's like the problem of sunrise.  You can't deduce that the Sun will rise tomorrow, because it has always done so.  Without using inductive reasoning, we would be stuck.  End of conversation... but we can be pretty darned sure that the Sun will rise.

Point is, we aren't in Logic class, and we aren't (or shouldn't) be holding each other to strict logical standards.  Inductive reasoning is how we know a lot of things, and even Spock would was guilty of it.   We can have a conversation with each other only if we presume we're speaking to people who know what they're talking about, and give each other the benefit of the doubt, absent evidence to the contrary.  And evidence is not the same thing as proof.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2015)

Evidence, proof, point and match


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> Just a couple of quick thoughts.  Evidence isn't the same thing as proof.  Evidence doesn't have to be concrete.
> 
> There is nothing at all wrong with accepting that the opinions of some are given more weight because they have established that they are credible.  For example, there is not a doubt in my mind that K-man is a credible source for Aikido, Krav Maga and Okinawan Karate.
> 
> ...



Does this force us to accept chi balls work though? 

I just find it interesting that that the concept of the celestial tea cup,the street and chi balls as a weapon all seem to be supported by the same logic.

So that even as an informal conversation you can notice these similarities and red flag them when they appear.

It strikes me every time the dogma comes out when we have these discussions.

"you cant go to the ground in the street because someone will jump in and kick you in the head"

"you cant punch in the street because your hands will shatter like glass"

"you will be so stressed that you will be unable to function rationally and will become enslaved to your training"

It creates an unreal set of training circumstances. Which can be used but also needs to be suspect. And for me the proof was in the pudding here, because I have trained under those conditions and I found it became easier to be submitted and harder to submit someone who had not received the training.

I was actually becoming one of those guys in that chi balls video.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Does this force us to accept chi balls work though?
> 
> I just find it interesting that that the concept of the celestial tea cup,the street and chi balls as a weapon all seem to be supported by the same logic.
> 
> ...


Chi Balls are as much BS as the Kiai Master.  Let's accept that there are practitioners who are not typical of the rest of us, who can bring anything into disrepute, and move on. Kyusho, Dim Mak, Kiko etc are all legitimate areas of practice. If they have no part of your training, fine, just spare us the constant barrage of poor videos that prove your point.



drop bear said:


> I was actually becoming one of those guys in that chi balls video.


And as a result you have now become worse that them. You are now a zealot, determined to prove to everyone that anything within a bulls roar of chi is nonsense. That is totally disrespectful of all who practise internal arts.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

"And as a result you have now become worse that them. You are now a zealot, determined to prove to everyone that anything within a bulls roar of chi is nonsense. That is totally disrespectful of all who practise internal arts."

Well I was talking about krav. But anyway.

If an internal art has an effect. I assume it would be measurable. You don't need to see it on a machine you could just use cause and effect.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

" Chi Balls are as much BS as the Kiai Master. Let's accept that there are practitioners who are not typical of the rest of us, who can bring anything into disrepute, and move on. Kyusho, Dim Mak, Kiko etc are all legitimate areas of practice. If they have no part of your training, fine, just spare us the constant barrage of poor videos that prove your point"

You seem to have a very them and us mentality towards martial arts. I am suggesting common elements some good some bad. It is not necessarily styles bringing other styles into disrepute.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Well I was talking about krav. But anyway.
> 
> If an internal art has an effect. I assume it would be measurable. You don't need to see it on a machine you could just use cause and effect.


I've yet to see anyone try to throw a chi ball in my Krav class. Anyway it would have to be a 'ruach' ball to fit in with Krav. 

The measure of Chi or Ki is in the effectiveness of the technique.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> You seem to have a very them and us mentality towards martial arts. I am suggesting common elements some good some bad. It is not necessarily styles bringing other styles into disrepute.


Not at all. In another thread I was backing your position by saying that if people promote BS as being typical it is no wonder guys like you jump on it and call it for what it is. Unfortunately it normally isn't representative of the style and it is generally people from competition based training that are pushing the barrow. So it's not really them and us. You are 100% right in talking of some of the common elements that are bad. Even then I would suggest that a lot of the common elements that are bad are bad because of poor teaching. Most of us would decry crap training and crap training methodology, but we don't go out of our way to put down the entire style.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

K-man said:


> Not at all. In another thread I was backing your position by saying that if people promote BS as being typical it is no wonder guys like you jump on it and call it for what it is. Unfortunately it normally isn't representative of the style and it is generally people from competition based training that are pushing the barrow. So it's not really them and us. You are 100% right in talking of some of the common elements that are bad. Even then I would suggest that a lot of the common elements that are bad are bad because of poor teaching. Most of us would decry crap training and crap training methodology, but we don't go out of our way to put down the entire style.



