# Why do Westerners train in exotic unrealistic weapons and ignore practical ones like baseball bats?



## Bullsherdog (Jan 5, 2020)

I'm watching High School of the Dead and I just watched Train to Busan. In both zombie apocalypse work, the more preferred weapon by the heroes is the baseball bat and most bystanders are using broomsticks, wrenches, crowbars, and one handed heavy clubs and sticks and other boring weapons. The few people who choose to use fancy martial arts stuff like Sai and Kama either get eaten quickly or are shown to be at an extremely high level of skill that a regular Joe can't expect to attain in years or even decades.

It leads me to ask why so many Westerners tend to search out specifically to train in weapons that are impossible to find in daily life and are often illegel or even impractical to carry around. Most commonly is wooden Japanese sword styles, nunchuks, Tonfas, and too many weapons I cannot name that are simply to bizarre to describe or to obscure even in Asia. Rather than learning the use of weapons that you can easily find an improvised tool to translate into impromptu such as flailing weapons (easily created with so many home tools, even simply putting a lockpad in a sock) and shield arts (you can simply pick up a metal trash can lid). Or even common weapons such as a bat.

I bring this up because in East Asia, the most common weapon to use is not a Tai Chi sword or Katar and these other fancy stuff but simply the baseball bat. Used in the most amount of non-passionate (angry housewife who caught you cheating) and non-criminal killings (esp in self defense) and the most common tool local gangs and thugs use for violence. That nowadays not only do most TKD and Karate RBSD-specific classes in Korea and Japan not only emphasize defense against bats but bats is actually far more common to teach for use as a weapon than any other traditional martial arts tool excepting for the nunchuks, bo staff, one handed clubs and stick, and knife arts. For the average non-committed weekend warrior, more time is spent on teaching bats than even those other practical weapons. In addition with how baseball has been dominating those countries in modern times, old heavy bat martial arts such as Kanabo styles have been in revival in dojos and school instructions. As baseball rises in popularity in China, there too is a revival of obscure and mostly forgotten styles using long heavy clubs.

But in the West there is s much emphasize on the fancy of bizarre weapons. Even stuff barely used back at home in Asia (such as some weird local Filipino fighting using a bullship). Excepting nunchuks (which can easily transitioned into improvised stuff like tying two sticks together and lockpad in socks), bo staff (broom sticks), and one handed clubs and sticks (obviously easiest to transition to as almost everything from tire irons to mallets can be used), all the practical self defense weapons style that can easily transition to civilian lifestyle are so damn ignored.

Why is this? In Asia as I mentioned the bat gets far more emphasized esp in civilian self defense and criminal activities than kendo styles and even advanced martial artists (esp since many top athletes also practise martial arts and are baseball fans in their spare time) prefer two handed bats even over staffs, knives, and other practical small arms. In China most commoners with some kung fu training tend to use kitchen knives esp heavy meat cutting blades for self defense over those strange swords More common than even stick and staff arts in Korea is the preferred use of fist based weapons like brass knuckles and training in forms of boxing that emphasize defenses against bats, etc under the use of brass knuckles and other older similar fist weapons in Korean history.

Why isn't the baseball bat a popular weapon to train in the West? I can barely find any school teaching about bats and those that do focus far more on defending against bats than using it. Same with other lots of practical tools. We don't have styles teaching how to use a crowbar to hook enemy weapons as common in the West. While the crowbar is quite popular among Chinese gangs and the Chinese police use a variation of it because of its ability to hook away and disarm weapons! Hooking weapons have seen a revival in Chinese kung fu lately. Yet this practical weapon type is ignored in the West's school just like baseball bats are.

What makes impractical weapons so popular in demand by Western students while day-to-day life tools like hitting with a hunting rifle, disarming with crowbars, and esp baseball bats not in demand for lessons?


----------



## skribs (Jan 5, 2020)

You answered your own question in the first paragraph.  "And other boring weapons".  People train them because it's fun.  And as with your Paris Syndrome post, I think you're picking a very specific group of people and saying that's "The West."

By the way, if you're familiar with a nunchaku, you're also familiar with any other similar weapon, i.e. a chain, a weight tied to a rope, or a pool ball in a sock.


----------



## skribs (Jan 5, 2020)

I think if you phrased your posts as "I think training baseball bats would be useful" or "I think training baseball bat is better than training weapons" it might go over better.  You're asking why people do something, and are picking a group of people to antagonize over not thinking like you.

Rather than separate two people into a "smart people" and "plebs" group (which it seems you have done), why not discuss the actual martial application you want to talk about?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 5, 2020)

Weapons training, especially training a variety of them, allows the practitioner to utilize various weapons of opportunity.
Oh and one of the things several of the people I train learn to use a stick, a club, a bat, a walking stick, staffs, and an assortment of sharp pointy objects of various lengths as well as with firearms and other such objects.


----------



## dvcochran (Jan 5, 2020)

A good question. Decades of glamourized stylization and misguided ideas from the movie industry, books, magazines, and yes, even many schools/teachers have always been my answer your question. 

In my Kung Fu and Kali experience, it was always stressed that the weapons we practiced with (in KF) were used to honor the past and keep the training traditional. The ability to see anything available as a weapon was also Very, very stressed. So we were known to have a surprise attack some nights by the random baseball bat or such. By doing so, short staff or Bo staff training will teach valuable training for you even if your only choice for a weapon happens to be a baseball bat. Transferrable skills do a person zero good if they don't even know they have them.
In the Kali I learned, there was less emphasized on the stick and more on blade work. So the stick work was more as a means of safe training for blade use. Other systems get much heavier into stickwork.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 5, 2020)

First off, why does the result of different weapons in a movie persuade you those weapons need to be treated differently?

Anyway, back to the point. Some things are fun to train. Some of the knife and sword work I trained is pretty fancy. I loved working on those bits. The simple stuff is more likely to be useful, but is generally not as much fun to train. I teach and train with sticks of various sizes (escrima sticks, hanbo, jo, bo, baseball bat, etc.) and blades of various sizes and types (small knives, large knives, machetes, swords). I've trained in nunchaku and dabbled in other esoteric weapons. I sometimes work with "flexible weapons" (belts, shirts, etc.). All of that is just time to practice using different objects, learning to feel their balance and find their strengths/weaknesses. The actual weapon used in training is not terribly important - its characteristics are what matter.


----------



## skribs (Jan 5, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> First off, why does the result of different weapons in a movie persuade you those weapons need to be treated differently?



Especially when other movies in the same genre are different, where in the Walking Dead a Katana or a crossbow can let you survive for a long time.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 6, 2020)

I am doing a TL;DR.  But one of them uses a bokken in the first program, then a Katana.       And its mainly avalibility and for fun.      Most weapon styles have died out or only exist for historical weapons.      Yes due to law changes and cultrual shifts.    One of the reasons i think filipino martial arts is liked as it does weapons first and it uses most of the weapons you will find in the west.   Or be able to improvise out of.   (eg longest blade is usually machete length, sticks etc)  And does them first and generally hasnt been as sportinised (pending style) 


I know of not a single english martial arts style that is not historic that does not put weapons training first, just for comparision.      Plus if you have done bat sports, how you swing a bat in that would probbly be sufficent of a technique to get you through the encounter reliably.  (by bat i do mean a actual bat, like a baseball bat, or a cricket bat etc)

I belive somone else would have or will relay the Bokken being a training tool for the katana etc etc.

edit: this is also in part due to sport, its easier to have a fun match unarmed than with blunted or training weapons.  and fightign to the death hasnt been allowed for a while.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jan 6, 2020)

Baseball bats may be effective against zombies, but what little I know of this persecuted group is that they are "slow."  This is not a slur regarding their mental capabilities (don't want the undead defamation league getting upset), but rather their physical capabilities in regards to slowness of speed of movement and reaction.  Heavy ended clubs were used by the cavemen, but this group were not comprised of Bruce Lees, either.  Heavy mallets/sledgehammers were used against armored knights during the middle ages, but being weighted down by 70-80 pounds of armor did not make them very speedy.  Such weapons are good against slow opponents.  Smaller, maneuverable warhammers were useful against a wider variety of opponents.

A baseball bat's power is in its swing. Much like a heavy two-handed broadsword.  If it misses its target, its mass and momentum makes it hard to redirect for a follow-up strike or defensive move.  Could be very effective against a slow/unskilled opponent, the kind a thug would choose to attack.  Also good against a mob of closely packed bodies, unable to take evasive action.  IMO, its uses are limited to these cases.  I had a guy take a swing at me with a shovel.  Keeping mindful of engagement distance, it was simple to lean back and evade the initial (only) swing and then move in to disarm him while taking him down (he was a little drunk, so not too hard, but it illustrates that weapon's weakness.)

Sai and kama were mentioned as being ineffective against zombies, unless the user was highly skilled.  Using a close range against a hard to kill (undead) enemy would be challenging indeed.  Though adept with sai, I would still prefer a bat against a zombie.  In using the bat, I would rely on my training in other weapons to flow as efficiently as possible, considering the bat's characteristics.  Other posters have also mentioned transferrable skills.

I'll stick with my traditional kobudo weapons, katana, and kali sticks, and improvise from there if need be.

Note:  Tomari-te expert Matsumora was said to have disarmed a Satsuma Samurai using a towel (though he lost a pinkie in the process.)  In 1968/69, I saw Bill Riyusaki, a Hawaiian born karate-ka (don't recall what syle) who had a dojo in North Hollywood, CA, do a demo using a towel against hand and weapon attacks.  Can use a belt in a similar fashion.  Similar to nunchaku in many ways.

Well, that's enough of a response to a posting that began with zombies.  Bury the damn things and  R.I.P.


----------



## Bullsherdog (Jan 6, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> Baseball bats may be effective against zombies, but what little I know of this persecuted group is that they are "slow."  This is not a slur regarding their mental capabilities (don't want the undead defamation league getting upset), but rather their physical capabilities in regards to slowness of speed of movement and reaction.  Heavy ended clubs were used by the cavemen, but this group were not comprised of Bruce Lees, either.  Heavy mallets/sledgehammers were used against armored knights during the middle ages, but being weighted down by 70-80 pounds of armor did not make them very speedy.  Such weapons are good against slow opponents.  Smaller, maneuverable warhammers were useful against a wider variety of opponents.
> 
> A baseball bat's power is in its swing. Much like a heavy two-handed broadsword.  If it misses its target, its mass and momentum makes it hard to redirect for a follow-up strike or defensive move.  Could be very effective against a slow/unskilled opponent, the kind a thug would choose to attack.  Also good against a mob of closely packed bodies, unable to take evasive action.  IMO, its uses are limited to these cases.  I had a guy take a swing at me with a shovel.  Keeping mindful of engagement distance, it was simple to lean back and evade the initial (only) swing and then move in to disarm him while taking him down (he was a little drunk, so not too hard, but it illustrates that weapon's weakness.)
> 
> ...



The art of Kanabojutsu (which uses far heavier than your typical MLB League Baseball Bat) disproves your whole claim.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2020)

There is a weapon culture of having to be tricky.

Karabit guys are a good example of overcomplicating a fairly straightforward process.






I think it is  byproduct of emphasis on drills. You get a room full of guys and drill something simple like defend an overhand right. By the end of the session they are all doing cartwheels or something.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2020)

drop bear said:


> There is a weapon culture of having to be tricky.
> 
> Karabit guys are a good example of overcomplicating a fairly straightforward process.
> 
> ...


And complicated looks cool. We all like to look cool sometimes.


----------



## jobo (Jan 6, 2020)

Bullsherdog said:


> I'm watching High School of the Dead and I just watched Train to Busan. In both zombie apocalypse work, the more preferred weapon by the heroes is the baseball bat and most bystanders are using broomsticks, wrenches, crowbars, and one handed heavy clubs and sticks and other boring weapons. The few people who choose to use fancy martial arts stuff like Sai and Kama either get eaten quickly or are shown to be at an extremely high level of skill that a regular Joe can't expect to attain in years or even decades.
> 
> It leads me to ask why so many Westerners tend to search out specifically to train in weapons that are impossible to find in daily life and are often illegel or even impractical to carry around. Most commonly is wooden Japanese sword styles, nunchuks, Tonfas, and too many weapons I cannot name that are simply to bizarre to describe or to obscure even in Asia. Rather than learning the use of weapons that you can easily find an improvised tool to translate into impromptu such as flailing weapons (easily created with so many home tools, even simply putting a lockpad in a sock) and shield arts (you can simply pick up a metal trash can lid). Or even common weapons such as a bat.
> 
> ...


 the immediate answer is that have lost touch with the purpose of ma, which is hurting people and have got lost in cultural appropriation, and a no longer existant culture at that.

and its their time/money, i laugh at people who practice fighting with muskets, but if they enjoy it ???, come the zombie apocalypse and they and the archers may be laughing at me

but most of these weapons are, in the right hands extremely effective, just as baseball bats are not much use if you cant use them properly, start swinging wildly with them and someone of the required coordination will take them off you and they are much to long a weapon for close quarter combat, and require two hands if someones swinging a bat at you get as close to them as you can, they cant hit you and both or least one of  their hands are tied up

the issue is really availability, you may find it difficult to gain admittance to a nightclub carrying a katana, but you'll have much the same issue with a baseball bat, just as wandering the streets with either may attract the attention of local law enforcement

with our culture weapons need to be both discrete and effective and that rules out most things you cant fit in your pocket or at least cover with a jacket

i saw a confrontation a couple of weeks ago between two cyclists who on a very wide road were contesting who should give way, one pulled a claw hammer out of his bag, the other an axe, they circled each other for a short while and both decided to leave,  they are both extremely effective close quarter weapons, that beat the hell out of a baseball bat and both ancient in design


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 6, 2020)

When the zombie apocalypse arrives and it’s time to hit the road with my trusty band of survivors and make our way through the burning remnants of civilization, the hardest choice I will have will be in deciding WHICH Spears, swords, staffs, kukhuri,  butterfly swords, tomahawks, daggers, sheath knives, folding knives, shuriken, nunchaku, sai, bow-and-arrows, and sticks, to bring with me.  My collection is vast, and I am but one.  I cannot carry more than several of these myself, before I become too bogged down to use any of it.  I could load up the car with them all, and share them with worthy companions who may join me along the way.  My closest friends know that they need to make their way to my place for arming, when the tragedy of the zombies begins.  I will have something for everyone.  Or I could have the luxury of choosing which favorite weapon to select as the zombie mob closes in around my vehicle, cycling through my collection, giving each weapon its turn.

I wouldn’t select a lowly baseball bat or crowbar unless I had no other choice.  Wending my way through the burning ashes of civilization with a baseball bat or a crowbar???  How utterly pedestrian.


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

Rat said:


> I am doing a TL;DR.  But one of them uses a bokken in the first program, then a Katana.       And its mainly avalibility and for fun.      Most weapon styles have died out or only exist for historical weapons.      Yes due to law changes and cultrual shifts.    One of the reasons i think filipino martial arts is liked as it does weapons first and it uses most of the weapons you will find in the west.   Or be able to improvise out of.   (eg longest blade is usually machete length, sticks etc)  And does them first and generally hasnt been as sportinised (pending style)
> 
> 
> I know of not a single english martial arts style that is not historic that does not put weapons training first, just for comparision.      Plus if you have done bat sports, how you swing a bat in that would probbly be sufficent of a technique to get you through the encounter reliably.  (by bat i do mean a actual bat, like a baseball bat, or a cricket bat etc)
> ...



This would be the equivalent of throwing haymakers.  It's a power swing, but highly telegraphed and not that fast of a strike.  (Pun unintended).



isshinryuronin said:


> Baseball bats may be effective against zombies, but what little I know of this persecuted group is that they are "slow."  This is not a slur regarding their mental capabilities (don't want the undead defamation league getting upset), but rather their physical capabilities in regards to slowness of speed of movement and reaction.  Heavy ended clubs were used by the cavemen, but this group were not comprised of Bruce Lees, either.  Heavy mallets/sledgehammers were used against armored knights during the middle ages, but being weighted down by 70-80 pounds of armor did not make them very speedy.  Such weapons are good against slow opponents.  Smaller, maneuverable warhammers were useful against a wider variety of opponents.
> 
> A baseball bat's power is in its swing. Much like a heavy two-handed broadsword.  If it misses its target, its mass and momentum makes it hard to redirect for a follow-up strike or defensive move.  Could be very effective against a slow/unskilled opponent, the kind a thug would choose to attack.  Also good against a mob of closely packed bodies, unable to take evasive action.  IMO, its uses are limited to these cases.  I had a guy take a swing at me with a shovel.  Keeping mindful of engagement distance, it was simple to lean back and evade the initial (only) swing and then move in to disarm him while taking him down (he was a little drunk, so not too hard, but it illustrates that weapon's weakness.)
> 
> ...



There are 4 types of zombies:
Slow / Dumb
Slow / Smart
Fast / Dumb
Fast / Smart

Slow/Smart zombies can be seen in movies like I Am Legend, Fast/Dumb zombies in 28 Days Later.



jobo said:


> the immediate answer is that have lost touch with the purpose of ma, which is hurting people and have got lost in cultural appropriation, and a no longer existant culture at that.
> 
> and its their time/money, i laugh at people who practice fighting with muskets, but if they enjoy it ???, come the zombie apocalypse and they and the archers may be laughing at me
> 
> ...



You are right about cops watching people regardless of what weapon they carry.  My friend and I were walking from our high school to our college, and my friend found a stick.  Another friend was driving by, so we talked to him a bit, and then he drove off.  A cop saw the whole thing, came up to us and started accusing us of brandishing a weapon and stopping traffic.  It wasn't even a baseball bat, just a big stick we found on the side of the road.



Flying Crane said:


> When the zombie apocalypse arrives and it’s time to hit the road with my trusty band of survivors and make our way through the burning remnants of civilization, the hardest choice I will have will be in deciding WHICH Spears, swords, staffs, kukhuri,  butterfly swords, tomahawks, daggers, sheath knives, folding knives, shuriken, nunchaku, sai, bow-and-arrows, and sticks, to bring with me.  My collection is vast, and I am but one.  I cannot carry more than several of these myself, before I become too bogged down to use any of it.  I could load up the car with them all, and share them with worthy companions who may join me along the way.  My closest friends know that they need to make their way to my place for arming, when the tragedy of the zombies begins.  I will have something for everyone.  Or I could have the luxury of choosing which favorite weapon to select as the zombie mob closes in around my vehicle, cycling through my collection, giving each weapon its turn.
> 
> I wouldn’t select a lowly baseball bat or crowbar unless I had no other choice.  Wending my way through the burning ashes of civilization with a baseball bat or a crowbar???  How utterly pedestrian.



Crowbar seems like it would have use.  Plus, Gordon Freeman proved it's great against zombies.  At least the kind that you turn into from an alien head-crab.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 6, 2020)

28 days later were not undead zombies.  They were living people, infected with a rage virus, making them non-rational and utterly homicidal.  They retained all their physical capabilities, as they were not animated rotting corpses.  More options in killing them, too.  Body shots count.  Doesn’t always need to hit the head.