Are you confusing what I am saying with what others are saying though?

I feel sparring is necessary. And can go into that with the chi balls idea.

But TMA,s spar. So I don't hate them as a concept.

I point out krav as these glaring faults in MA. But it was originated by a quality sports fighting and strength training guy.

It is not the art but these common methodologies I don't like. 

Bjj shares some of them. I had to go to a fight gym that produces champions to realise I had them. Because a lot of the concepts are not intuitive in a martial arts sense.

Now a fight gym has conformation bias in its own right as well. That is also pretty common.

Good concepts bad concepts and commonalities.

And all of this has to be filter through a sea of mis information and conformation bias.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

K-man said:


> I've yet to see anyone try to throw a chi ball in my Krav class. Anyway it would have to be a 'ruach' ball to fit in with Krav.
> 
> The measure of Chi or Ki is in the effectiveness of the technique.



Flinch training. At its extreme is collapsing when the instructor cries hardoken. But its elements start when you let go because someone cries out eyegouge.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

At a level of demonstration this is about as realistic as chi balls. The guy on top has to comply for it to work.

Now lets support this with the celestial teacup. And say in the street his eyes will pop out of his head and his face will explode from the kicks.

And we have a self defence method we can never test. 

But also we are training to let go if we have top control and get eyegouges.

So at some stage you have to break that cycle. Or chi balls will start working.


----------



## Steve (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Does this force us to accept chi balls work though?
> 
> I just find it interesting that that the concept of the celestial tea cup,the street and chi balls as a weapon all seem to be supported by the same logic.
> 
> ...


The difference between the chi ball and other positions isn't the logic.   It's credibility.  I don't dosagree with a lot of your positions.   But to suggest that everything be purely logical is its own kind of faulty reasoning.  It ignores the value of inductive reasoning, where we know some things are either true or false even though they cannot be proven so.   The sun will rise tomorrow.  I believe that true.  But I can't logically prove it.   

A lot of people are tossing around fallacies at any post they disagree with.  Whole logic can help craft an argument, there's a place for respecting experience.  

I dint think you're wrong, but you're not all right, either.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> The difference between the chi ball and other positions isn't the logic.   It's credibility.  I don't dosagree with a lot of your positions.   But to suggest that everything be purely logical is its own kind of faulty reasoning.  It ignores the value of inductive reasoning, where we know some things are either true or false even though they cannot be proven so.   The sun will rise tomorrow.  I believe that true.  But I can't logically prove it.
> 
> A lot of people are tossing around fallacies at any post they disagree with.  Whole logic can help craft an argument, there's a place for respecting experience.
> 
> I dint think you're wrong, but you're not all right, either.



And I am trying to put a cap on it. But "the street" and even "because physics" starts to blow a little over the top.

The chi balls is a good thread though because it is a very real demonstration of what we can be led to believe. Over what can be proven.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Are you confusing what I am saying with what others are saying though?


I hope not.



drop bear said:


> I feel sparring is necessary. And can go into that with the chi balls idea.


Sparring has nothing to do with chi balls. I feel testing is necessary but I disagree that what most people look at as sparring is necessary.



drop bear said:


> But TMA,s spar. So I don't hate them as a concept.


TMAs don't spar. Modern styles of MAs spar.



drop bear said:


> I point out krav as these glaring faults in MA. But it was originated by a quality sports fighting and strength training guy.


Not sure what you mean by this.



drop bear said:


> It is not the art but these common methodologies I don't like.


You mean there are poor methodologies across the board that you dislike.


drop bear said:


> Bjj shares some of them. I had to go to a fight gym that produces champions to realise I had them. Because a lot of the concepts are not intuitive in a martial arts sense.


And that I would assume, is in the context of sport.


drop bear said:


> At a level of demonstration this is about as realistic as chi balls. The guy on top has to comply for it to work.
> 
> Now lets support this with the celestial teacup. And say in the street his eyes will pop out of his head and his face will explode from the kicks.
> 
> ...