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> 28 days later were not undead zombies.  They were living people, infected with a rage virus, making them non-rational and utterly homicidal.  They retained all their physical capabilities, as they were not animated rotting corpses.  More options in killing them, too.  Body shots count.  Doesn’t always need to hit the head.



Still, fast zombies exist.

EDIT:  Fast zombies exist in literature and film.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> Still, fast zombies exist.
> 
> EDIT:  Fast zombies exist in literature and film.


I don’t disagree.

A lot depends on the condition of the corpse when it reanimates.  The fresher the corpse and the better condition, the faster it can move.  The more rotten or poor condition, missing or mangled limbs, the slower it will be.


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t disagree.
> 
> A lot depends on the condition of the corpse when it reanimates.  The fresher the corpse and the better condition, the faster it can move.  The more rotten or poor condition, missing or mangled limbs, the slower it will be.



That all depends on the author.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 6, 2020)

I thought that we had reached a low point when we were looking to YouTube as "reality". Now, zombie movies are our basis for what happens in the real-world?

My personal favorite is Sean of the Dead, so I guess I'll buy my class a couple of pints and lead some cricket bat drills tonight.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jan 6, 2020)

Bullsherdog said:


> The art of Kanabojutsu (wh.ich uses far heavier than your typical MLB League Baseball Bat) disproves your whole claim.


Never heard of Kanabojutsu, so I looked it up:  According to Wikipedia, the Kanabo was used vs. armored Samurai and war horses (most likely in pitched massed warfare with limited maneuverability.)  It further call this weapon "cumbersome...requiring great skill to recover from a miss with the heavy club, which could leave a wielder open to a counter-attack."  It also states the obvious - great strength was needed to use it at all.  So not an option for many martial artists.  This entirely supports all my comments re: the use of a bat or other weighty weapons and supports my "whole claim."


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 6, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> I thought that we had reached a low point when we were looking to YouTube as "reality". Now, zombie movies are our basis for what happens in the real-world?
> 
> My personal favorite is Sean of the Dead, so I guess I'll buy my class a couple of pints and lead some cricket bat drills tonight.


And then go hang out at the Winchester.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> And complicated looks cool. We all like to look cool sometimes.



That. But I also feel there is an expectation as it represents showing depth of training that may not be the best indication of that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> the immediate answer is that have lost touch with the purpose of ma, which is hurting people and have got lost in cultural appropriation, and a no longer existant culture at that.
> 
> and its their time/money, i laugh at people who practice fighting with muskets, but if they enjoy it ???, come the zombie apocalypse and they and the archers may be laughing at me
> 
> ...



There is an urban combatives myth that says that sort of thing doesn't happen. 

That knife fights are not duels.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> When the zombie apocalypse arrives and it’s time to hit the road with my trusty band of survivors and make our way through the burning remnants of civilization, the hardest choice I will have will be in deciding WHICH Spears, swords, staffs, kukhuri,  butterfly swords, tomahawks, daggers, sheath knives, folding knives, shuriken, nunchaku, sai, bow-and-arrows, and sticks, to bring with me.  My collection is vast, and I am but one.  I cannot carry more than several of these myself, before I become too bogged down to use any of it.  I could load up the car with them all, and share them with worthy companions who may join me along the way.  My closest friends know that they need to make their way to my place for arming, when the tragedy of the zombies begins.  I will have something for everyone.  Or I could have the luxury of choosing which favorite weapon to select as the zombie mob closes in around my vehicle, cycling through my collection, giving each weapon its turn.
> 
> I wouldn’t select a lowly baseball bat or crowbar unless I had no other choice.  Wending my way through the burning ashes of civilization with a baseball bat or a crowbar???  How utterly pedestrian.



I have settled on a axe or tomahawk. 

And my reasoning was weight. So if I am going to carry a great big heavy weapon around I would also like it to be practical for things like making fire and shelter. Because I assume there is quite a bit of non zombie killing down time that goes on.


----------



## jobo (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> This would be the equivalent of throwing haymakers.  It's a power swing, but highly telegraphed and not that fast of a strike.  (Pun unintended).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i am legend had fast smart zombies, as far as im aw3are that the only example of such, , 28 days did indeed have very fast zombies, even faster than i am legend, , which made a olot more sence in the original cut, which the test audience didn't like apparently

 George A. Romero zombies are very slow and fall over a lot. as are most of the copies, 

the zombies in the walking dead have varying speeds dependent on the plot and if the character is supposed to escape or not, they were however notably mutch faster in the first series, which has nothing it seems to do with degeneration as fresh zombies in the later series are also much slower, apart from when they are not


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2020)

drop bear said:


> non zombie killing down time


My absolute favorite phrase you've ever posted, db.


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> i am legend had fast smart zombies, as far as im aw3are that the only example of such, , 28 days did indeed have very fast zombies, even faster than i am legend, , which made a olot more sence in the original cut, which the test audience didn't like apparently
> 
> George A. Romero zombies are very slow and fall over a lot. as are most of the copies,
> 
> the zombies in the walking dead have varying speeds dependent on the plot and if the character is supposed to escape or not, they were however notably mutch faster in the first series, which has nothing it seems to do with degeneration as fresh zombies in the later series are also much slower, apart from when they are not



Zombies in Supernatural and I believe some of them from Buffy the Vampire Slayer are smart and fast.  Part of it may depend on classification, though.


----------



## jobo (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> Zombies in Supernatural and I believe some of them from Buffy the Vampire Slayer are smart and fast.  Part of it may depend on classification, though.


 i think '' supernatural zombies'' need there own classification apart from plague zombies, as they are magic they can do anything and you need magic to defeat them, so you baseball bat isn't of much use, you need a wand


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 6, 2020)

Maybe 2020 will be about us exploring and debating how each style would fare against various cryptozoological characters:

BJJ vs Cupacabra in a real fight?

Which Karate style vs the Loch Ness Monster?


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> i think '' supernatural zombies'' need there own classification apart from plague zombies, as they are magic they can do anything and you need magic to defeat them, so you baseball bat isn't of much use, you need a wand



I meant zombies from the show Supernatural.

Many iterations of magic zombies follow the same rules as plague zombies.


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Maybe 2020 will be about us exploring and debating how each style would fare against various cryptozoological characters:
> 
> BJJ vs Cupacabra in a real fight?
> 
> Which Karate style vs the Loch Ness Monster?



I've actually thought about this when watching movies.  How well would a spin hook kick work on a velociraptor, for example.


----------



## jobo (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> I meant zombies from the show Supernatural.
> 
> Many iterations of magic zombies follow the same rules as plague zombies.


arnt zombies in a show called SUPERNATURAL supernatural ?


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> arnt zombies in a show called SUPERNATURAL supernatural ?



Different undead have different rules.  Some of them need to be killed via ritual (i.e. salt and burn the bones to kill a ghost), some need to be killed with a specific weapon or method (i.e. cut off the head).


----------



## jobo (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> Different undead have different rules.  Some of them need to be killed via ritual (i.e. salt and burn the bones to kill a ghost), some need to be killed with a specific weapon or method (i.e. cut off the head).


people cant just go around making up there own rules, it would just be chaos, zombies are killed by destroying the brain, thats it, if they require magic then they are supernatural zombies, and as there is no such thing as the supernatural cant exist,

we have to keep some semblance of logic in this or next thing you have zombies on roller skates wearing crash helmets


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

jobo said:


> people cant just go around making up there own rules, it would just be chaos, zombies are killed by destroying the brain, thats it, if they require magic then they are supernatural zombies, and as there is no such thing as the supernatural cant exist,
> 
> we have to keep some semblance of logic in this or next thing you have zombies on roller skates wearing crash helmets



It's fiction.  The author creates the fictional world and the rules that apply.  As long as the rules remain consistent in the fictional universe, it works.

One of my favorite book series, Monster Hunter International, has a scene with zombie bears with thick metal helmets.  So yeah, what you're saying is crazy has already happened.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 6, 2020)

Bullsherdog said:


> I'm watching High School of the Dead and I just watched Train to Busan. In both zombie apocalypse work, the more preferred weapon by the heroes is the baseball bat and most bystanders are using broomsticks, wrenches, crowbars, and one handed heavy clubs and sticks and other boring weapons. The few people who choose to use fancy martial arts stuff like Sai and Kama either get eaten quickly or are shown to be at an extremely high level of skill that a regular Joe can't expect to attain in years or even decades.
> 
> It leads me to ask why so many Westerners tend to search out specifically to train in weapons that are impossible to find in daily life and are often illegel or even impractical to carry around. Most commonly is wooden Japanese sword styles, nunchuks, Tonfas, and too many weapons I cannot name that are simply to bizarre to describe or to obscure even in Asia. Rather than learning the use of weapons that you can easily find an improvised tool to translate into impromptu such as flailing weapons (easily created with so many home tools, even simply putting a lockpad in a sock) and shield arts (you can simply pick up a metal trash can lid). Or even common weapons such as a bat.
> 
> ...



Once you figure out that movies aren't real life, and that you should have at least some sort of basic understanding of a thing before making lots of assumptions,all of this wild confusion may begin to subside for you.

Good luck.


----------



## jobo (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's fiction.  The author creates the fictional world and the rules that apply.  As long as the rules remain consistent in the fictional universe, it works.
> 
> One of my favorite book series, Monster Hunter International, has a scene with zombie bears with thick metal helmets.  So yeah, what you're saying is crazy has already happened.


science fiction good
fantasy fiction bad
zombie bears with crash helmets very very bad,


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2020)

A baseball bat is actually quite exotic in many parts of the world.



skribs said:


> One of my favorite book series, Monster Hunter International, has a scene with zombie bears with thick metal helmets.




Have you read 'His Dark Materials'  by Philip Pullman (the BBC has just made a cracking series of the first part with more to come, not the film though, it was tame and missed too much out) it has huge armoured fighting polar bears in it. Fearsome enough reading about them absolutely terrifying on screen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Maybe 2020 will be about us exploring and debating how each style would fare against various cryptozoological characters:
> 
> BJJ vs Cupacabra in a real fight?
> 
> Which Karate style vs the Loch Ness Monster?


Aikido would be fantastic against Frankenstein's monster - slow, arms out, stumbling with his weight forward, and quite tall.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's fiction.  The author creates the fictional world and the rules that apply.  As long as the rules remain consistent in the fictional universe, it works.
> 
> One of my favorite book series, Monster Hunter International, has a scene with zombie bears with thick metal helmets.  So yeah, what you're saying is crazy has already happened.


I listened to or read (don't recall which) the first book or two of that series. I don't remember that - must be later on.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 6, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Aikido would be fantastic against Frankenstein's monster - slow, arms out, stumbling with his weight forward, and quite tall.


That would be the monster as portrayed in the earlier movies.  In the book, the monster is actually something of a Superman.  He is physically stronger and more agile and more capable, and is quite intelligent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 6, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> That would be the monster as portrayed in the earlier movies.  In the book, the monster is actually something of a Superman.  He is physically stronger and more agile and more capable, and is quite intelligent.


I thought we were focusing on film versions. If we are going to include written material, we might all be in trouble.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 6, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I thought we were focusing on film versions. If we are going to include written material, we might all be in trouble.


Ah...well...


----------



## Buka (Jan 6, 2020)

With the tip of my cap to the Big Bang Theory.....

If a Zombie bites a Vampire, and the Vampire bites a human, does that human become a Vampire...or does he become a Zombie....or a Zompire?


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 6, 2020)

Whatever system taught the Thriller dance as a form would have the advantage.


----------



## skribs (Jan 6, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> A baseball bat is actually quite exotic in many parts of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not heard of that series.  What's the premise?



gpseymour said:


> Aikido would be fantastic against Frankenstein's monster - slow, arms out, stumbling with his weight forward, and quite tall.



You must have missed the take on Frankenstein's monster from the book series I mentioned 



Buka said:


> With the tip of my cap to the Big Bang Theory.....
> 
> If a Zombie bites a Vampire, and the Vampire bites a human, does that human become a Vampire...or does he become a Zombie....or a Zompire?



Which episode is that from?


----------



## yak sao (Jan 6, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t disagree.
> 
> A lot depends on the condition of the corpse when it reanimates.  The fresher the corpse and the better condition, the faster it can move.  The more rotten or poor condition, missing or mangled limbs, the slower it will be.



Wow, you are definitely the MT zombie authority.
This would make for a great seminar.


----------



## Buka (Jan 6, 2020)

skribs said:


> Not heard of that series.  What's the premise?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Season 6, The Parking Spot Escalation.....one of my favorites.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> My absolute favorite phrase you've ever posted, db.



When someone asks me what I did on the weekend.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 6, 2020)

Anyway the game days gone.





World war z with brad pit.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 7, 2020)

yak sao said:


> Wow, you are definitely the MT zombie authority.
> This would make for a great seminar.


Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide, is a good place to start.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 7, 2020)

skribs said:


> Not heard of that series. What's the premise?



His Dark Materials - Wikipedia


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 7, 2020)

jobo said:


> there terrible for home defense, unless you have very big rooms devoid of furniture, even you need to be conscious of not standing near a wall
> 
> if the trespassers stands in a doorway, you will do well to even jab him with it



Its better than trying to bludeon someone with your hands.   Most weapons can be adapted into working in most situations.    Like i think the defendu cane(in manuals) can be adapted to a baseball bat well to make it work in said situations.



Pictures taken from a Get Tough PDF i found.     And yes i had to screen cap each one and put it in paint.   I dont know how well it will work, but its probbly a acceptable alterative to bludeogning somone with your fists.    Especially as once you knock the down, you can just jump on them.

Also apologies if this is really long and disrupts the flow first time posting pictures here, at least muiltiple in one post. 

Edit:  No idea how i got 2 of 2 there.    and i named one wrong.  

(my orginal, compartively well written reply got deleted)


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 7, 2020)

skribs said:


> This would be the equivalent of throwing haymakers. It's a power swing, but highly telegraphed and not that fast of a strike. (Pun unintended).



Better than nothing and sufficent to injure somone with.     The only time i have seen people loose a bat is they messed up distance and timing, which is a aquired skill.  (i am willing to belive if they did a bat sport (recently) that would be mitigated as well, as swinging is all about distance and timing of the ball)   I am not counting the videos you see where they stand there talking and get punched in the face.  I think we all know the one i mean.

Distance and timing seem more perishable skills than how to hold a object. At least, former is faster to loose than latter.   I will accept some form of study as contary or support to that statement, just out of instest if any exists.

Edit:   Personally the two ways im going to hold a stick of some description thats two handed, is like a rifle and bayonet, and mainly thrust with it and fight how you would with one.   Or over my head with mainly overhead swings.     i am definately more likely to use it like the former.

Second edit:  above is not applicable to normal baseball bat lengths.   At least  bayonet fighting.


----------



## jobo (Jan 7, 2020)

Rat said:


> Its better than trying to bludeon someone with your hands.   Most weapons can be adapted into working in most situations.    Like i think the defendu cane(in manuals) can be adapted to a baseball bat well to make it work in said situations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 well no, if you can bludgen someone with your hand its not '' better'' to bludgeoning some one with a club, the end result is the same they are lying bludgeoned on the floor,

 non fire arm weapons are force multipliers that's true but they are very situation and comparative skill dependent

as above if your trying to swing a bat or stick in a confined space they can be a lot less effective than your fist,   i've taken a whole variety of weapons off people over the years, because i had far better reflexes and they had next to no idea how to use them, they swing, they miss i get them,. if someone was trying to hit me with that stick, they may (but probably wont) hit me once, if that doesn't result in me being unconscious, then they have lost, il take it off them and stick it up their @@@@


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 7, 2020)

jobo said:


> well no, if you can bludgen someone with your hand its not '' better'' to bludgeoning some one with a club, the end result is the same they are lying bludgeoned on the floor,
> 
> non fire arm weapons are force multipliers that's true but they are very situation and comparative skill dependent
> 
> as above if your trying to swing a bat or stick in a confined space they can be a lot less effective than your fist,   i've taken a whole variety of weapons off people over the years, because i had far better reflexes and they had next to no idea how to use them, they swing, they miss i get them,. if someone was trying to hit me with that stick, they may (but probably wont) hit me once, if that doesn't result in me being unconscious, then they have lost, il take it off them and stick it up their @@@@



First:  You basically admitted weapons are a force muiltiplier so no dispute. But, it is objectively better in hitting somone with a weapon, as it puts your body at less risk and is pending material and construct of the weapon, easier to hurt them, with less risk to yourself.  

Second:   That is the obvous weakness of a baseballbat and why i posted defendu sitck work as a example to a way to make it function better especially in confined spaces. But with some practice im sure you can use a baseball bat like you would in baseball and get timing etc down for combat.   (just most people dont do that, and not so much in confied spaces)   But then, plenty of people have been beaten with people with baseball bats or other weapons that have had little practice etc.   Willing to belive aggression and willingness to maim mitigates some of these issues.

The stick in the pictures has no relation to the conversation barring hand postioning and movement/postioning of the weapon, for the record. 

I really wish there was some form of stat to see if baseball will help you in using a baseball bat as a weapon.   Due to the need when swinging in timing and distance management.   (in terms of swining when the ball is in optimal range to your bat)



Also to my first reply here, they also use firearms in the first listed show.  and the prequel to train to busan has people (who arent military/police) using bats and the like and the military and police using firearms and riot equipment.        Just thought i would eleborate on that one further as it always annoys me when i think i should have more.       (i havent seen train to busan)


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2020)

Rat said:


> Its better than trying to bludeon someone with your hands.   Most weapons can be adapted into working in most situations.    Like i think the defendu cane(in manuals) can be adapted to a baseball bat well to make it work in said situations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except a ball doesn't slow down and feint as it's coming in.  A ball isn't trying not to be hit.  It's just flying along a path.

Have you been training martial arts?  I have no idea where you're getting the idea that simply throwing haymakers is a viable strategy in a fight.



Rat said:


> Better than nothing and sufficent to injure somone with.     The only time i have seen people loose a bat is they messed up distance and timing, which is a aquired skill.  (i am willing to belive if they did a bat sport (recently) that would be mitigated as well, as swinging is all about distance and timing of the ball)   I am not counting the videos you see where they stand there talking and get punched in the face.  I think we all know the one i mean.
> 
> Distance and timing seem more perishable skills than how to hold a object. At least, former is faster to loose than latter.   I will accept some form of study as contary or support to that statement, just out of instest if any exists.
> 
> ...



Instead of trying to logic your way through it, you can take lessons from people who actually know how to use those weapons and actually train with them.  Your thoughts on how to use a stick weapon like a spear (which has an edge and a point, is why it's used that way) make no sense at all.



jobo said:


> well no, if you can bludgen someone with your hand its not '' better'' to bludgeoning some one with a club, the end result is the same they are lying bludgeoned on the floor,
> 
> non fire arm weapons are force multipliers that's true but they are very situation and comparative skill dependent
> 
> as above if your trying to swing a bat or stick in a confined space they can be a lot less effective than your fist,   i've taken a whole variety of weapons off people over the years, because i had far better reflexes and they had next to no idea how to use them, they swing, they miss i get them,. if someone was trying to hit me with that stick, they may (but probably wont) hit me once, if that doesn't result in me being unconscious, then they have lost, il take it off them and stick it up their @@@@



Jobo, he's not talking about confined space (I think).  He's talking about swinging the bat like you would if you were trying to hit a ball, instead of swinging like you're trying to hit a person.


----------



## jobo (Jan 7, 2020)

Rat said:


> First:  You basically admitted weapons are a force muiltiplier so no dispute. But, it is objectively better in hitting somone with a weapon, as it puts your body at less risk and is pending material and construct of the weapon, easier to hurt them, with less risk to yourself.
> 
> Second:   That is the obvous weakness of a baseballbat and why i posted defendu sitck work as a example to a way to make it function better especially in confined spaces. But with some practice im sure you can use a baseball bat like you would in baseball and get timing etc down for combat.   (just most people dont do that, and not so much in confied spaces)   But then, plenty of people have been beaten with people with baseball bats or other weapons that have had little practice etc.   Willing to belive aggression and willingness to maim mitigates some of these issues.
> 
> ...


its hard enough getting some of these concepts accross to people who have been training unrealisticaly, its just about impossible with people like you who have only ever seen unreastic demonstrations on you tube etal'

hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit with a big stick is very very difficult, with a BBB there's a sweet spot of say 8' , if they move a foot closer to you then all the force is gone, if they move 6'' inches back you miss.

if you miss, you've lost, the more ''force'' you put into the initial swing, the more wide open you are to a counter attack.

the less force you put in the easier it is for them to avoid the bat. its a once chance thing

if i had my choice of club, it would be an old style( short) policeman truncheon, they gave them longer trounchens as they kept killing people with the short ones


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 7, 2020)

skribs said:


> I have no idea where you're getting the idea that simply throwing haymakers is a viable strategy in a fight.




That works for me....when the attacker is doing it


----------



## drop bear (Jan 7, 2020)

jobo said:


> well no, if you can bludgen someone with your hand its not '' better'' to bludgeoning some one with a club, the end result is the same they are lying bludgeoned on the floor,
> 
> non fire arm weapons are force multipliers that's true but they are very situation and comparative skill dependent
> 
> as above if your trying to swing a bat or stick in a confined space they can be a lot less effective than your fist,   i've taken a whole variety of weapons off people over the years, because i had far better reflexes and they had next to no idea how to use them, they swing, they miss i get them,. if someone was trying to hit me with that stick, they may (but probably wont) hit me once, if that doesn't result in me being unconscious, then they have lost, il take it off them and stick it up their @@@@



Different argument.

But let's say he is using a baseball bat like a rifle. So held low barrel strike but strike kind of thing. You could hold a hallway like that.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 7, 2020)

jobo said:


> its hard enough getting some of these concepts accross to people who have been training unrealisticaly, its just about impossible with people like you who have only ever seen unreastic demonstrations on you tube etal'
> 
> hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit with a big stick is very very difficult, with a BBB there's a sweet spot of say 8' , if they move a foot closer to you then all the force is gone, if they move 6'' inches back you miss.
> 
> ...



Ignoring the insult,i stated "with training", you will learn the dyanmics of the weapon and be able to fight with it better. I would also state some playful sparring would probbly teach you it or trying to use it as a weapon in shadow fighting would.   (lesser degree)

I also didnt dispute any of that about baseball bats having blindspots etc, nor do i belive i over estimated its use's as a swinging weapon.    You just arent going to have a fun day if you get one over your head.  (which happens enough, and the swing is null if you adopt a diffrent way of fighting with it)


Lastly, personal prefrence cant dispute that.  Just for the record didnt ask for prefrence of weapon. Nor state mine.         But i will now, i would prefer a friction locked baton for portable cyaldrical objects. (not including toches and things that can double as weapons)




drop bear said:


> But let's say he is using a baseball bat like a rifle. So held low barrel strike but strike kind of thing. You could hold a hallway like that.



i dont have one to test it, but i belive it would be functional.   And thats what i was trying to explain and show.   (i also didnt say i would use  a baseball bat like a rifle just i would just longer sticks like that)

Also i fully agree.

Edit: i stated swings would be a issue in confined spaces, so going off that, you would want to adopt a diffrent means of fighting with it.    I cited defendu stick work predominately for confined spaces as a seeming useful method to adopt. but YOU CAN use the methods i cited for confined spaces in more open spaces, if its better or not seems subjective and down to personal prefrence.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 7, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> what does that make you?



A valuble assest to the security sector.   

(couldnt resist sorry)


----------



## skribs (Jan 7, 2020)

Rat said:


> i stated "with training", you will learn the dyanmics of the weapon and be able to fight with it better.





Rat said:


> i dont have one to test it, but i belive it would be functional. And thats what i was trying to explain and show. (i also didnt say i would use a baseball bat like a rifle just i would just longer sticks like that)



So you first recognize you need training to understand the weapon.  Then you say you don't even have the weapon to test if your theories work, let alone the training or experience.  So I have to ask - what are you basing your knowledge off of?  Are you basing it off of articles you read, videos you saw on youtube?  Movies?  Or just your own imagination?



The Ninjutsuist said:


> I teeter totter or flip flop on that a lot but I don't think I'm the bad guy. Nihilistic, cynical & autistic yes but I don't think I'm a bad guy just sorta a psychopath.



"Just sorta a psychopath", "nihilistic and cynical", yeah you sound like the baddie.


----------



## jobo (Jan 7, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Different argument.
> 
> But let's say he is using a baseball bat like a rifle. So held low barrel strike but strike kind of thing. You could hold a hallway like that.


 a lee enfield rifle say weighs nearly 10 lbs, a bbb less than 2lb, there not really comparable as poking weapon and the bbb is somewhat shorter, a rifle will break a rib, a bbb give you a bit of a bruise really you may as well throw bags of sugar at him. a 4ft pick axe handle ! now your talking

can you hold a hallway, maybe, what weapon has he got ? how determined is he to get past, if your stood between him and the exit with the police on their way, you may have a fight on your hands. a bruised rib against a stretch inside sounds a fair trade


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 7, 2020)

The Ninjutsuist said:


> I teeter totter or flip flop on that a lot but I don't think I'm the bad guy. Nihilistic, cynical & autistic yes but I don't think I'm a bad guy just sorta a psychopath.


Just to clarify, when you say you are a psychopath, are you suggesting you have antisocial personality disorder, meaning you fit the following criteria (according to the DSM-5)?



> A. Significant impairments in personality functioning manifest by:
> 1. Impairments in self functioning (a or b): a.Identity: Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure. b.Self-direction: Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior.
> AND 2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b): a.Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another. b.Intimacy: Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others.
> 
> ...



Or is it just a way for you to say "I like to fight and am a selfish person"?


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 7, 2020)

jobo said:


> science fiction good
> fantasy fiction bad
> zombie bears with crash helmets very very bad,


I think you meant to say “zombie bears with crash helmets = awesome!”


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 8, 2020)

I pretty much skipped through the posts on weapons, and just read the zombie posts.

Thank you for a very entertaining thread... hilarious XD


----------



## drop bear (Jan 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> its hard enough getting some of these concepts accross to people who have been training unrealisticaly, its just about impossible with people like you who have only ever seen unreastic demonstrations on you tube etal'
> 
> hitting someone who doesn't want to be hit with a big stick is very very difficult, with a BBB there's a sweet spot of say 8' , if they move a foot closer to you then all the force is gone, if they move 6'' inches back you miss.
> 
> ...



Cold steel Brooklyn shorty.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> Ignoring the insult,i stated "with training", you will learn the dyanmics of the weapon and be able to fight with it better. I would also state some playful sparring would probbly teach you it or trying to use it as a weapon in shadow fighting would.   (lesser degree)
> 
> I also didnt dispute any of that about baseball bats having blindspots etc, nor do i belive i over estimated its use's as a swinging weapon.    You just arent going to have a fun day if you get one over your head.  (which happens enough, and the swing is null if you adopt a diffrent way of fighting with it)
> 
> ...



I was a dms instructor in hocks system for a while there. Which was pretty much that.


----------



## jobo (Jan 8, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Cold steel Brooklyn shorty.


that's a very expensive rounders bat !

but yes a much more flexible weapon


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> can you hold a hallway, maybe, what weapon has he got ? how determined is he to get past, if your stood between him and the exit with the police on their way, you may have a fight on your hands. a bruised rib against a stretch inside sounds a fair trade



you hold or you die.       and that sounds like a throwaway film line.       And i have knives so i would use one of them.(and they are the easiest to reach if something goes bump in the night)      And you dont have to wait THAT long if somone is breaking in/you are engaged in fighting they stick that at the top of the list as immediate harm can happen.  So you should unless they are busy with priority calls, get their highest response time.  Plus, most criminals leave if they are engaged.  Unless the intent is to murder you, but then as we should all know fighting back increases the chance of you surving as plenty GTFO when they find out you arent a push over.   (not everyone but enough for it to be valid/a rule, but for all rules exeptions exist)   its mainly the fact some burglars will run away when caught others will charge you.   or if they are trying to murder you etc, but engagement increases your chances of living as you are proving you arent a victim, so long as you dont prevent them from leaving i mean. 

and adreniline does weird things to people.   also if they dont disengage when trying to kill you, you either kill them or they kill you.  there is not much more to say on the matter, you are kind of forced into said situation if they break into your home with intent to murder you. 





Also if i brought a SMLE to said situation why wouldnt i shoot them?  No mention of it being a decommisioned SMLE.  And in this said fantasy scenerio it would be lawful for me to shoot them if i could lawfully bring a live SMLE to the situation.






drop bear said:


> Cold steel Brooklyn shorty.



Given my intrest in weapons and the like, you can imagine i will have a few things laying around.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

skribs said:


> o you first recognize you need training to understand the weapon. Then you say you don't even have the weapon to test if your theories work, let alone the training or experience. So I have to ask - what are you basing your knowledge off of? Are you basing it off of articles you read, videos you saw on youtube? Movies? Or just your own imagination?



just to get this out the bag.  Cite a martial art that uses the baseball bat. As a proper weapon and a specfic weapon to their training.   (and schools are common enough for nearly everyone to attend) And it has to be one of the first things you learn for the point to be valid. 


I used "training" to mean, if you take it outside and "play around" with it, you will understand its dyanmics.  there is nothing special about this nor anything you need to seek out any sort of "proffesional" for.  you get a feel for a object and its dynamics when you use it.      I dont personally have a baseball bat i am working from its aprox length and looking for things that use similary sized objects.  (given drop bear has cited the cold steel bat line which come in several lengths)      and obviosuly weight changes based on material and size and if you get a regulation bat or not.   (which changes the characteristics per org)

I also dont have suffcient training equipment to put it to a full pressure test if i had a baseball bat.    (and no training versions really exist of it, as its not a martial weapon)


You are also vastly under estimating how easy it is to learn to use a weapon so-so effectively especially discussing averages here.   i have also stated i would rather take a knife and have more access to them. I understand you need to practice a little to get some of the skills you need down and to understand your weapon to use it, but i have a feeling you think you need to spend a lot of time to be suffcient in learning how to use it.  

the real question here is, do i have to seek out potetionally expensive and time consuming self proclaimed experts, or is what i can do at home, or with a sparring partner suffcient to half sword a baseball bat and force somone out of my home? or go swining mad on them? or a mix of both?       and yes unarmed fighting happens when weapons are involved thats a reality of combat, you still get a edge with one.  (but i never mentioned not doing unarmed fighting alongside it)

i firmly sit in the, self practice is suffcient to deal with the common criminal.   And if we want to play what if's, what if 8 people storm into your home with armour and automatic weapons?   (which can happen in some places)


Also, just because it mildly bothers me when people act like you need to dump years into twirling a staff to use it correctly, look up how easily spears and simulated spears (staff's) do against swords?  and the people using them have 0 training in them.  or have a "you hold it like this".    The spear/polearm has dominated many pre firearm battlefields and earlt firearm battlefields.    and all it is, is a long wooden cylader with a bit of pointy metal at the end in its simpliest cofnigeration.   Or even a sharpened wooden cylander.       Not fully related to the argument at hand, a pet peeve of mine though. (related to the thread though somewhat)


----------



## jobo (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> just to get this out the bag.  Cite a martial art that uses the baseball bat. As a proper weapon and a specfic weapon to their training.   (and schools are common enough for nearly everyone to attend) And it has to be one of the first things you learn for the point to be valid.
> 
> 
> I used "training" to mean, if you take it outside and "play around" with it, you will understand its dyanmics.  there is nothing special about this nor anything you need to seek out any sort of "proffesional" for.  you get a feel for a object and its dynamics when you use it.      I dont personally have a baseball bat i am working from its aprox length and looking for things that use similary sized objects.  (given drop bear has cited the cold steel bat line which come in several lengths)      and obviosuly weight changes based on material and size and if you get a regulation bat or not.   (which changes the characteristics per org)
> ...


no your pet peeve is people telling you you need to take some formal training, and you really do if you want to reach any level of proficiency, unless you happen to be extroidany gifted and even then you will be better again with high quality instruction

can you learn how to fight proficiently with a base ball bat on your own just twirling it about. NO

the best use you could put a baseball bat to is hitting fast moving baseballs with it, which is very difficult. it will do absolute wonder for you spatial awareness, co ordinations and reactions. further down the line you may be able to hit a fast moving person with it.

other than that hitting a punch bag may improve your coordination a bit, but they don't move or hit back

you cant really practice realistically with a partner as if you ever do manage to hit them, they are going to the hospital.

all base ball bats irrespective of the material are much the same weight for length, with some variation for individual preference. make them to heavy and you cant accelerate them, make them to light and there much reduced momentum, they all have to be in that zone. you don't even know that, so i'm at a loss as to why you think you can tell people how to train with or use  them


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2020)

The Ninjutsuist said:


> I'm 32 & angry. Things develop over the years when people treat you like **** all your life.



When they develop to the point you want to hurt people, that's called being the bad guy.


Rat said:


> just to get this out the bag.  Cite a martial art that uses the baseball bat. As a proper weapon and a specfic weapon to their training.   (and schools are common enough for nearly everyone to attend) And it has to be one of the first things you learn for the point to be valid.
> 
> 
> I used "training" to mean, if you take it outside and "play around" with it, you will understand its dyanmics.  there is nothing special about this nor anything you need to seek out any sort of "proffesional" for.  you get a feel for a object and its dynamics when you use it.      I dont personally have a baseball bat i am working from its aprox length and looking for things that use similary sized objects.  (given drop bear has cited the cold steel bat line which come in several lengths)      and obviosuly weight changes based on material and size and if you get a regulation bat or not.   (which changes the characteristics per org)
> ...



Yes, you do need an expert. This guy tells the story - he had wrestling experience, and he tried to learn BJJ at home.  And he feels like all that time was wasted.





When you train by yourself, at home, even if you have videos and articles at your disposal, what you're missing is:

Feedback on your technique from the instructor
Commentary on the technique organic to your training session
Competent partners to spar against
You just don't want to admit that experts know more than you.  You would rather reinvent the wheel than admit it's okay to take lessons.  For some reason, you see it as a weakness to follow the advice of someone with more experience than you, instead of a strength.  And so you come in with a ton of suppositions, most of them wrong.  You come in with a ton of theories that you have no testing or experience to back them up.  You have ideas on how things work, that it seems you put a lot of mental effort into.  So go take some classes and actually learn something.  Get someone to focus that mental effort into actual training, instead of just theorycrafting.


----------



## jobo (Jan 8, 2020)

and as ive said several times there not a very good weapon, there are designed to be used with two hands, there effective weight is to great to use them effectively one handed. there to short to be a good proding weapon and to blunt/ not heavy enough to be a good stabbing weapon

they have a gangsta reputation, but so does holding you gun sideways over your head and blasting off caps in the rough direction of your target and that not good either.

the safest place to be in a gangsta shootout is right next to the intended target


----------



## drop bear (Jan 8, 2020)




----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 8, 2020)

drop bear said:


>


I’ve had the chance to train a bit of Irish stick fighting with @lklawson, but we didn’t do any dancing with whiskey bottles. I feel cheated.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

jobo said:


> no your pet peeve is people telling you you need to take some formal training, and you really do if you want to reach any level of proficiency, unless you happen to be extroidany gifted and even then you will be better again with high quality instruction



Several seperate arguments here you have combined.    My pet peeve is people over estimating how long it takes to become profincint with certain weapons (the spear in this case)and how easy it is to use them.  if you wish to argue that point, ARGUE THAT POINT.          My fundemental point on training is, it doesnt take as long as some people belive and think it does to become proficint with many weapons to use them in a defensive manner against the common criminal.  i dont dispute if you get good isntruction and spend more time on training well that you get better at using them.      But there are still more cost effective and time effective methods at learning weapon skills than going to your standard TMA school.  (if they even teach you how to fight with them)






Most people in that to my knowledge have little training in how to use a spear, please tell me how exeptional they are because they learnt to use a easy to use weapon and a effective one that doesnt take long to use effectively? 



jobo said:


> can you learn how to fight proficiently with a base ball bat on your own just twirling it about. NO



Never stated to twirl a baseball bat around.   



jobo said:


> other than that hitting a punch bag may improve your coordination a bit, but they don't move or hit back


Punching bags do move and there are a varity of moving targets you could use, i did also state to use a partner and a partner is the best form of training.  



jobo said:


> you cant really practice realistically with a partner as if you ever do manage to hit them, they are going to the hospital.



That is a issue a lot(if not all) of weapons fall under, the issue it mitigated with correct PPE and restraint.  And using (if avalible) safe training versions of the weapons.    And unarmed falls under this issue as well, just to a lesser degree.  



jobo said:


> all base ball bats irrespective of the material are much the same weight for length, with some variation for individual preference. make them to heavy and you cant accelerate them, make them to light and there much reduced momentum, they all have to be in that zone. you don't even know that, so i'm at a loss as to why you think you can tell people how to train with or use them



Never stated that they vary that much, just stated that they can in dimensions, and that variences do exist.    If it came out as me stating it like they vary a lot then thats on my typex of the issue.  



jobo said:


> and as ive said several times there not a very good weapon, there are designed to be used with two hands, there effective weight is to great to use them effectively one handed. there to short to be a good proding weapon and to blunt/ not heavy enough to be a good stabbing weapon



I second that general notion, but you use what you have, and as we started discussing bats i was discussing how to make them work as a weapon if you had nothing else.     I also didnt state they would be a good stabbing weapon.       I have seen some people in role plays with bats swing one handed though.   So some people do use them one handed at least some of the time.