I have no idea how you link this video to a thread on the Kiai Master BS video. However, I am a simple man. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with the technique as shown. In turn I will take it to my guys tonight and try it first hand.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

" I have no idea how you link this video to a thread on the Kiai Master BS video. However, I am a simple man. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with the technique as shown. In turn I will take it to my guys tonight and try it first hand."

Ok. Instead of relying on eyegouges and kicks that have to rely on the attacker compliantly letting go. You could use one of a thousand different side control escapes the work regardless of how much that guy on top is trying to hold you down.

From those thousand escapes pick one that is high percentage but still allows you the opportunity to eye gouge and kick if you really want to.

From the top don't let go and then flop on your back and get kicked to death do something about the eye gouge and then take advantage of that straight arm that the guy on the bottom is giving you.
(personally I would like to wrap the Thing and elbow the guys face off)

Then you will find the guy on the bottom. May have to keep his arm bent with the eyegouge and at the same time go for a side control escape.

Basically changing the whole dynamics of that thread.

When you try that out tonight have the guy on top knee on belly. Then when you eyegouge him he can just pop straight up and punch you in the face untill you let him choke you again.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

K-man said:


> And that I would assume, is in the context of sport.



No in the context of competitive strong aggressive guys who go hard contact.

There is a level you can reach by being a technician and a level you can reach by being a fighter.


----------



## Steve (Mar 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> No in the context of competitive strong aggressive guys who go hard contact.
> 
> There is a level you can reach by being a technician and a level you can reach by being a fighter.


There's a great point.  How many actual "fighters" do we have on this board?  I'd wager fewer than a handful, and certainly I wouldn't count myself in that number.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 23, 2015)

Steve said:


> There's a great point.  How many actual "fighters" do we have on this board?  I'd wager fewer than a handful, and certainly I wouldn't count myself in that number.



Fighter would be the same as "The street" I think if we put it in that context.

I got routinely smashed by guys that I was technically better than because they were just being more aggressive. It realistically took me forever to figure out what I was doing wrong in that I was technically training to counter someone who does not go at me hard. Normally this is proved false in the gym showing technique trumps aggression. But this is almost always done with a massive skill difference. And we are back to chi balls.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> "And as a result you have now become worse that them. You are now a zealot, determined to prove to everyone that anything within a bulls roar of chi is nonsense. That is totally disrespectful of all who practise internal arts."
> 
> Well I was talking about krav. But anyway.
> 
> If an internal art has an effect. I assume it would be measurable. You don't need to see it on a machine you could just use cause and effect.





drop bear said:


> " Chi Balls are as much BS as the Kiai Master. Let's accept that there are practitioners who are not typical of the rest of us, who can bring anything into disrepute, and move on. Kyusho, Dim Mak, Kiko etc are all legitimate areas of practice. If they have no part of your training, fine, just spare us the constant barrage of poor videos that prove your point"
> 
> You seem to have a very them and us mentality towards martial arts. I am suggesting common elements some good some bad. It is not necessarily styles bringing other styles into disrepute.



Did you forget how to use the quote function?


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2015)

RTKDCMB said:


> Did you forget how to use the quote function?



Sometimes the button works sometimes it just doesn't.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Mar 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Sometimes the button works sometimes it just doesn't.


You can cut and paste the Quote parts in the square brackets, works just as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 24, 2015)

K-man said:


> I've yet to see anyone try to throw a chi ball in my Krav class. Anyway it would have to be a 'ruach' ball to fit in with Krav.
> 
> The measure of Chi or Ki is in the effectiveness of the technique.




It would be Matzo balls they would throw with it being an Israeli/Jewish art, followed by hot chicken soup. We tend to be a practical lot rather than wait for something considered 'divine'.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> It would be Matzo balls they would throw with it being an Israeli/Jewish art, followed by hot chicken soup. We tend to be a practical lot rather than wait for something considered 'divine'.


I bow to your better understanding of the Jewish language. It was a pure guess on my part, but then again, Krav does have a certain divine feel to it.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 24, 2015)

K-man said:


> I bow to your better understanding of the Jewish language. It was a pure guess on my part, but then again, Krav does have a certain divine feel to it.