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> Several seperate arguments here you have combined.    My pet peeve is people over estimating how long it takes to become profincint with certain weapons (the spear in this case)and how easy it is to use them.  if you wish to argue that point, ARGUE THAT POINT.          My fundemental point on training is, it doesnt take as long as some people belive and think it does to become proficint with many weapons to use them in a defensive manner against the common criminal.  i dont dispute if you get good isntruction and spend more time on training well that you get better at using them.      But there are still more cost effective and time effective methods at learning weapon skills than going to your standard TMA school.  (if they even teach you how to fight with them)



First off, why are you assuming that "TMA" is the only schools that will teach you?

Second, your opinions on how important training is to martial arts is by far in the minority.  You need quality instruction and training partners to sharpen your skills.  You're not gonna get that without training in a school built to teach it.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 8, 2020)

*Admin's Note:*

I've cleaned out a lot of the posts that were starting to cause a ruckuss.  Please keep this discussion civil.  

While you do have the courtesy of attacking someone's message, attacking the messenger is flat-out forbidden, and will result in the issuance of warning points.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

Edit:  @Grenadier    Apologies, didnt see the notice until i posted this.     If it breaks any rules.






skribs said:


> When you train by yourself, at home, even if you have videos and articles at your disposal, what you're missing is:
> 
> Feedback on your technique from the instructor
> Commentary on the technique organic to your training session
> ...




My issues stem here:   Who determines who is a expert?  Do they have evidence of said expertise?  Are they economcially viable?  Are they viable time wise?  Do they actually teach the skills you want to know?*


*Dont respond with "its about what you need, not want", that is a cherry pick.   If i conceal carry a handgun and want to learn to use it i will seek out firearm couses for the carrying and usage of a handgun.  it doesnt matter if i "need" unarmed skills, i will be seeking out predominately pistol based instruction. (which some courses do contained unarmed skils)  Edit: And what somone needs is based on their own personal situation to a large degree, which only THEY can know.


Now for individual replies to points:



skribs said:


> You just don't want to admit that experts know more than you.



I dispute who is a expert and who determines that.    I dont dispute some people know more than me, but a arbitary status you can give yourself really doesnt matter to me, i still want a explination of said points.   Also "experts" can be wrong, everyone is fallible.  Edit:  The term expert itself is partly subjective to the knowledge of a subject by all parties.   Eg one can be a expert in alegebra because they know the basics to one who doesnt know it. 



skribs said:


> You would rather reinvent the wheel than admit it's okay to take lessons.


I dont belive i stated they are bad? Nor do i dispute if you have good tutution the more you do that the better you become.

But it falls down to, do you have good tutution?  Pragmatic weapon training isnt as common as unarmed skills.  And classes are very much over rated.  People over estimate how long it takes to learn how to use them to a acceptable degree to defend yourself against the common criminal.   It doesnt take you 8 years of unarmed study to learn to use a stick.And then thats a 8 year gamble they actually teach you to fight with it and not just twirl it around.




skribs said:


> For some reason, you see it as a weakness to follow the advice of someone with more experience than you, instead of a strength. And so you come in with a ton of suppositions, most of them wrong.



I dont, i am rightfully skeptial of this sector.     Also evidence when that does happen, again everyone is infallible.  A point i made a year ago that might be incorrect isnt relivent now, deal with it as and when it happens. Is what i mean by the latter part.    (also not the time or place to bring up a point i said earlier to prove this point, stick with this argument, i dont dispute the point i am fallible)



skribs said:


> You come in with a ton of theories that you have no testing or experience to back them up. You have ideas on how things work, that it seems you put a lot of mental effort into. So go take some classes and actually learn something. Get someone to focus that mental effort into actual training, instead of just theorycrafting.



Above comment plus:    How do you know i have not put them to the test or taken them from a accurate source?   Do you have anything better than the fundemental point of "you dont train so i cant have a opinion"? (Even though i have, and have stated i actively do "train")   Plus i also actively practice thrusting a staff and advancing and retreating in a guard with it, is that not training?  That is a lot more practice than what most other people do.  Would that be "training" because i paid somone £500 to show me how to go into the guard and thrust a stick?  When i can do both acceptably now?
And surprise surprise, weapon martial arts and practice is uncommon.   It dies and comes back peroidically but it is still vastly underpopulated comapred to unarmed.  And of the weapon ones, only X amount of them train and use weapons viable to the modern world and arent hisotrical.   Or even about proper fighting anymore.   (and no one can claim they are a expert in how to fight with a spear, thats a obsolete weapon)


If i were to tell you i did practice with a bat, would you belive me anyway for it to be of any point to relay or consiquence to relay?  I cited a source from a fairly proven comabtive system about a potentionally useful method to use a bat in confined spaces and in general other than swinging it. Is that not a valid point because i relayed it could work when applied to a bat?

Edit: I also didnt expect anyone to take my word for it, so if they wanted to try it out and had a bat and the safety equipment to try it out.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> But it falls down to, do you have good tutution?  Pragmatic weapon training isnt as common as unarmed skills.  And classes are very much over rated.  People over estimate how long it takes to learn how to use them to a acceptable degree to defend yourself against the common criminal.   It doesnt take you 8 years of unarmed study to learn to use a stick.And then thats a 8 year gamble they actually teach you to fight with it and not just twirl it around.


Just responding to this point, as I don't feel like getting involved in the whole argument. If you're focus is weapons-based training, don't go train somewhere that's primarily unarmed, where you will spend 8 years unarmed before seeing their weapon stuff. Go to somewhere that plays a large focus on weapons. At my current school, you pick up either a stick or a knife (or more likely both) the first day of training. You will probably see people sparring that first day as well. You can make your own judgments before you have to put money or time into it.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat, you joined a forum full of people with decades of training, experience, and credentials, but the volume of authoritive claims that you produce vastly outpaces all of them collectively. 

Now, you're challenging the legitimacy of anyone/everyone's expertise and at the same time suggesting that your on-line research makes you equally or more credible in this field.

Does that seem even a little bit absurd to you? It's coming across that way to me and apparently, I'm not alone.


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> Edit:  @Grenadier    Apologies, didnt see the notice until i posted this.     If it breaks any rules.
> 
> I dispute who is a expert and who determines that.    I dont dispute some people know more than me, but a arbitary status you can give yourself really doesnt matter to me, i still want a explination of said points.   Also "experts" can be wrong, everyone is fallible.  Edit:  The term expert itself is partly subjective to the knowledge of a subject by all parties.   Eg one can be a expert in alegebra because they know the basics to one who doesnt know it.



I picked this part specifically.  You don't know enough to determine who is an expert and who isn't.  I don't just mean in general.  I mean that you, specifically, don't have the first-hand knowledge of martial arts training enough to make that determination.  You hide behind articles and supposed logic, but it's all excuses to keep yourself from training.  You've deluded yourself into thinking that training is optional to build skill.

I remember the very first post you made on this site, where you said the hook punch is a bad punch because you can hurt your hand.  This was based on you trying to learn how to do a hook punch yourself, doing it wrong and hurting yourself.  Rather than seek training on how to hook punch successfully, you just said it was a bad punch in the article you wrote on the various types of punches.  As far as I can tell, this is the ceiling you can get by training on your own.  It's something we've been saying for years to you now, but you're still too stubborn to let anyone else try and teach you how to fight.

Most people who teach martial arts did not give themselves an arbitrary status.  Most people who teach martial arts have decades of experience and certifications from their instructor or their organization, proving they are qualified to teach what they are teaching.  Most people who teach martial arts have learned how to teach martial arts, and what it takes for their students to be successful.  To quote the Farmer's Insurance commercial, we know a thing or two, because we've seen a thing or two.  Your experience in martial arts training is so lacking, you don't even know what you don't know.  

Now, please don't take this as an insult.  I'm just trying to help you humble yourself enough that you can actually go and get training.  I think a lot of us on this forum have.  You seem to love the idea of martial arts, based on your post count and the length you put into each of them.  But you gotta train.  MartialTalk, YouTube, and Google aren't enough.  You gotta put your feet on the mat and the gloves on your hands, you've got to square off against people that are better than you, you've got to have someone who can look at your technique and tell you how you can do it faster, stronger, and safer.  

Even I, as a 3rd degree black belt, still learn things from my Master, like tips on how to increase the power of some of my kicks.  A lot of these are things I probably wouldn't have learned by horsing around with my friends.  I've got 10 years of being trained, and I still need the advice of people with more expertise than me.  Are there some people who are higher rank than me who don't know as much as me?  Yes.  Are there some people running schools that aren't very good teachers or martial artists?  Yes.  But the existence of bad schools doesn't warrant a blanket excuse that you shouldn't train martial arts because the teachers are bad.

It's an excuse, either borne of arrogance or laziness, or possibly both.  Arrogance in that you think you're smarter than all of the experts.  Laziness in that you don't want to actually train, and are quite happy just being a keyboard ninja.  This excuse that the expert might not be that great is just an excuse that's holding you back.  If you have as much passion for martial arts as your posts here suggest, then set aside your hubris and actually take classes.  Learn enough that you know what you don't know, and then learn that as well.

I've got 10 years in TKD, 4 years in HKD, and 3 years of wrestling.  I'm currently training TKD and HKD.  I lament the fact that I don't have time in my schedule to also train boxing, wrestling, muay thai, wing chun, kali, judo, and bjj in addition to what I'm training now.  I wish I had the opportunity to learn from as many experts as I could, so I could have as much knowledge, technique, and experience as I could possibly get.  For you, I wish you would find one expert that you could trust enough to actually teach you.

As to the last part about algebra...you could still learn from someone who knows the basics better than you.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> Just responding to this point, as I don't feel like getting involved in the whole argument. If you're focus is weapons-based training, don't go train somewhere that's primarily unarmed, where you will spend 8 years unarmed before seeing their weapon stuff. Go to somewhere that plays a large focus on weapons. At my current school, you pick up either a stick or a knife (or more likely both) the first day of training. You will probably see people sparring that first day as well. You can make your own judgments before you have to put money or time into it.



Fully agree, its just more uncommon to find weapons about.  (to which i would do doing weapons if i had a place to do them at)

Edit:  I partly added a tangent about how they are uncommon in comparision. Which to be fair, if you know how i write on this forum at all, you should know i go into rants and tagents midway through a point.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> Rat, you joined a forum full of people with decades of training, experience, and credentials, but the volume of authoritive claims that you produce vastly outpaces all of them collectively.
> 
> Now, you're challenging the legitimacy of anyone/everyone's expertise and at the same time suggesting that your on-line research makes you equally or more credible in this field.
> 
> Does that seem even a little bit absurd to you? It's coming across that way to me and apparently, I'm not alone.



I dont belive i am?    To any of those claims.   


I write in a neutral way which can give off a certain tone.       And i dont belive i have claimed i am a  authority nor rival one?  Nor brought up anyones legitimachy here directly in the context of they havent personally done  X years doing Y.  

I brought up how i am skeptical, and experts can be fallible and how does one judge a expert.   and also how if you hold the status of expert doesnt matter to if i discuss soemthing with you, if you dont relay the point.        Given the context to the subject matter of this forum, how you judge a expert and who determiens who is one seems fairly valid.  


PRIVATE MESSAGE me with a quote of the statement(s) that trouble you/give you that impression i might have mis worded something.    I dont see much of a need to go that far off topic in this. And it seems easier to go into detail via Private messages.     ( i might start a conversation with you)


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont belive i am?    To any of those claims.
> 
> 
> I write in a neutral way which can give off a certain tone.       And i dont belive i have claimed i am a  authority nor rival one?  Nor brought up anyones legitimachy here directly in the context of they havent personally done  X years doing Y.
> ...



In this thread you've said you are the one who determines who is an expert.  In other threads you've argued over the terminology of an art.  There's also quite a few times you talk about a subject as if you're an expert, when it's clear you've only read an article or seen a video on it.

You also brought this up as a counter-point to the general suggestion that training is important.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont belive i am?    To any of those claims.
> 
> ...PRIVATE MESSAGE me with a quote of the statement(s) that trouble you/give you that impression i might have mis worded something.    I dont see much of a need to go that far off topic in this. And it seems easier to go into detail via Private messages.     ( i might start a conversation with you)



No thanks. As someone who has trained in this field for...~25 years AND had enough real world experience to regret a good bit of it, I feel like I've given you good advice. I expect that you will ignore it and 100% of the rest of the advice you get from people offering it and continue doing exactly what you do. I don't think it's going to work out the way that you think it is, assuming that you even have a plan, but you're free to live your life and it really doesn't effect me one way or another.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> No thanks. As someone who has trained in this field for...~25 years AND had enough real world experience to regret a good bit of it, I feel like I've given you good advice. I expect that you will ignore it and 100% of the rest of the advice you get from people offering it and continue doing exactly what you do. I don't think it's going to work out the way that you think it is, assuming that you even have a plan, but you're free to live your life and it really doesn't effect me one way or another.




Fair enough then.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont belive i am?    To any of those claims.
> 
> 
> I write in a neutral way which can give off a certain tone.       And i dont belive i have claimed i am a  authority nor rival one?  Nor brought up anyones legitimachy here directly in the context of they havent personally done  X years doing Y.
> ...


You sometimes state things as factual when they are not definitively factual. If you'd like, I can point it out each time I see it going forwards. I'll just quote it without any words afterwards. I'd go through and point it out from this thread, but honestly I've read through it a couple times at this point and don't feel like going through all of it yet again just to find examples.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

kempodisciple said:


> You sometimes state things as factual when they are not definitively factual. If you'd like, I can point it out each time I see it going forwards. I'll just quote it without any words afterwards. I'd go through and point it out from this thread, but honestly I've read through it a couple times at this point and don't feel like going through all of it yet again just to find examples.



Feel free to DM examples/eleborations.     Like i said its probably a typex issue.


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> Feel free to DM examples/eleborations.     Like i said its probably a typex issue.



You get the examples as you post them.  I've seen you called out on it time and time again.  This can't come as a surprise to you.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

skribs said:


> In this thread you've said you are the one who determines who is an expert.


I dont belive i did?    I asked "who determines who is a expert"   which can be re worded into   "how do you decide who/what a expert is" .   i never said only i judge who a expert is.    I also didnt state only you judge who one is.       Nor did i directly point fingers at anyone of not being one who claims to be one.   (i might have implied unintetionally, to any party there)     This is a very expansive argument which i think can be saved for another day and thread.  Whcih i think we can both agree on.  



skribs said:


> You also brought this up as a counter-point to the general suggestion that training is important.


 
I dont have such a view, you need to practice.     I eleborated my views on the matter to be, sometimes its overated and overstated.   And the training relies on where you get it from, and sometimes you can replicate the training methods at home effectively.     Im going to cite Kenjutsu here.   Sparring in that isnt as common as it used to be, so the classes are effectively you doing solo and paired drill.  Solo drill consitists of X amount of strikes and blocks and the logic there is to drill a large amount of people in the basics of how to use the weapon so-so effectively as fast as possible.     You can, more than likely do that at home sufficently to be good enough to beat somone who hasnt done it. That is as far as i know how Kenjutsu or some styles of it work, or worked.     (there are others like it, just for diffrent weapons/unarmed) 
I personally am a big beliver in sparring and its uses, but second best is paired forms.    if you can spend time sparring, do it.    

Not all bad habits arent that much of a problem if you are talking about defending yourself against a standard criminal who probbly would run if you fight back. (as stated expetions to rules exist, not all of them do, and not in all sitautions) Nor is not having perfect technique. 

Like you can learn how to do a dumbell curl via videos/diagrams, and thats how i learnt how to do a dumbell curl.   


Do those two eleborations of said points help you in anyway?


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont belive i did? I asked "who determines who is a expert" which can be re worded into "how do you decide who/what a expert is" . i never said only i judge who a expert is. I also didnt state only you judge who one is. Nor did i directly point fingers at anyone of not being one who claims to be one. (i might have implied unintetionally, to any party there) This is a very expansive argument which i think can be saved for another day and thread. Whcih i think we can both agree on.



_I dispute who is a expert and who determines that. I dont dispute some people know more than me, but a arbitary status you can give yourself really doesnt matter to me, i still want a explination of said points. Also "experts" can be wrong, everyone is fallible. Edit: The term expert itself is partly subjective to the knowledge of a subject by all parties. Eg one can be a expert in alegebra because they know the basics to one who doesnt know it._

Right here, you're basically assuming experts just nominate themselves, and saying that you have the authority on who is and isn't an expert.



Rat said:


> I dont have such a view, you need to practice. I eleborated my views on the matter to be, sometimes its overated and overstated. And the training relies on where you get it from, and sometimes you can replicate the training methods at home effectively. Im going to cite Kenjutsu here. Sparring in that isnt as common as it used to be, so the classes are effectively you doing solo and paired drill. Solo drill consitists of X amount of strikes and blocks and the logic there is to drill a large amount of people in the basics of how to use the weapon so-so effectively as fast as possible. You can, more than likely do that at home sufficently to be good enough to beat somone who hasnt done it. That is as far as i know how Kenjutsu or some styles of it work, or worked. (there are others like it, just for diffrent weapons/unarmed)
> I personally am a big beliver in sparring and its uses, but second best is paired forms. if you can spend time sparring, do it.



Are you taking lessons from an instructor?  Or are you doing this on your own?


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 8, 2020)

I should really stop, but...



Rat said:


> ... personally am a big beliver in sparring and its uses, but second best is paired forms.    if you can spend time sparring, do it.
> 
> Not all bad habits arent that much of a problem if you are talking about defending yourself against a standard criminal who probbly would run if you fight back. (as stated expetions to rules exist, not all of them do, and not in all sitautions) Nor is not having perfect technique.
> 
> ...



How much time have you spent sparring? How much time have you spent in "paired forms" (whatever that is)? Where does your expertise come from regarding violent responses to criminals?

The impression you give off here is that you have zero legitimate experience or training with any of these things. Yet you spend a lot of time appearing to lecture martial artists, teachers, and even LEOs on these subjects...and your mind is completely closed...so I'm not even sure what the point of all of this is.

It's exhausting.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

skribs said:


> Are you taking lessons from an instructor? Or are you doing this on your own?



In what context are you asking?  You replied to several points with that and it illudes me exactly what you mean.      in terms of what i wrote about kenjutsu, that was a example of how you could home study decently with access to a training partner and media on the subeject for how to cut etc.  

Just to re iterate, this is me stating you can get a acceptable standard via it.   

The bicep curl i learnt on my own only using diagrams and videos.   The point of me stating that is, do i need to have gone and paid for a personal trainer to learn that?  or can we agree some things you can pick up by yourself, or at least some people can.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 8, 2020)

How about this:

Bicep curls are reasonably simple and yeah, you can probably learn one from an illustration. But, that doesn't make you an athlete or a body builder and you probably shouldn't assert your expertise over a bunch of certified trainers.

Also, ever wonder why professional athletes still have trainers? Couldn't they also just learn on-their-own?

If you want to learn on-line go ahead, but please stop telling us how things are. You're not going to convince any of us and someone who may not know any better might mistake your confidence for expertise.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 8, 2020)

Regarding weapons: to a large extent they are intuitive.  Yes, you can figure out how to be dangerous with them, without getting instruction.  But your knowledge will be limited, your technique will be inefficient, and you may create bad habits that lead to injuring yourself.  Watch your fingers and toes!!

So when the zombie apocalypse arrives, go ahead and pick up that spear or sword or machete or tomahawk if you find one, and use it on the zombies.  It would be foolish not to.  You would be eaten for sure if you refuse to pick up a weapon that presents itself, on the grounds that youve never been taught how to use it.  But in your spare time, work on figuring out how to use it better.  If you meet another survivor who can teach to to use it better, follow his lessons. 

But yeah, use the damn thing; it’s fairly intuitive.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 8, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> How about this:
> 
> Bicep curls are reasonably simple and yeah, you can probably learn one from an illustration. But, that doesn't make you an athlete or a body builder and you probably shouldn't assert your expertise over a bunch of certified trainers.
> 
> ...



So we fundementally agree, you can learn certain things from Diagrams and media.  (text/videos etc)      Plenty of people do self  teach themselves gym things. As for atheltes, i can think of several reasons why they have trainers, one of which is they are provided to them as  part of a contracts etc.  And im sure many atheltes and especially body builders start off  by self teaching themselves things if they didnt get picked up in school or something. 

Also i have "take nobodies word for it" in my signature, its not like im not actively telling everyone to be skeptical of everything.    (on every post i make)


Oh and for earlier, pair kata. Or pending style just kata.  it might have a special name in some styles, but it varies.      Its just a set pattern of movement with 2 people, instead of one. So for example, one does a straight punch to the face, the other employs a specfic defensive action, then counter move.     As far as i gather and have been told, japanese styles tend to do  kata with 2 people, okinawan ones did the main solo practice.  (just as a quite big and simple generalisation)


----------



## jobo (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> In what context are you asking?  You replied to several points with that and it illudes me exactly what you mean.      in terms of what i wrote about kenjutsu, that was a example of how you could home study decently with access to a training partner and media on the subeject for how to cut etc.
> 
> Just to re iterate, this is me stating you can get a acceptable standard via it.
> 
> The bicep curl i learnt on my own only using diagrams and videos.   The point of me stating that is, do i need to have gone and paid for a personal trainer to learn that?  or can we agree some things you can pick up by yourself, or at least some people can.


I cant tell you how many pe people I've witnessed doing bicep curls incorrectly, hundreds, many hundreds, that's why god invented steroids, so no seems to be the answer,  people cant general teach themselves to curl


----------



## skribs (Jan 8, 2020)

Rat said:


> In what context are you asking?  You replied to several points with that and it illudes me exactly what you mean.      in terms of what i wrote about kenjutsu, that was a example of how you could home study decently with access to a training partner and media on the subeject for how to cut etc.
> 
> Just to re iterate, this is me stating you can get a acceptable standard via it.
> 
> The bicep curl i learnt on my own only using diagrams and videos.   The point of me stating that is, do i need to have gone and paid for a personal trainer to learn that?  or can we agree some things you can pick up by yourself, or at least some people can.



When you train martial arts, is it by yourself, or do you have an instructor?

Bicep curls are a relatively simple thing to learn compared to martial arts.  There is a lot more nuance that goes into how to punch a bag correctly than how to do a bicep curl correctly.  There is even more that goes into how to apply it to an actual person.  And even with the bicep curl, there are a lot of factors that it would be beneficial to have a trainer check your form and your program.

If you're training on your own, without an instructor, I don't see how you could ever get past a superficial understanding of the techniques and concepts.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 9, 2020)

skribs said:


> When you train martial arts, is it by yourself, or do you have an instructor?



Mixed.      I do stuff at home, and sometimes its not covered by anywhere in my town.  ie weapons.      But as i stated i have been getting back into it.  So for the weapon things i literally cannot, but i usually look for a video/diagram for how to do things and work off that.     I havent forgotten how to punch since when i used to go.   (never stated it was good, just i havent forgotten)



skribs said:


> Bicep curls are a relatively simple thing to learn compared to martial arts. There is a lot more nuance that goes into how to punch a bag correctly than how to do a bicep curl correctly. There is even more that goes into how to apply it to an actual person. And even with the bicep curl, there are a lot of factors that it would be beneficial to have a trainer check your form and your program.



i would state it more matters on what you are specfically doing than if its martial arts or not.       Some things you will be able to pick up fine, others not so much.   Basic concepts i belive should be fine if you have suffcient ifnormation on ahnd describing and illistrating what to do.   Like when i was taught to punch it was "form a fist, your good"*. and thats also why you spar, if you can so-so pull off soemthing against a resisting person, you probbly understand how to pull it off suffciently to use it.   

I think its kind of like using a firearm, if you have literally no idea what you are doing or cant grasp a concept, you need somone to run through the basics with you, if you have seene nough information on it, you could probbly figure it out suffciently.   So in general, if you get stuck and there is soemthing everyone cant cant grasp at some point, you will seek out a class, at home training isnt the end all be all, nor do i think you will get advanced concepts down, but it will at least be a stop gap for the basics       nd if you ever go to a class they run through the basics with everyone who starts usually.  


*I dont literally mean thats the only thing i got told, i was jsut poining out i knew how to form a fist so it wasnt a point i needed correcting on, they explained the whole hip drive, keep arms striagh when punching aim with first two knuckles etc.     And for the record, i didnt know any of that before i started, i think i tried a systema punch first time i went. I only knew how to form a fist.  



skribs said:


> If you're training on your own, without an instructor, I don't see how you could ever get past a superficial understanding of the techniques and concepts.



I dont think you really need to for the scope i am presenting.   



Was slightly rushed in this reply, if i left anything out let me know.   Also, yes i can only comprehend firearm anaologies.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 9, 2020)

jobo said:


> I cant tell you how many pe people I've witnessed doing bicep curls incorrectly, hundreds, many hundreds, that's why god invented steroids, so no seems to be the answer,  people cant general teach themselves to curl



Yeah. But that is the other side of the argument. You can very easily get hands on weapon training and get training that is a load of rubbish.

You are not going to find many practical knife or gun fighters. You will predominantly be learning from second hand sources. Who's first hand source isn't that great. Your first hand source might have shot or stabbed one guy.

And your experts tend to be weird anyway because they come from these military and police super authoritarian backgrounds so they just don't get called on their crap.

I have never met a weapons guy with the sort of insight say Danaher has.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> How about this:
> 
> Bicep curls are reasonably simple and yeah, you can probably learn one from an illustration. But, that doesn't make you an athlete or a body builder and you probably shouldn't assert your expertise over a bunch of certified trainers.
> 
> ...


Interestingly, I've seen a number of people doing bicep curls wrong. They thought they were doing them right, but were making mistakes. Some of those mistakes were small and unimportant at the level of their training - more about efficiency of results than anything else. Others were putting joints at risk, while still others were effectively changing the exercise so it didn't do what they wanted it to do.

All of these examples were being corrected by personal trainers or experienced bodybuilders in their first session. They probably also had many folks who did, in fact, do the bicep curl correctly before that first session. Those folks also thought they were doing it right.


----------



## jobo (Jan 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> Mixed.      I do stuff at home, and sometimes its not covered by anywhere in my town.  ie weapons.      But as i stated i have been getting back into it.  So for the weapon things i literally cannot, but i usually look for a video/diagram for how to do things and work off that.     I havent forgotten how to punch since when i used to go.   (never stated it was good, just i havent forgotten)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


this is just you '' logic'' cirle to support your decision not to pay for training

you may have been shown how to punch, you may just have actually managed to pick up the mechanics, but if you were to go in a ring with someone of similar physical attributes, who has undertake even three months of boxing training, you
a) wont be able to hit him
and
 b) will get hit very hard in return

your basic mechanics are of no use if you can't hit a fast moving target and get your nose broken whilst you missing

from self defence point of view you hoping that whoever attacks you is less skilled  than you are and as most people who attack others can throw a punch that's quite optimistic


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 9, 2020)

jobo said:


> this is just you '' logic'' cirle to support your decision not to pay for training
> 
> you may have been shown how to punch, you may just have actually managed to pick up the mechanics, but if you were to go in a ring with someone of similar physical attributes, who has undertake even three months of boxing training, you
> a) wont be able to hit him
> ...




I did set the criteria to be "the common criminal".  The ring is irrelivent.   I wouldnt step foot in it, unless i needed money and got paid irrelivent if i won a match or not.   Or without doing a training programe before it, as its just silly as every other person in those competitions would do that.    Also i did say about  the what if's, you can what if anything in place to make the odd's worse and worse, and like i said, 8 people armed with automatic weapons and armour.   it doesnt really acomplish that much to a argument, hence why i set the criteria to be self defence against the common criminal. And more specfically WITH WEAPONS.  YOU will be armed.   


But replying  breifly to the points made here:   I dont see how sparring differs that much from at a designated place to at home, nothing preludes sparring at one location to be better or worse than the other based on location.    The facts are, you are trying to hit somone who is trying to hit you in return, if you do that, its valid.    Just because they dont, or you dont fight like a boxer, MMA'ist, Judoka etc doesnt seem valid, and i would argue it could have some beenfit as unless  said person has trained in them, they wont fight like them.  All those habits etc untrained people do, you will be getting used to.     

Just quickly on the last point, on a self defence view i would be hoping no one throws a punch at me.  thats the entire point of self defence.  



And now i wish to return to the orginal argument about weapons, as disucssing my own habits, and unarmed fighting doesnt seem fully relivent for a thread predominately about weapons.    At least by itself and not if you get into grappling etc with one.   The dymanics of unarmed and armed fighting are certainly diffrent.  

if anyone wishes to semi rekindle the trainign time for weapons argument, quote this sentence.


----------



## jobo (Jan 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> I did set the criteria to be "the common criminal".  The ring is irrelivent.   I wouldnt step foot in it, unless i needed money and got paid irrelivent if i won a match or not.   Or without doing a training programe before it, as its just silly as every other person in those competitions would do that.    Also i did say about  the what if's, you can what if anything in place to make the odd's worse and worse, and like i said, 8 people armed with automatic weapons and armour.   it doesnt really acomplish that much to a argument, hence why i set the criteria to be self defence against the common criminal. And more specfically WITH WEAPONS.  YOU will be armed.
> 
> 
> But replying  breifly to the points made here:   I dont see how sparring differs that much from at a designated place to at home, nothing preludes sparring at one location to be better or worse than the other based on location.    The facts are, you are trying to hit somone who is trying to hit you in return, if you do that, its valid.    Just because they dont, or you dont fight like a boxer, MMA'ist, Judoka etc doesnt seem valid, and i would argue it could have some beenfit as unless  said person has trained in them, they wont fight like them.  All those habits etc untrained people do, you will be getting used to.
> ...


because competition against a competent opponent is the only way of testing your skills, infact its the only way to develop them

and the common criminal round here, is generally in quite good shape and in possession of basic fighting skills, like punching and avoiding getting punched, being fit and able to defend yourself is a bit of a prerequisite to be a common criminal, how long do you think drug dealers with no fighting skills last ? burglars that cant climb a drain pipe and out run the police? or muggers that get beaten up every time they say give me your wallet to anybody over 12

i suppose if you wanted to stretch the definition, as you generally want to do, then you could find a 60 yo shop lifter with arthritis, call her a common criminal and fight them, you might win that!


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 9, 2020)

I have a student who learned on-line and had/has a group of guys who he trained and sparred with weekly for a couple of years. Tough guy, a black eye means nothing to him and he is much younger and stronger than me.

When he started with me, it was kind of like trying to speak Spanish to someone who had been looking up words on Google translate, but didn't understand the language and had never met any Spanish speaking people. He made gestures that I recognized, but clearly didn't understand them and could not have used them to accomplish anything.

I asked him to stay off-line and pause his garage sparring for a bit. He's a great student and trained very hard and respectfully. His friends don't like to play with him anymore. He still spars with them occasionally, but he says that it's not really fun anymore because it's too easy and they've started putting restrictions on what he is allowed to do. I am working on arraging some training for him and a similar student with better trained opponents not of our style.

You're kidding yourself Rat. It would not take much for me or most of the people you are arguing with of that if you weren't just some anonymous kid on the internet. I would love a chance to help you develop into what you think you are, but I won't have that chance unless it turns out that you're from Seattle and can get over yourself, neither of which seem likely.

Wherever you live, there is someone in your town who would change your life for the better and I hope you put your hubris behind you someday and seek them out.

But, honestly I need to look away from your misguided drivel because my neck hurts from shaking my head so much.


----------



## skribs (Jan 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> Mixed.      I do stuff at home, and sometimes its not covered by anywhere in my town.  ie weapons.      But as i stated i have been getting back into it.  So for the weapon things i literally cannot, but i usually look for a video/diagram for how to do things and work off that.     I havent forgotten how to punch since when i used to go.   (never stated it was good, just i havent forgotten)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem is that without experience, you don't know what details you're missing about the technique, or what concepts you're missing.

People come to my classes all the time, with all sorts of book knowledge, logic, and home practice like you have. But their footwork is terrible, their timing is nonexistent, and they have no real sense of how to apply all of this knowledge. But that's okay, because they are  humble about it and there to learn.

I like how you give the example of how to punch, because your very first post on this site was an article about punches with so much misinformation in it. So obviously you can't learn to punch just from your method. 

What do you mean when you say you're  getting back into it? Because last I heard you hadn't. 

I'm  also curious your extent of firearms training. If I remember correctly, you're in a country where  firearms are heavily restricted.  Have you done competitions in things like 3 gun or IDPA to test how well you'd function with a firearm in a live situation?

I did an IDPA tournament once, and let me tell you: my internet research and solo range time did not prepare me to be competitive in that tournament.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 9, 2020)

As much as I agree with the folks here who point out the shortcomings of @Rat ‘s general approach of not getting instruction, I think that in this case he does have a valid point, which I tried to highlight in an earlier post.  That point is, many of the traditional weapons found in the martial arts, things like staff, stick, spear, sword, sai, are somewhat intuitive in how they are used.  On a very basic level it just isn’t rocket science.  You don’t need training nor good technique to understand that if you need to use the weapon against someone, you stab him with the pointy end, you cut him with the sharp edge, you bludgeon him with the blunt part, and any of a number of rudimentary thrusting or swinging motions can accomplish these things.  This can be effective against a variety of enemies, whether zombie or living.  You don’t need to be highly trained, or even trained on any level, in order to be a danger to your enemy if you pick up one of these weapons.  And I hold that this is true for improvised weapons such as baseball bats and crowbars as well.

Is that something that we can acknowledge and accept?

There is a whole host of issues beyond this that we can also acknowledge.  Without training, the full range of capabilities with each weapon will not be understood.  Technique will be sloppy and inefficient.  Bad habits that can lead to injury to oneself can be prevalent.  While being dangerous to one’s enemy, one can also be dangerous to one’s companions when technique is sloppy and careless.  There will be a lack of a systematic training methodology that will hinder or even halt any real advancement in skill.

These are the things that good instruction should overcome.  Can we all acknowledge and agree with this?

We can all understand that a fellow can be an effective fighter (empty-hand) without any training.  Some people just have a knack for it, they are tough fellows and they carry it out with aggression and athleticism, or just simple meanness.  We would never say that they could never fight unless they had instruction first, even if we might say that getting instruction could make them much better at it.  In fact, many many discussions here in the forums include the hypothetical “street fighter” who is a thug with a lot of experience, but without any training, and how this hypothetical person could have the advantage over many trained martial artists who lack that practical experience.  We see that scenario put forth over and over in discussions here, so the notion is not foreign to us.  I see this weapon discussion as being parallel and comparable.

Can we agree with that as well?

And lastly I will say that this holds true for firearms as well.  I grew up around guns, did a modest amount of hunting, have shot a variety of long guns and a smaller variety of handguns.  This was simple target shooting, nothing that was combat training or the such.  I’ve barely touched a firearm in a couple decades, and have not fired one in probably 25-30 years.  So I have a basic understanding, but definitely NOT highly trained.

If I had access to a firearm, and needed to defend my life, I absolutely hold that I could do it.  A higher level of training could make me better at it.  But nevertheless, I hold that the experience that I do have with it is enough for me to be effective.  Some of this is pretty intuitive.  I don’t need to imagine the absolute worst case scenario to justify what I might need to do.  That worst case scenario is highly unlikely.  Without having trained and prepared for that worst case scenario, I can still defend myself.  Without having spent hours and hours training with a particular firearm, I could still make effective use of it, If I needed to.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 9, 2020)

I can certainly agree that untrained people who pick up weapons can be dangerous bwith them. I know for a fact that not all good fighters were formally trained to be and not every with martial arts training is a good, or even competent fighter. No arguments from me on those points now or ever before. 

That's got nothing to do with the non-stop steam of ill-informed Rat-drivel that is plastered in virtually every thread on any subject posted on MT, though.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 9, 2020)

ShortBridge said:


> I can certainly agree that untrained people who pick up weapons can be dangerous bwith them. I know for a fact that not all good fighters were formally trained to be and not every with martial arts training is a good, or even competent fighter. No arguments from me on those points now or ever before.
> 
> That's got nothing to do with the non-stop steam of ill-informed Rat-drivel that is plastered in virtually every thread on any subject posted on MT, though.


I agree, but I think in this particular case he has a point, to which the response has been essentially “it cannot be done without good instruction first”.

I think that response is inaccurate.


----------



## jobo (Jan 9, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> As much as I agree with the folks here who point out the shortcomings of @Rat ‘s general approach of not getting instruction, I think that in this case he does have a valid point, which I tried to highlight in an earlier post.  That point is, many of the traditional weapons found in the martial arts, things like staff, stick, spear, sword, sai, are somewhat intuitive in how they are used.  On a very basic level it just isn’t rocket science.  You don’t need training nor good technique to understand that if you need to use the weapon against someone, you stab him with the pointy end, you cut him with the sharp edge, you bludgeon him with the blunt part, and any of a number of rudimentary thrusting or swinging motions can accomplish these things.  This can be effective against a variety of enemies, whether zombie or living.  You don’t need to be highly trained, or even trained on any level, in order to be a danger to your enemy if you pick up one of these weapons.  And I hold that this is true for improvised weapons such as baseball bats and crowbars as well.
> 
> Is that something that we can acknowledge and accept?
> 
> ...


thers a lot there so lets just pick a representave point,

the intuativness of weasons

so hitting a fast moving base ball with a bat is a simple intuitive thing. yet most people picking up a bat for the first time will not hit it cleanly or more like at all. maybe a glancing blow one in ten

if the same person picks up a bat for the similar intuitive action of hitting someone with it. if that person is taking evasive action. why do you think there success rate will be considerably higher ?