Ah that's because in actual fact Krav is the invention of Jewish mothers who want their daughters to marry doctors, it's not to defend themselves but to grab and hold a doctor against other Jewish girls.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> At a level of demonstration this is about as realistic as chi balls. The guy on top has to comply for it to work.
> 
> Now lets support this with the celestial teacup. And say in the street his eyes will pop out of his head and his face will explode from the kicks.
> 
> ...





drop bear said:


> " I have no idea how you link this video to a thread on the Kiai Master BS video. However, I am a simple man. Perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with the technique as shown. In turn I will take it to my guys tonight and try it first hand."
> 
> Ok. Instead of relying on eyegouges and kicks that have to rely on the attacker compliantly letting go. You could use one of a thousand different side control escapes the work regardless of how much that guy on top is trying to hold you down.
> 
> ...


Well we tried it tonight and it worked for everyone. Not only that, I had the guys do it from the knee on chest as well. One if the guys I tried it on was so big I couldn't even reach his neck. By positioning my body I was still able to do the technique. A number of the other guys I couldn't reach their eyes. Points on the neck worked just as well.

In consideration of your comments, we didn't flop back but moved into side control or armbar.

So for Krav where we are not taking on trained fighters the technique worked beautifully.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Ah that's because in actual fact Krav is the invention of Jewish mothers who want their daughters to marry doctors, it's not to defend themselves but to grab and hold a doctor against other Jewish girls.


So does the fact that I am teaching it mean that you are calling me an old woman?


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 24, 2015)

K-man said:


> So does the fact that I am teaching it mean that you are calling me an old woman?




Not at all, you are however a pawn of the Jewish mothers' mafia!


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Not at all, you are however a pawn of the Jewish mothers' mafia!


Many years ago I was going out with a lovely Jewish girl. I had to drop her off around the corner from her home because her parents wouldn't let her go out with non-Jewish boys. Sadly, the Jewish mafia caught me out and that was the end of the relationship.


----------



## Tez3 (Mar 24, 2015)

K-man said:


> Many years ago I was going out with a lovely Jewish girl. I had to drop her off around the corner from her home because her parents wouldn't let her go out with non-Jewish boys. Sadly, the Jewish mafia caught me out and that was the end of the relationship.




Sadly that's what happens sometimes, it's a shame but I can see both sides of the situation.


----------



## Instructor (Mar 24, 2015)

Back to OP
The other day I was teaching my students and one student applied a lock to the other.  The other student tapped and went down well in advance of the locks completion.  When we talked about it he said he knew that the lock would hurt and bring him down so he anticipated it and tapped and dropped before the pain happened.
I mentioned this situation that can develop where the students start doing that sort of thing then the teacher begins to believe he's doing the actual locks when he isn't and eventually he's just waving his arms around in the air and people are falling down in a kind of mass psychosis.  All the students nodded and vowed not to tap or head for the deck till Tori had earned it.
Hapkido is pain, if people aren't feeling pain in class, then they aren't doing Hapkido.


----------



## K-man (Mar 24, 2015)

Instructor said:


> Back to OP
> The other day I was teaching my students and one student applied a lock to the other.  The other student tapped and went down well in advance of the locks completion.  When we talked about it he said he knew that the lock would hurt and bring him down so he anticipated it and tapped and dropped before the pain happened.
> I mentioned this situation that can develop where the students start doing that sort of thing then the teacher begins to believe he's doing the actual locks when he isn't and eventually he's just waving his arms around in the air and people are falling down in a kind of mass psychosis.  All the students nodded and vowed not to tap or head for the deck till Tori had earned it.
> Hapkido is pain, if people aren't feeling pain in class, then they aren't doing Hapkido.


Of course there is a downside to all training working that way. As with Aikido, if you totally resist all the time and don't learn to receive, then you don't learn the reversals. Sometimes you do need to move ahead of the pain. I'm not saying don't resist, just don't always resist.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2015)

Instructor said:


> Back to OP
> The other day I was teaching my students and one student applied a lock to the other.  The other student tapped and went down well in advance of the locks completion.  When we talked about it he said he knew that the lock would hurt and bring him down so he anticipated it and tapped and dropped before the pain happened.
> I mentioned this situation that can develop where the students start doing that sort of thing then the teacher begins to believe he's doing the actual locks when he isn't and eventually he's just waving his arms around in the air and people are falling down in a kind of mass psychosis.  All the students nodded and vowed not to tap or head for the deck till Tori had earned it.
> Hapkido is pain, if people aren't feeling pain in class, then they aren't doing Hapkido.