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 9, 2020)

Could someone fight off a burgular in your house with a baseball bat without training? Um...it probably depends on the burgular, but sure I guess. And TKD, Wing Chun, or BJJ will not make you better at that specifically.

Sure, Rat is right, I've been schooled. In truth, this thread started out citing zombie movies as evidence of something so the whole thing was beyond absurd to begin with. 

I stand behind every single thing that I wrote in this thread though. We were never on-topic to zombie fighting and ... Why do any of us even try?


----------



## Buka (Jan 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> But replying  breifly to the points made here:   I dont see how sparring differs that much from at a designated place to at home, nothing preludes sparring at one location to be better or worse than the other based on location.



Actually, bro, it does matter.

It's kind of like saying all food is the same regardless of what restaurant or home you eat it in.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 9, 2020)

skribs said:


> The problem is that without experience, you don't know what details you're missing about the technique, or what concepts you're missing.
> 
> People come to my classes all the time, with all sorts of book knowledge, logic, and home practice like you have. But their footwork is terrible, their timing is nonexistent, and they have no real sense of how to apply all of this knowledge. But that's okay, because they are  humble about it and there to learn.
> 
> ...



Fine. But does IDPA prepare you for a home invasion?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 9, 2020)

Buka said:


> Actually, bro, it does matter.
> 
> It's kind of like saying all food is the same regardless of what restaurant or home you eat it in.



Or so long as you are having fun the style doesn't matter.


----------



## jobo (Jan 9, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Fine. But does IDPA prepare you for a home invasion?


nothing but being ready and waiting with a pump again shot gun prepares you for a home invasion


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 9, 2020)

jobo said:


> ...
> so hitting a fast moving base ball with a bat is a simple intuitive thing. yet most people picking up a bat for the first time will not hit it cleanly or more like at all. maybe a glancing blow one in ten
> 
> ...



I'm really glad you brought this up. I played baseball through high school and even briefly at a lower tiered college. I am currently on our local Little League board and have coached kids at every age from TBall to entering High School. It is VERY difficult to hit a baseball. Pro's do it successfully 1/3 of the time...that's trips to the plate during which they get 3 chances, so let's just say it takes an average of 2 pitches for them to hit successfully 1/3 of the time. That means GREAT players with 10,000 hours of instruction, practice, and training are able to hit a pitched ball successfully about 1.5 - 2 times out of 10. No amount of watching baseball on TV or studying it on YouTube would enable you to hit off an average pitcher.

No one thinks that watching every game that Steph Curry plays in, following his diet plan, and practicing in your driveway means that you could walk into a good inner-city pickup game and play like Steph Curry or even make a basket.

Why is it so easy to think that martial arts is different?


----------



## skribs (Jan 9, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Fine. But does IDPA prepare you for a home invasion?



Better than just plinking at a static target from a static position.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 9, 2020)

Rat said:


> I did set the criteria to be "the common criminal". The ring is irrelivent. I wouldnt step foot in it, unless i needed money and got paid irrelivent if i won a match or not.



We can look at the progress of that Rokus guy from years of Aikido training to one fight camp.

Regardless of your intention to learn martial arts having ring experience isn't irrelevant.

There are a lot of factors that win fights that are not really technique based. And understanding how those factors play out is really important.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 10, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I agree, but I think in this particular case he has a point, to which the response has been essentially “it cannot be done without good instruction first”.
> 
> I think that response is inaccurate.



And i have also all ready put several times if you go and seek accurate and good training it can make a diffrence.     But most people wont (opponents), especially for weapons or have any good ones for weapons for it to make much of a diffrence.  And if you spar with somone, and have a manual on the basics you could probbably pick them up for most weapons to be acceptable if you fight or be compartive with a low level person at a legitimate place.




Flying Crane said:


> And lastly I will say that this holds true for firearms as well. I grew up around guns, did a modest amount of hunting, have shot a variety of long guns and a smaller variety of handguns.



To my knowledge there are some people in the firearms commmunity that have the view that say hunting, doesnt translate to you using a firearm well/you cant learn much/anything by doing it.         So this argument is present in plenty of places.      And type of target matters as each diffrent type focus's on soemthing.     Practical shooting generally translates especially with some org's/comeptions to realstic shooting.   So that gets less flak.




Buka said:


> Actually, bro, it does matter.
> 
> It's kind of like saying all food is the same regardless of what restaurant or home you eat it in.



If you are hungry, it doesnt matter much.     The status of if you can cook or not, is just if you can process food so it doesnt cause poisoning, not if it tastes good.         It becomes a you eat or you die situation.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 10, 2020)

drop bear said:


> We can look at the progress of that Rokus guy from years of Aikido training to one fight camp.
> 
> Regardless of your intention to learn martial arts having ring experience isn't irrelevant.
> 
> There are a lot of factors that win fights that are not really technique based. And understanding how those factors play out is really important.



i dont dispute fully. But the intended reply was, there are alternatives to it. And the issue i have is, how many people who you would run into would have such expereince, and the people who go to competions generally have varying amounts of preparation beforehand.   going from the people who have spent every day for the last month preparing to somone doing something 2 days before.      And i did state beforehand what i belive is a alternative to competions should be done. (sparring)   I dont dispute they are good at exposing yourself to new opponents and training methods etc.

And these dont really exist that much for weapons with realstic rulesets. (im aware example is unarmed to a unarmed point, i was just making the point they are less common for weapons)  and weapon competions have more   concessions made for safety usually.   You can pick fault with many ruleset's, dont get me wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> thers a lot there so lets just pick a representave point,
> 
> the intuativness of weasons
> 
> ...



I will bite for the representative point.    


There is some inutunivity to weapons.


I never stated it was simple, i stated the motion of moving the bat in a swing is simple and comes to most people.  And especially as many countries do a bat sport or if yours does baseball, it will at least be in some sort of memory how ever vivid for most people.

But, i did state to SPAR.     and going back about the heavy bag, thats not the only target you can use for weapons training like its not for unarmed.     There are like in unarmed, targets you can make react more.        And even if you only had access and couldnt make your own, you could use the more reactive unarmed equipment.       Plus for the 7th time,  SPARRING. 

this entire situation is, you have done some home training with said weapon or a compartive object to said weapon.


----------



## jobo (Jan 10, 2020)

Rat said:


> I will bite for the representative point.
> 
> 
> There is some inutunivity to weapons.
> ...


you can't spar with a baseball bat.

if your doing some half heart swinging in the vicinity of another person, then you'll never hit someone agile as the bat is moving to slowly. and the body mechanics are all wrong. if people have to learn through coaching or practice to swing a bat and hit a target its not intuitive, its a learned movement and coordination

you can't spar anything in slow motion or rather you can but it doesn't help your full speed performance at all

when was the last time you saw a soccer player kicking a ball in slow motion


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> you can't spar with a baseball bat.
> 
> if your doing some half heart swinging in the vicinity of another person, then you'll never hit someone agile as the bat is moving to slowly. and the body mechanics are all wrong. if people have to learn through coaching or practice to swing a bat and hit a target its not intuitive, its a learned movement and coordination
> 
> ...



I will dispute, but as no real training version exists a staff the length of one seems a acceptable substitite.        I belive using it how i detailed several pages ago with restriaint would be safer and easier to spar with.    Also if you use sufficent PPE it makes it safer and easier.

Two points exist here:  you can hone intutive skill via self study.  and you can also teach yourself some skills effectively via self study.


You dont go 100% in sparring*, even in unarmed or its fighting. You pull hits etc.   when was the last time you saw two people with sharp sabres and no armour go at it?  there are issues related to that as well if no intent to kill or maim exists as they wont aim for the head nor  torso and only clip the arms at less lethal angles etc.     

you can find on youtube (i belive) a video of HEMA practice where they do that, and i saw a reviewer make the point of, they arent learning to fight with them or else they would start killing and maiming each other a lot more.    Rather than just cutting arms.   Basically, they wont be aiming to kill each other nor inflict significant harm so wont aim for the obvious targets and make you not defend them. You dont need to be a rocket scentist nor some form of expert to see that as a problem. 

Like if you knock somone down in boxing, you arent going to run over and jump on their head a dozen times.  (unless you want to kill them or severaly hurt them, but thats besides the point)   if you both agreed to boxing sparring, and if somone falls down, you are going to stop, or you are no longer sparring, nor doing boxing sparring. 


*Slight correction/eleboration.    You are going to go as fast as you can do safely, that varies per person.   Still no one should, or would give it their all in sparring and still call it sparring.  

Addendum:   I belive, somone can correct me if i wrong, the bastion in some Filipino styles has training which adapts it into some form of baseball bat substitite.     Sometimes they do two hands on the stick for some strikes, and the length can be the same length as a bat.    thats what i meant when i wrote that.


----------



## jobo (Jan 10, 2020)

Rat said:


> I will dispute, but as no real training version exists a staff the length of one seems a acceptable substitite.        I belive using it how i detailed several pages ago with restriaint would be safer and easier to spar with.    Also if you use sufficent PPE it makes it safer and easier.
> 
> Two points exist here:  you can hone intutive skill via self study.  and you can also teach yourself some skills effectively via self study.
> 
> ...


baseball bats are designed to be very effective at one thing, in one orientation, any other use is then fighting the design.

have you ever been hit with a BBB, they hurt, no amount of protective equipment short of a fat suit is going to make them suitable for high impact sparing, even a crash helmet will leave you confused on the floor if someone wacks you.

if you replace them with a staff that has much different weight and weight distribution then the body mechanics changes considerably, you are now learning to fight with a short staff, which is a good idea as its a much better weapon, it wont help you with your intended goal of being proficient with a BBB, possibly slightly less inept

the definition of intuitive is that done by instinct, as soon as your being coached its clear that the designed movements were not there instinctively

sparing is practice , you need to practice giving it your all, or at some point you need to give it you all and wont be able to


----------



## skribs (Jan 10, 2020)

Rat said:


> Two points exist here: you can hone intutive skill via self study. and you can also teach yourself some skills effectively via self study.



As has been said many times, no you can't.  I've shared my experience as a student and a teacher.  I've linked videos of other highly respected martial arts instructors saying the same thing.  Several people in this thread alone have said the same thing.  When training on your own, you have no frame of reference for your own faults and failings that a coach could correct.  You have no guidance from senior students that could mentor you.  You may spar with your friends, but without guidance and feedback on your sparring, you're mostly just playing around.

You think you can do it on your own, but it doesn't work like that.  You simply don't know what you don't know.  You think you're doing great, but that's because you're not taking a class to get your technique critiqued, and you're not sparring against competent opponents in order to test your skills.  Since you're not getting critiqued, and you are comparable to the people you spar against in your private training (I'm guessing based on context), you've allowed yourself to believe that your technique is fine.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> baseball bats are designed to be very effective at one thing, in one orientation, any other use is then fighting the design.
> 
> have you ever been hit with a BBB, they hurt, no amount of protective equipment short of a fat suit is going to make them suitable for high impact sparing, even a crash helmet will leave you confused on the floor if someone wacks you.
> 
> ...



The specfic context for the bat, is making a improvised weapon work.   And as a quick google for injuries/attacks with bats will show, several people have gone to hospital with injuries related to assualt with one.   and other improvised weapons fall under this.      Many weapons work better than others, no dispute, nor have i ever disputed this.  


My statement was a acceptable replacement.  To which a stick the length of it,  should be a suitable replacement for sparring, if you then do practice with the ordinary bat on targets. (i have stated this several times, do i need to write it again that i dont think the bat is the ubermensh of weapons?)        Also, suffcient amount of armour WITH suffcient restraint would mitagate a lot of the potional for injury.   So you could use a bat sometimes for sparring, but mainly use a staff/stick and use the bat mainly on targets/ in"drills".

As i have wrote before (unless i vastly mis wrote to my intended point)   If you take a baseball bat and use isntictive movement to train, you could use it effectively to fight  AND you could pick up some aspects of fighting with certain weapons quicker and easier than others.     Two seperate points i belive i have made, that are being converged into one.     If its my doing they are converged into one, its my doing, but i am correcting it now.   

The point of training is (in this context): To practice and build up, atributes, techniques/concepts, tactics and concepts for fighting in the real world.  while mitgating as much as possible the risks and dnagers involved.        I dont dispute armed training is harder to do (especially sparring), but unarmed has its own issues and caviates etc. They are done as close as you can get to reality.

Unless you share the view that military porgramms are inferior because they dont shoot live ammo at people, i dont see your point here.  It just looks like you are expecting me to mitigate the problems training has, when it plauges all training.  Everything has pros and cons.  I cannot change the cons of something, without changing what i do.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jan 10, 2020)

Since YouTube is the ultimate source  of truth, here's a clip from an excellent documentary on this very subject.


----------



## Prostar (Jan 10, 2020)

I'm sure no one would have any problem with me walking around the Baltimore Inner Harbor with a baseball bat.  Any zombies I find there would be especially freaked out.

I trained with a few weapons but I live in a world of stuff.  If I find myself in a position of needing more than empty hands I pay attention to the stuff that is around me.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 10, 2020)

jobo said:


> baseball bats are designed to be very effective at one thing, in one orientation, any other use is then fighting the design.
> 
> have you ever been hit with a BBB, they hurt, no amount of protective equipment short of a fat suit is going to make them suitable for high impact sparing, even a crash helmet will leave you confused on the floor if someone wacks you.
> 
> ...



By the way foam baseball bats are probably the easiest training tool to get.

Just go in to a toy store


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2020)

Prostar said:


> I pay attention to the stuff that is around me.



Bas Rutten's philosophy.


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2020)

Rat said:


> The specfic context for the bat, is making a improvised weapon work.   And as a quick google for injuries/attacks with bats will show, several people have gone to hospital with injuries related to assualt with one.   and other improvised weapons fall under this.      Many weapons work better than others, no dispute, nor have i ever disputed this.
> 
> 
> My statement was a acceptable replacement.  To which a stick the length of it,  should be a suitable replacement for sparring, if you then do practice with the ordinary bat on targets. (i have stated this several times, do i need to write it again that i dont think the bat is the ubermensh of weapons?)        Also, suffcient amount of armour WITH suffcient restraint would mitagate a lot of the potional for injury.   So you could use a bat sometimes for sparring, but mainly use a staff/stick and use the bat mainly on targets/ in"drills".
> ...



well yes, if you want to be '' effective'' change what you do. your training in a very small bubble, sooner or later your bubble will burst and you will see how inferior the '' training you do, do is !

to be honest its the same problem a lot of training that is never proved has, except you've taken it to a whole new level of self delusion because your hitting nothing but thin air (or maybe a punch bag ? even a compliant partner give a level of realism that is escaping you at the moment)

it doesn't matter if its a bat or your fist, if you cant hit your target the technique is useless, people dont usually stand there and let you hit them, particularly if you waving a base ball bat about, as ive explained several times, you get one swing with a BBB against anything like a competent opponent.n then your completely out of position and he ( or she) will take you out

so if you cant hit a moving target first go, you've lost, and speaking personally if someone had the temerity to try and hit me with a bat i would make them pay dearly when i got hold of them


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> By the way foam baseball bats are probably the easiest training tool to get.
> 
> Just go in to a toy store


 i dont think they are any easier to get than toy swords, and about as useful


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 11, 2020)

Bullsherdog said:


> It leads me to ask why so many Westerners tend to search out specifically to train in weapons that are impossible to find in daily life and are often illegel or even impractical to carry around.


I'm late to the game on this one.  I can only say this from my perspective

Martial artists in general enjoy the art of fighting. Which means they have a passion for it beyond the everyday self-defense needs.  Preservation of accurate history is one of the highest things you can in your life, be it your family history or in our case combat history.  Stuff like this plays an important role in building and maintaining cultures and cultural lessons.   It means we don't have to always start over to learn lessons that were already taught.  Many of us have passion for fighting systems beyond the fight.

Don't get into the habit of throwing things away simply because "it's no longer used" or because "its not used."

Traditional Medicine
Classic car
Old Comic books
Old money. (Kept in good condition, which is like keeping martial arts techniques accurate in good condition).

There are many things that are old, that a more valuable and than some of the things that are new and used everyday..  New things are important too, but much of it doesn't carry the same weight as things of history.

Me learning how to fight with swords, staffs, double daggers isn't because I think I'm going to be using them in self-defense during my everyday travels. I also don't see it as outdated.  It's great for mental and physical development, it helps to bring a better understanding of things in general outside of the world of fighting.  And it's stuff that actually works and technically would could still use it today.





Old does not always mean outdated and useless.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 11, 2020)

drop bear said:


> By the way foam baseball bats are probably the easiest training tool to get.
> 
> Just go in to a toy store



you know whats funny, i had a thought that they did toy bats in the back of my head while writing all of that.  and how i swear i have seen some videos of some people use them, or at least where they hold their home made foam stick makes it look like a bat.  


They are damn easy to get though, both their toy and normal counter parts.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 11, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Old does not always mean outdated and useless.



Can I get a hallelujah.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 11, 2020)

A word of advice: If you are going to fight zombies then don't use a flamethrower, because, not only will the zombies still be after you, they will also be on fire. Your situation would not have improved.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 11, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Old does not always mean outdated and useless.


Man, I hope so.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 11, 2020)

jobo said:


> well yes, if you want to be '' effective'' change what you do. your training in a very small bubble, sooner or later your bubble will burst and you will see how inferior the '' training you do, do is !



It is effective in that, its the basics of using said weapon.    also, i dont belive i have detailed MY training regime in this thread.   You have added some uneeded and unwarranted personalisation to that point.

I have also posted video evidence of how easy it is to pick up using a spear/staff like a spear to prove my point on how easy it is and how some weapons are easier to pick up than others.   



jobo said:


> to be honest its the same problem a lot of training that is never proved has, except you've taken it to a whole new level of self delusion because your hitting nothing but thin air (or maybe a punch bag ? even a compliant partner give a level of realism that is escaping you at the moment)



No idea where you got that from, i have wrote several times to spar and to use drills agaisnt a partner and to use both reactive and static targets.  If you dont have access to one, you dont have access to it and cant use it.  Not optimal but you use what you have.    So am i in a self deulision when you replied to a non point?   (if i am wrong, feel free to quote the specfic statement in the quoted post, and apologies for that)



jobo said:


> it doesn't matter if its a bat or your fist, if you cant hit your target the technique is useless, people dont usually stand there and let you hit them, particularly if you waving a base ball bat about, as ive explained several times, you get one swing with a BBB against anything like a competent opponent.n then your completely out of position and he ( or she) will take you out



i agree (in part), as i have stated and my replies have done beforehand.  But, i have stated to SPAR, this is the 8th time.  And to use reactive targets and drills with somone.     I have stated these things several times now, again how many times do i have to make the point again, and state i agree in parts but never stated anything contary to it.  

I, as i have stated before.    Belive you chances to be increased if you pactice with it.  thats one of the fundemental points here.  



I think its clear by now, statements from personal expereince are meh to me, especially when i have posted some form of video on how easy it is to pick up some weapons and use them.        Some of the points in dispute i didnt make, or have eleborated possibly eambigious points into more clearer terms.

I am effectively done here, until something more definitive shows up and frankly, this argument isnt really a arguement anymore.   if you do find some form of stat etc for weapon training times, i will resume but until then, no.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 11, 2020)

RTKDCMB said:


> A word of advice: If you are going to fight zombies then don't use a flamethrower, because, not only will the zombies still be after you, they will also be on fire. Your situation would not have improved.



i have no idea how flamethrowers even took off for zombie fighting.  I get it if they are meant to be infected persons and corpse disposal, not in fighting them.   Especially if they are the destroy the brain or remove the head type.

edit: i dotn think i have seena  film use a flame thrower for it in some time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 11, 2020)

RTKDCMB said:


> A word of advice: If you are going to fight zombies then don't use a flamethrower, because, not only will the zombies still be after you, they will also be on fire. Your situation would not have improved.


Truth!!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 11, 2020)

Rat said:


> It is effective in that, its the basics of using said weapon.


It may not actually be the basics of using the weapon.  It is simply what you have intuitively figured out on your own, and may be effective on some level.  That does not mean it is accurate basics as far as anyone with real training might see it.  And the term “effective” in this context might simply mean “hazardous to those in your vicinity, whether friend or foe.”

I think the spear is a good example, and particularly relevant since youve posted some video on its relative simplicity.  Compared to some other weapons like the sword, the spear is much easier to learn.  It was also historically easier and cheaper to manufacture.  Add these points together and it makes sense that it was the weapon of choice for arming the bulk of a medieval army.  Cheap and easy to make lots of them, easier for the average recruit to learn = build an army.

But, these recruits were not just handed a spear and told to figure it out for themselves.  They were instructed and they were drilled heavily.  I practice the spear in the context of my kung fu.  My spear is heavy and real, and of a realistic, military weight and heft.  It is a lot of hard work, it wears you out.  Drilling for an hour with it is a tough workout, working the basics and the form.  Extend that period to a few hours daily, for weeks or months in preparation for an upcoming battle, and you’ve got one hell of a conditioning program. 

And then, these folks used the spear on the battlefield.  There was a huge amount of collective experience that went into determining how to best use the spear, based on the results of countless battles and even more countless soldiers who used it.  Over time, the training program would be refined and improved based on this experience.

You don’t get that from simple intuition, even if you figure out a way to safely spar with it with your friends in the back yard.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 11, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> It may not actually be the basics of using the weapon. It is simply what you have intuitively figured out on your own, and may be effective on some level. That does not mean it is accurate basics as far as anyone with real training might see it. And the term “effective” in this context might simply mean “hazardous to those in your vicinity, whether friend or foe.”




Some elboration needed.   I support your inututive statement.   But the other point/statement/view i have is:   If you get a book written by somone who say does sword fighting, and use that to teach yourself other than whats instictive to you, you will have a better time.    And then the content of the book would matter, but sake of argument it is a good book that covers the basics quite well.     Or some other form of media made by somone who knows it.  that should help bridge the gap a bit.    

And i agree about the spearman statement.  I think it would take about a week to get a large amount of people drilled suffciently to at least function in a a battlefield.   definately faster than many other types of weapon.        Its still note worthy how fast people pick up how to use it 1v1 combat though, at least sufficnetly to defend themselves.  Especially against swords or other weapons.  

Addendum: i use book to mean manual/treatise.  It exists to relay martial techniques/cocepts etc to the reader.


----------



## skribs (Jan 11, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Old does not always mean outdated and useless.



One of my favorites is when people will look at a school where the instructors are old and say it's a bad school because those old guys couldn't fight anymore.  Completely overlook all of the wisdom and experience they bring to the table.


----------



## skribs (Jan 11, 2020)

Rat said:


> Some elboration needed.   I support your inututive statement.   But the other point/statement/view i have is:   If you get a book written by somone who say does sword fighting, and use that to teach yourself other than whats instictive to you, you will have a better time.    And then the content of the book would matter, but sake of argument it is a good book that covers the basics quite well.     Or some other form of media made by somone who knows it.  that should help bridge the gap a bit.
> 
> And i agree about the spearman statement.  I think it would take about a week to get a large amount of people drilled suffciently to at least function in a a battlefield.   definately faster than many other types of weapon.        Its still note worthy how fast people pick up how to use it 1v1 combat though, at least sufficnetly to defend themselves.  Especially against swords or other weapons.
> 
> Addendum: i use book to mean manual/treatise.  It exists to relay martial techniques/cocepts etc to the reader.



The problem is that you have no communication with the author.  You may misunderstand a lot of what he says, take things out of context, or imagine something different than he wrote it.  You also won't get all of the nuance that you get in class.

YouTube and DVDs are often used as supplemental training, they are poor on their own.  With videos you can actually see the motions, and they're still vastly inferior to taking lessons.  Books are worse than film in this regard, which means they're even worse.


----------



## jobo (Jan 11, 2020)

Rat said:


> Some elboration needed.   I support your inututive statement.   But the other point/statement/view i have is:   If you get a book written by somone who say does sword fighting, and use that to teach yourself other than whats instictive to you, you will have a better time.    And then the content of the book would matter, but sake of argument it is a good book that covers the basics quite well.     Or some other form of media made by somone who knows it.  that should help bridge the gap a bit.
> 
> And i agree about the spearman statement.  I think it would take about a week to get a large amount of people drilled suffciently to at least function in a a battlefield.   definately faster than many other types of weapon.        Its still note worthy how fast people pick up how to use it 1v1 combat though, at least sufficnetly to defend themselves.  Especially against swords or other weapons.
> 
> Addendum: i use book to mean manual/treatise.  It exists to relay martial techniques/cocepts etc to the reader.


some things you can learn from books and vids and somethings you cant

i think the university of you tube is fantastic, but you have to be careful there's a lot of people who just want to sound of, use it as an income source or publicity for there business, some are just buffoons, t5hat know little about the topic but think they do.

i'm currently teaching myself to repair electronics using you tube, but i'm practising on a fully resistant '' partner'' in this case on broken amps and cd player i buy from the second hand shop for a fiver. there's such a gulf between watching someone extremely skilled do it and doing it yourself, they naturally make it look easy and when you try its not.

nb ive just got a top of the range technics cd player working and as the problem was the draw not opening a free cd of the kinks


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 11, 2020)

RTKDCMB said:


> A word of advice: If you are going to fight zombies then don't use a flamethrower, because, not only will the zombies still be after you, they will also be on fire. Your situation would not have improved.


XD XD XD


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 11, 2020)

skribs said:


> One of my favorites is when people will look at a school where the instructors are old and say it's a bad school because those old guys couldn't fight anymore.  Completely overlook all of the wisdom and experience they bring to the table.


Yeah that's an interesting point!

People often do that to personal trainers too, just because they aren't in the shape we designate they should be in they're useless. Never mind their incredible coaching knowledge and experience.

I do get it to some degree, many say if they were truly "passionate" about it they would still train, but that view can get a little extreme though.


----------



## skribs (Jan 11, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Yeah that's an interesting point!
> 
> People often do that to personal trainers too, just because they aren't in the shape we designate they should be in they're useless. Never mind their incredible coaching knowledge and experience.
> 
> I do get it to some degree, many say if they were truly "passionate" about it they would still train, but that view can get a little extreme though.



And the older you are, the less your body can handle; and the more likely you've sustained an illness or injury that holds you back as well.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

Rat said:


> It is effective in that, its the basics of using said weapon.    also, i dont belive i have detailed MY training regime in this thread.   You have added some uneeded and unwarranted personalisation to that point.
> 
> I have also posted video evidence of how easy it is to pick up using a spear/staff like a spear to prove my point on how easy it is and how some weapons are easier to pick up than others.
> 
> ...



yes anyone can pick up a spear and have a '' stab at using it or a bat and have a go at ''battery''

if this will be successful or not depends greatly on circumstances and the physical and mental abilities of the other guy.

most people will back off if you start waving a weapon about, some will not, some will produce a better weapon that they are much better with or just take your bat off you and hit you with it. taking a bat to a fist fight is a really bad idea if the other guy ends up with the bat

many years ago i got involved in a road rage incident where someone tried to knock me off my bike, a caught up with him at the traffic lights, he jumped out , i jumped off to met him half way, he had a kitchen knife, i backed off, he looked smug and shouted  trash talk after me. to him the situation was clear produce an 8 inch knife and people dont want to fight you,

 my perspective was somewhat different, i was greatly peeve by the events, returned to my bike and went back towards him carrying a claw hammer,, which i was more than prepared to use to cause him serious injury. suddenly the whole physiology changed, he was in complete shock that his deadly weapon tactic had just resulted in the situation being raised into a fight to the death and he is backing off, jumped in his car and shot off, with my claw hammer stuck through his back window


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

Rat said:


> Some elboration needed.   I support your inututive statement.   But the other point/statement/view i have is:   If you get a book written by somone who say does sword fighting, and use that to teach yourself other than whats instictive to you, you will have a better time.    And then the content of the book would matter, but sake of argument it is a good book that covers the basics quite well.     Or some other form of media made by somone who knows it.  that should help bridge the gap a bit.
> 
> And i agree about the spearman statement.  I think it would take about a week to get a large amount of people drilled suffciently to at least function in a a battlefield.   definately faster than many other types of weapon.        Its still note worthy how fast people pick up how to use it 1v1 combat though, at least sufficnetly to defend themselves.  Especially against swords or other weapons.
> 
> Addendum: i use book to mean manual/treatise.  It exists to relay martial techniques/cocepts etc to the reader.


sword fighting is a very real and current sport, i have severe doubt that any one who has ever picked up a sword has reach competent level of ability from book reading rather than a high level of expert coaching, if you know different please e4xplain


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm late to the game on this one.  I can only say this from my perspective
> 
> Martial artists in general enjoy the art of fighting. Which means they have a passion for it beyond the everyday self-defense needs.  Preservation of accurate history is one of the highest things you can in your life, be it your family history or in our case combat history.  Stuff like this plays an important role in building and maintaining cultures and cultural lessons.   It means we don't have to always start over to learn lessons that were already taught.  Many of us have passion for fighting systems beyond the fight.
> 
> ...


traditional medicine has severe limitations
classic cars are terrible as means of transport, if being a means of transport include getting you were you want to go in a timely fashion, a i ran classic cars for a number of years because i could, ie i had the abilities, tools and a free Saturday every week to keep them going, even then a round trip to the coast was full of suspense of if we were going home on an AA truck or not

old comic books have rarity, rather then intrinsic value in their favour and nothing else and as for old money ????

you need to ask yourself what your doing, running a museum or having something of use, these two things often conflict


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> traditional medicine has severe limitations


So does modern medicine..  I'm not saying that traditional medicine solves everything but some of it works better than some modern medicine.  If you look up how some of the modern medicine is developed you will see that they often look at traditional medicine that works.  This is what I'm talking referring to.

"Historically, medicines were administered in the form of herbal concoctions, and many traditional medicines continue to be taken this way. As science advanced, chemists were able to extract the active ingredients from natural sources to make more potent medicines. For example, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) was discovered from the willow tree, the bark of which was used in traditional herbal remedies []." Source: Where does medicine come from? - Science in the News
 Fort those who don't want to read




We often screw up when we make it "more Potent" and forget to make it "balanced" which is why we have the 15 side-effects that may cause a problem worse than the one that is being treated.  Modern medicine focuses on purity and not balance, while helpful it's comes with it's limitations as well.

Here's another mention of modern medicine development.
Don't get me wrong some traditional medicine will kill a person or make a person worse, but I'm not referring to those things.



jobo said:


> classic cars are terrible as means of transport,


Classic cars are terrible as means of transport - this may be true but the value in these cars isn't in the transportation but the craftsmanship and the financial value. For example, a 1968 Ford Shelby GT500 Many people had one and got rid of it for a "better car".  New cars devalue the moment you drive it off the lot.  The 1968 Ford Shelby has increased in value.  In 1968, this car sold for around $4,500 U.S dollars. Now this car is worth more than $100,000 and in fair condition it's worth  around $82.000.  So while my Mazda 3 Skyactive car fully loaded is going to perform better,  It's now less the $24,000 price tag of when I bought it new.  The fair market value for my car is. now $9,000 -$11,000



jobo said:


> old comic books have rarity, rather then intrinsic value in their favour and nothing else


 This is still value even if it's based on rarity. Which I would question because there's old comic books that are rare and not valuable, so I don't think it's a "rarity only" value appraisal.



jobo said:


> as for old money


 Old money often becomes more valuable,  Sometimes it's the make up of the coin and the rarity that pushes the value.  For example, a 1982 Lincoln Cent with no mint date has sold for as much as $80,000  If the purpose of money is to be of value, then this penny exceeded far beyond it's face value.  



jobo said:


> you need to ask yourself what your doing, running a museum or having something of use, these two things often conflict


I see it more as recognizing value beyond it's intended original use. Or at the least recognizing when one value has changed and  another value has begun. 

Martial Arts systems value as a self-defense tool is very small when compared to the benefits of having a modern gun on hand.  But even so there is still value in the systems.  While very few people can actually fight with it, western doctors are now finding value in it for their patients health.  Even though it's old and not Modern.

I guess the point I'm making is simply just because it's old doesn't mean it's outdated or useless.  While it may be outdated in one area. It may be significantly important in another.  I wouldn't bring a spear to a gun fight.   But the training of the spear is a great exercise if someone is looking for a good way to learn something that ways actually used in war and stay in shape (provided that they aren't using the fake modern weapons that flap around)


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> So does modern medicine..  I'm not saying that traditional medicine solves everything but some of it works better than some modern medicine.  If you look up how some of the modern medicine is developed you will see that they often look at traditional medicine that works.  This is what I'm talking referring to.
> 
> "Historically, medicines were administered in the form of herbal concoctions, and many traditional medicines continue to be taken this way. As science advanced, chemists were able to extract the active ingredients from natural sources to make more potent medicines. For example, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) was discovered from the willow tree, the bark of which was used in traditional herbal remedies []." Source: Where does medicine come from? - Science in the News
> Fort those who don't want to read
> ...


old cars re bad, they were badly engineered and badly designed, that they are worth money now is to do with nostalgia and rarity, car that were made in their many millions dont get any sort of value at all till theres only a few left, then they become desirably, simply because they are exclusive.

bazeley car that were really really bad so that only a very few stupid people bought them become far more valuable sooner that betters cars that sold far more

theres are motorbikes i owned in the 70s and 80s that were really bad at being motorbikes, that people are paying far more for now than you can by an infinitely superior modern bike for brand new. these people are very very stupid

the kawasaki 500s from the early 70s sold in reasonable numbers, but were so dangerous to ride fast and impossible to ride slowly that only a hand full lasted the decade, these death traps are now worth a small fortune


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> So does modern medicine..  I'm not saying that traditional medicine solves everything but some of it works better than some modern medicine.  If you look up how some of the modern medicine is developed you will see that they often look at traditional medicine that works.  This is what I'm talking referring to.
> 
> "Historically, medicines were administered in the form of herbal concoctions, and many traditional medicines continue to be taken this way. As science advanced, chemists were able to extract the active ingredients from natural sources to make more potent medicines. For example, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) was discovered from the willow tree, the bark of which was used in traditional herbal remedies []." Source: Where does medicine come from? - Science in the News
> Fort those who don't want to read
> ...


traditional medicine doesn't work better than modern medicine not for anything ever, it may be probably wont be almost as good, because medicines derived from traditional cures have been refined to work better

aspirin was refined in the 1800s, i'm not even sure it counts as modern medicine, but it was one of the biggest breakthroughs in effective pain relive and fever control, god knows how much tree bark you had to inbide to get the same effect as one small pill. and if you've got a headache going in search of a willow tree is a bit inconvenient

is medicine over prescribed ? yes, but that's not the fault of the medicine thats the doctors and societies perception that there's a pill for everything and every thing needs a pill

most people will just get better on their own most of the time, if they take traditional, modern or no medicine at all, but if ive got septicemia you can keep your traditional cures, im taking the antibiotics


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> i'm not even sure it counts as modern medicine, but it was one of the biggest breakthroughs in effective pain relive and fever control, god knows how much tree bark you had to inbide to get the same effect as one small pill. and if you've got a headache going in search of a willow tree is a bit inconvenien


Who knows.  Maybe it work just as well.  I've never taken tree bark to relieve a headache.  A pill would have a longer shelf life than and you could increase the strength of it by increasing the purity of it.  But that doesn't mean the tree bark didn't get rid of the headache in the amounts used in the traditional amount. 

For example.  If I have an upset stomach I eat ginger or make a tea for it.  It provides the same relief for my upset stomach and in many cases works better than the Tums and Zantac.  For acid reflux, (if I eat too late and then go to sleep),  I just drink a glass of milk before going to bed.   2 examples of where I didn't have to Purify or super-dose the serving size of what I was taking to fix my stomach issues.

You know what I don't get from Milk or Ginger?  These things which are side effects from Zantac:

constipation,
diarrhea,
fatigue,
headache (may be severe),
drowsiness,
dizziness,
sleep problems (insomnia),
decreased sex drive,
impotence,
difficulty having an orgasm,
muscle pain,
stomach pain,
nausea,
vomiting,
constipation,
or swollen or tender breasts (in men)
At the most I would be at risk for Diarrhea only because I'm lactose intolerant.  But since my body is strange, milk only bothers me during certain parts of the day.  My stomach doesn't like it in the morning, but can handle it in the evening. 

Below are the benefits of Ginger

Reducing gas and improving digestion
Relieving nausea
Easing a cold or the flu
Relieving pain
Reducing inflammation
Supporting cardiovascular health
Process Ginger how ever does have risk as well.  By processed I mean converting it into a powder form so you can increase the concentration of it. I don't use ginger this way, because for me I try to strike a balance whenever possible.  Sort of the "too much of a good thing.." logic.  These are side effects that you'll get when you eat too much. I would say if you took a big bite out of a ginger root like an apple you would probably experience some of these things.

increased bleeding tendency
abdominal discomfort
cardiac arrhythmias (if overdosed)
central nervous system depression (if overdosed)
dermatitis (with topical use)
diarrhea
heartburn
mouth or throat irritation
Does Ginger work for everyone?  Of course not, but for me.  Ginger is better than many of the modern medicines for my stomach / digestive issues.  It also works faster and I can cook with it.  I'm pretty sure cooking with Zantac is frowned upon lol.