I have a guy you just cant guillotine choke in sparring. He is just a nut and refuses to tap.
 Trying it myself if it is not done super right it hurts but rarely stops you. And if you can ride it out you wind up in a pretty good position.

What it does is it makes that choke low percentage. But it is a bit about the mentality of the thing. If you think you are going to die you will tap. If you think you wont you fight through.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> I have a guy you just cant guillotine choke in sparring. He is just a nut and refuses to tap.
> Trying it myself if it is not done super right it hurts but rarely stops you. And if you can ride it out you wind up in a pretty good position.
> 
> What it does is it makes that choke low percentage. But it is a bit about the mentality of the thing. If you think you are going to die you will tap. If you think you wont you fight through.



If the choke is applied properly, it doesn't matter if the other person is resisting it or not, eventually the lack of oxygen to the brain will cause the person getting choked to go limp.

Personally, I'll tap if I feel the person has the choke, and its on for about 1-2 seconds. If a person is in the position to properly apply a choke on you, you messed up a long time ago. Just tap and reset. Extended resistance to choking is very dangerous, and can lead to some serious neck/throat injuries.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 24, 2015)

Hanzou said:


> If the choke is applied properly, it doesn't matter if the other person is resisting it or not, eventually the lack of oxygen to the brain will cause the person getting choked to go limp.
> 
> Personally, I'll tap if I feel the person has the choke, and its on for about 1-2 seconds. If a person is in the position to properly apply a choke on you, you messed up a long time ago. Just tap and reset. Extended resistance to choking is very dangerous, and can lead to some serious neck/throat injuries.



Have you tried to actively defend it? Rolling so the arm is high. Hand fighting  posturing so you get some breathing room?

There arms could give up before you do.


----------



## Hanzou (Mar 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Have you tried to actively defend it? Rolling so the arm is high. Hand fighting  posturing so you get some breathing room?
> 
> There arms could give up before you do.



That really depends on the choke you're talking about. Obviously we're taught how to counter chokes, and how to counter the counters of chokes. My point was that a choke properly applied is highly dangerous to fight against, especially if you're just training. 

Just tap out.


----------



## wushu_fighter (May 10, 2015)

K-man said:


> Of course there is a downside to all training working that way. As with Aikido, if you totally resist all the time and don't learn to receive, then you don't learn the reversals. Sometimes you do need to move ahead of the pain. I'm not saying don't resist, just don't always resist.


I totally agree with this idea. During the trainning, in my opinion, it is not possible to resist all the times, otherwise, it will mean to submit our body to a great stress, what would inevitably produce an injure in our tissues or body structures.


----------



## K-man (May 10, 2015)

wushu_fighter said:


> I totally agree with this idea. During the trainning, in my opinion, it is not possible to resist all the times, otherwise, it will mean to submit our body to a great stress, what would inevitably produce an injure in our tissues or body structures.


Plus, it is hard to maintain your centre if you clash physically, especially against a bigger, stronger opponent.


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 25, 2015)

drop bear said:


> View attachment 19226
> 
> Either that is me or I have paid a homeless guy to hold a sign


Creepy smile dude.... Very intimidating.
I know... I can do it too.


----------



## TSDTexan (Aug 25, 2015)

On the subject of Aikido. Or Kiai fighters...
This was a very interesting read.

“Yukiyoshi Sagawa: Daito-ryu Master,” by Kiyokazu Maebayashi

Sagawaga, was a student of the great Takada, just like Morihei Ueshiba.

Here is a great quote:

Thus, he is able to throw us even when we have no direct body contact with him at all, except through inanimate things, such as his clothing, which usually cannot transmit power. I have seen Sensei execute these techniques on my seniors many times, but ever since I actually experienced them myself, I find them more and more mysterious. They can only be called miraculous.

*About Sagawa Sensei’s Aiki Techniques*
Here, I would like to discuss Sensei’s techniques in a little more detail, based on the experience and knowledge I have so far.

The amazing thing is that his students (including myself) truly attack him all out. Sensei is 87 years old. This is unthinkable in other martial arts or sports. Although Kendo, which I also practice, is said to be one of the few martial arts in which older practitioners can continue to improve themselves technically in spite of their advanced age, there can be no comparison with Sagawa Sensei. Usually when we practice with older people, we try to use less of our power.


----------