The only difference is that the Pill is going to cost me $12.35 and is more convenient than carrying ginger root around and my Ginger is free as I grow it.  Companies can make more money selling the pill as medicine and they can increase the dose even if there may be no need to.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Who knows.  Maybe it work just as well.  I've never taken tree bark to relieve a headache.  A pill would have a longer shelf life than and you could increase the strength of it by increasing the purity of it.  But that doesn't mean the tree bark didn't get rid of the headache in the amounts used in the traditional amount.
> 
> For example.  If I have an upset stomach I eat ginger or make a tea for it.  It provides the same relief for my upset stomach and in many cases works better than the Tums and Zantac.  For acid reflux, (if I eat too late and then go to sleep),  I just drink a glass of milk before going to bed.   2 examples of where I didn't have to Purify or super-dose the serving size of what I was taking to fix my stomach issues.
> 
> ...


but this is the problem, you dont need medicine for an upset tummy at all, unless its dysentery  and then your ginger tea will have no effect on your impending demise

saying your cure is better than another cure when neither are cures they just relives symptoms till it gets better on its own is a pointless exercise.

there a simple logic tree, am i going to die, NO you dont need medicine, do i want to relive symptoms YES take medicine, do i really want to relive symptoms yes take modern medicine, if not just ask your grandmother what they used to do in the olden days and hope its not saying spells over chicken feet

AM i going to die YES, for gods sake dont take that herbal rubbish or you will die anyway


----------



## skribs (Jan 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> but this is the problem, you dont need medicine for an upset tummy at all, unless its dysentery  and then your ginger tea will have no effect on your impending demise
> 
> saying your cure is better than another cure when neither are cures they just relives symptoms till it gets better on its own is a pointless exercise.
> 
> ...



Medicine exists to handle those symptoms.  There are also natural remedies to handle those symptoms.  By saying "you don't need medicine for an upset tummy" you're actually agreeing with @JowGaWolf , who is saying there are symptoms that most people treat with medicine when you could treat them naturally.

But you're so hell-bent on arguing with him you don't even realize that you agree with him.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

skribs said:


> Medicine exists to handle those symptoms.  There are also natural remedies to handle those symptoms.  By saying "you don't need medicine for an upset tummy" you're actually agreeing with @JowGaWolf , who is saying there are symptoms that most people treat with medicine when you could treat them naturally.
> 
> But you're so hell-bent on arguing with him you don't even realize that you agree with him.


we are talking about MEDICINE, bot traditional; and modern, you've just confused things by introducing the concept of NATURAL into the discussion

 im saying you could just NATURALLY allow your body to go through its NATURAL repair cycle and get better with out either, there nothing natural about eating ginger any more than there is eating cyanide, theres a long list of nasty side effects  from ginger he has posted above, some antacids sound a lot better idea to be honest

your not treating the problem by reducing symptoms, if your actually ill as opposed to under the weather only a complete loon would think old folk medici9ne is the way to go


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> but this is the problem, you dont need medicine for an upset tummy at all


You may not need medicine, but the fact that there is medicine out there to manage these things says other wise along with other things like allergy and cold symptoms says otherwise.



jobo said:


> saying your cure is better than another cure when neither are cures they just relives symptoms till it gets better on its own is a pointless exercise


I don't think I mentioned anything about cures.  I think I talked about providing relief. Not all medicine provides a cure.  The majority of medicine out there is for relief and managing symptoms. From colds, allergies, upset stomachs, and other. Even modern medicine has stuff that manages symptoms of diseases that can't be cured. 

Not sure how you got my specific example of an upset stomach to the point of "am I going to die".  You put things in an Either Or Light.  My family had cancer and they got modern medical treatment for it.  I have digestive issues where my preference is to use Ginger to deal with the issues instead of Modern medicine because Ginger works best for me.  Ginger may do absolutely nothing for you and that's possible.  But for me it's not an Either or issue.  As I stated that carrying a Zantac pill around is more practical than carrying a Ginger root around.  But at home and sometimes at Work I'll use Ginger.  

Chicken Noodle soup is often recommended by modern doctors to help treat with Flu symptoms. If the Flu gets worse then they will prescribe something stronger.  I've not only heard this from others, but I've seen with my son and experienced it with myself when going to a modern doctor.  Take medicine to manage the fever, each chicken soup and stay hydrated.  Let me know if it gets worse and I'll prescribe something stronger.  Then I gets a list of medicine that I can take to manage the symptoms, which I never take beyond Tylenol, which I take to manage the fever. Is there something natural that can manage a fever.  I don't don't know.  My guess is that there is, it's not like fevers are anything new, so it would seem likely.  Do I take modern medicine for a fever? Yes because usually when I have a fever I don't feel like preparing stuff.  Pop a pill lay down and just be sick until I get some relief from the fever.

From webMD "https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/qa/does-chicken-soup-help-fight-colds"
*Does chicken soup help fight colds?*
ANSWER

Chicken soup appears to help fight colds, according to several studies. It helps clear nasal congestion as well as thin mucus so you can better cough it up. In addition, research shows it may have a mild anti-inflammatory effect than can help ease symptoms.

*Science Finally Shows What Grandma Knew All Along*
source" https://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20001017/science-finally-shows-what-grandma-knew-all-along#1

My family has a history of Cancer.  All caught the cancer early.  All got modern treatment.  Some have had cancer more than once.  Just because they used modern medicine for cancer, does not mean they can use Traditional Medicine for less serious ailments like Upset stomach or colds.  So again.  Just because something is old and outdated doesn't mean  that it's useless.   And Yes Chicken noodle soup is my "go to" medicine for when I get sick.  As soon as I start to feel sick, I get some chicken noodle soup in me.  

*The Secret Behind Chicken Soup's Medical Magic*
https://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/20181226/the-secret-behind-chicken-soups-medical-magic

My mom used to have severe headaches and she's had them all of her life.  She was prescribed many types of medicines, and non of them stopped the frequency of the headaches.  A few months ago she decided to look outside of Modern Medicine.  A doctor recommended her to see a specific massage therapist.  The therapist took a look at her, did a few test where she was able to trigger my moms headaches by pinching a specific location in the neck.   The therapist now treats my mom, not with modern medicine but with traditional massage therapy.  My mom has been months without out a Migraine and she's almost a year without headaches.   While Modern Medicine is effective, it's not always the answer.  

Knowing when it is, and knowing when it isn't is the challenge. But you'll never know, if your answer is always to "pop a pill."  There's a lot of medicine out there that has the main goal of making a profit, Hence the FDA regulations to help remind businesses that medicine should be for the benefit of the person taking it, and not the wallets of those who make it.


----------



## jobo (Jan 12, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> You may not need medicine, but the fact that there is medicine out there to manage these things says other wise along with other things like allergy and cold symptoms says otherwise.
> 
> I don't think I mentioned anything about cures.  I think I talked about providing relief. Not all medicine provides a cure.  The majority of medicine out there is for relief and managing symptoms. From colds, allergies, upset stomachs, and other. Even modern medicine has stuff that manages symptoms of diseases that can't be cured.
> 
> ...


  you said tradition medicine was better in some cases than modern, and and your doing is posting chicken soup recopies

trad med doesn't not cure serious illness, its certainly no better and most probably worse at treating symptoms

there is no cure for the common cold, or flu, antibiotics are a naturally occurring thing but dont work on either, why would chicken soup work ? its not know for its anti virus qualities 

both aspirin and quinine help with fever, both are derivative of tree s both work better than carry chunks of wood about, in their modern form


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 12, 2020)

I’m only seeing part of the conversation here because of the ignore feature.  But met me take a guess:  we are now arguing over whether or not Old things are worthless?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jan 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> sword fighting is a very real and current sport, i have severe doubt that any one who has ever picked up a sword has reach competent level of ability from book reading rather than a high level of expert coaching, if you know different please e4xplain



Olpympic fencing, sabre and epee are the ones i know of for the west, or come from the west that are are common.     These are all sports.  Just to establish that. 



Now for HEMA, all HEMA liniges (maybe a few still exist*) have been broken.      So all modern HEMA tution and courses etc are based on treatises left behind by masters.   The people who have reborn set systems and styles vary in experience.     (not that there is a godo modern analog that is common that mimicks some of these that well anyway)   So, some teachers of it would have just learn from the book and sparring, othrs might have started in previously mentioned styles and looked for how to militarise them, others might have learnt from one HEMA school then moved on to focus on another manual etc.          Point is, the rebirth is forwarded by treatises and study of them.


*If any do, they are still rare as enough have died to say most or the majorty have.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I’m only seeing part of the conversation here because of the ignore feature.  But met me take a guess:  we are now arguing over whether or not Old things are worthless?


Unfortunately yes. Sometimes Jobo takes a statement beyond the context in which it was said.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> you said tradition medicine was better in some cases than modern, and and your doing is posting chicken soup recopies


 For me this true. In some cases traditional medicine is better than modern medicine. Like I keep telling you.  This is not an Either, Or. issue for me, where I only must do one or the other.   I have given you 2 examples of this. One is with Cancer treatment that my family has taken (Modern Medicine).  The second is with Ginger and Chicken Noodle soup.  

So in my case this is true.  I also know this is true for some people as well.  The problem with always choosing one way of the other is that you'll run the risk of either being over medicated or under medicated.  Stuff like this happens when there is no balance.  The Over-medicated issue comes from people who think they need medicine for everything.  If there is a way you can eat something natural to mange symptoms and it works, then why not?  Especially if it works for you better than the new medication.  If a glass of milk stops my reflux acid issue then why not drink it?  I get the additional benefit of food nutrition which I won't get from a pill.  I understand that not everyone thinks this way, but I'm just telling you how things work for me.  *I don't discount things just becomes it comes from something old*.

"*85%  of new drugs that hit the market have been found to provide little or no benefit to patients*"

Source: INFOGRAPHIC: America Is Over-Medicated


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> For me this true. In some cases traditional medicine is better than modern medicine. Like I keep telling you.  This is not an Either, Or. issue for me, where I only must do one or the other.   I have given you 2 examples of this. One is with Cancer treatment that my family has taken (Modern Medicine).  The second is with Ginger and Chicken Noodle soup.
> 
> So in my case this is true.  I also know this is true for some people as well.  The problem with always choosing one way of the other is that you'll run the risk of either being over medicated or under medicated.  Stuff like this happens when there is no balance.  The Over-medicated issue comes from people who think they need medicine for everything.  If there is a way you can eat something natural to mange symptoms and it works, then why not?  Especially if it works for you better than the new medication.  If a glass of milk stops my reflux acid issue then why not drink it?  I get the additional benefit of food nutrition which I won't get from a pill.  I understand that not everyone thinks this way, but I'm just telling you how things work for me.  *I don't discount things just becomes it comes from something old*.
> 
> ...


 drinking milk isn't traditional medicine its just drinking milk, something millions and millions of people do every day, thats like claim trad med is best because vegetables are good for you, 

pasteurised milk of course isnt '' natural'' its processed, treated by modern science to make it less dangerous, american milk is loaded with antibiotics thats may or may not be harmful but most definitely are not natural in milk.

so your NATURAL remedy isn't natural at all

building a case around this is better coz its natural doesn't work if its not infarct natural. its a common contradiction that people who have embarked on an anti science vibe throw in to the conversation

that milk works for your very limited set of circumstances doesn't support your point that trad med is better because a) its not traditional and b) its not medicine


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> drinking milk isn't traditional medicine its just drinking milk, something millions and millions of people do every day, thats like claim trad med is best because vegetables are good for you,
> 
> pasteurised milk of course isnt '' natural'' its processed, treated by modern science to make it less dangerous, american milk is loaded with antibiotics thats may or may not be harmful but most definitely are not natural in milk.
> 
> ...


I’m not sure any of what you are arguing against is his actual meaning. And I’m pretty sure you know that.


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I’m not sure any of what you are arguing against is his actual meaning. And I’m pretty sure you know that.


i am contesting his whole '' anti modern science''  the old ways were the best '' philosophy, which he has failed to support at all.

people value old things because their ( some times) significant flaws

be that old cars old music or old ma etc etc, thats a judgement for them if they want to live in the 1970s or sometimes the 1870s, but it makes no  sense at all if you try and explain it in rational rather than subjective terms , how ever extending that to medicine and sugesting people should ignore a 100 years  of researcher and revert to folk remedies is a very ill advised and possibly dangerous thing to do, if people start believing your nonsense


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 13, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Unfortunately yes. Sometimes Jobo takes a statement beyond the context in which it was said.


Oh I am well aware of Jobo’s engagement style in the forums.  That is why I ignore him.


----------



## skribs (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> i am contesting his whole '' anti modern science''  the old ways were the best '' philosophy, which he has failed to support at all.
> 
> people value old things because their ( some times) significant flaws
> 
> be that old cars old music or old ma etc etc, thats a judgement for them if they want to live in the 1970s or sometimes the 1870s, but it makes no  sense at all if you try and explain it in rational rather than subjective terms , how ever extending that to medicine and sugesting people should ignore a 100 years  of researcher and revert to folk remedies is a very ill advised and possibly dangerous thing to do, if people start believing your nonsense



One day you're going to be one of these "old things".  Should people not value you at that time because of your flaws?


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> One day you're going to be one of these "old things".  Should people not value you at that time because of your flaws?


thats a bizarrely stupid argument , im talking about science and technology, not people.

but yes if in a work or instructional sense if  im not keeping a breast of current research/technology then i shouldn't be valued as a worker or instructor.

if i turn up at a new job and get my abacus out, because old tech is better then i deserve to be treated with deep suspicion


----------



## skribs (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats a bizarrely stupid argument , im talking about science and technology, not people.
> 
> but yes if in a work or instructional sense if  im not keeping a breast of current research/technology then i shouldn't be valued as a worker or instructor.
> 
> if i turn up at a new job and get my abacus out, because old tech is better then i deserve to be treated with deep suspicion



If you can do the job with abacus is there anything to complain about?


----------



## skribs (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats a bizarrely stupid argument , im talking about science and technology, not people.
> 
> but yes if in a work or instructional sense if  im not keeping a breast of current research/technology then i shouldn't be valued as a worker or instructor.
> 
> if i turn up at a new job and get my abacus out, because old tech is better then i deserve to be treated with deep suspicion



I say that because a lot of people will look at a martial arts school, see the instructor is old, and go "no way that old, frail guy can fight" or "it was just a bunch of fat old people" and completely dismiss anything they might learn from these guys who may have been fighting for decades.


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> I say that because a lot of people will look at a martial arts school, see the instructor is old, and go "no way that old, frail guy can fight" or "it was just a bunch of fat old people" and completely dismiss anything they might learn from these guys who may have been fighting for decades.


but i wasn't debating that point with you


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> i am contesting his whole '' anti modern science''  the old ways were the best '' philosophy, which he has failed to support at all.
> 
> people value old things because their ( some times) significant flaws
> 
> be that old cars old music or old ma etc etc, thats a judgement for them if they want to live in the 1970s or sometimes the 1870s, but it makes no  sense at all if you try and explain it in rational rather than subjective terms , how ever extending that to medicine and sugesting people should ignore a 100 years  of researcher and revert to folk remedies is a very ill advised and possibly dangerous thing to do, if people start believing your nonsense


Except that he didn't say old ways were the best. He said _sometimes_ old ways work better.


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Except that he didn't say old ways were the best. He said _sometimes_ old ways work better.


 his original post on the topic listed a non exhaustive list of old things he thought better, ( sometimes, though exactly what and how often is shrouded in mystery) including medicine and cars

he has further confused matter by deciding milk is old medicine, at that level of silliness its hard to know exactly what he means however the sentiments of his post were clear if the details have become hazy with the passage of time


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> his original post on the topic listed a non exhaustive list of old things he thought better, ( sometimes, though exactly what and how often is shrouded in mystery) including medicine and cars
> 
> he has further confused matter by deciding milk is old medicine, at that level of silliness its hard to know exactly what he means however the sentiments of his post were clear if the details have become hazy with the passage of time


Just because something is used by many people, and is used as a non-medicine, that doesn't preclude it also being a folk remedy. Things can fit in more than one category.


----------



## Buka (Jan 13, 2020)

Besides death and taxes, there are other "certains" in life. 

I personally know a few people who if you want them to state something with complete conviction - just state the exact opposite first.


----------



## Hanshi (Jan 13, 2020)

Well, all I can comment on is that I spent many years training traditional weapons, sai, bo, kama, etc.  But I also spent years training with "environmental" weapons.  This would include knives, combs, cane, guns, chairs, and, baseball bats.  And yes, common weapons like tire tools, fire pokers and sticks are ubiquitous and effective.  I would guess whatever one feels comfortable with makes a good weapon.


----------



## jobo (Jan 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Just because something is used by many people, and is used as a non-medicine, that doesn't preclude it also being a folk remedy. Things can fit in more than one category.


only if your going to make the categories so big that they become meaningless, like say potatoes are a medicine as they cure anorexia symptoms, or you could just go the whole d
hog and say food is a medicine as it cures/ preventsl desease, rickets malnutrition,  scurvey, t etc etc , so yes if your classifications are that big, milk is a medicine. in reality of any sensible discusion its not

a d he was talking about tradition medicines, not folk remedies


----------



## skribs (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> only if your going to make the categories so big that they become meaningless, like say potatoes are a medicine as they cure anorexia symptoms, or you could just go the whole d
> hog and say food is a medicine as it cures/ preventsl desease, rickets malnutrition,  scurvey, t etc etc , so yes if your classifications are that big, milk is a medicine. in reality of any sensible discusion its not
> 
> a d he was talking about tradition medicines, not folk remedies



Considering that several people in this thread have had no problem with the categories presented, and you're the only one arguing against them, I'd say the categories are fine.

If you have symptoms, and you use something other than drugs to cure them, then that is a remedy.

If you can get someone with anorexia to eat the potatoes, then yes it's a cure.


----------



## Rusty B (Jan 13, 2020)

I didn't read the thread (I'll need to hit up the black market for some adderall to get through 10 pages), but I don't think things like baseball bats and rocks require "training." The how-to is pretty straightforward.  Do you really need someone to teach you over a period of years how to whack someone upside the head with a bat?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> I didn't read the thread (I'll need to hit up the black market for some adderall to get through 10 pages), but I don't think things like baseball bats and rocks require "training." The how-to is pretty straightforward.  Do you really need someone to teach you over a period of years how to whack someone upside the head with a bat?


No. But if you want to actually use it in a fight, some focused practice of efficient technique will improve your effectiveness. If that someone is moving their head and fighting back, the factors change.


----------



## Rusty B (Jan 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> No. But if you want to actually use it in a fight, some focused practice of efficient technique will improve your effectiveness. If that someone is moving their head and fighting back, the factors change.



That someone won't be able to keep that up for more than a few seconds before getting their skull cracked.  And that's assuming they're stupid enough to try to fight someone swinging a baseball bat around in the first place.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> That someone won't be able to keep that up for more than a few seconds before getting their skull cracked.  And that's assuming they're stupid enough to try to fight someone swinging a baseball bat around in the first place.


Folks who have taken bats away from others will disagree with that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> drinking milk isn't traditional medicine its just drinking milk,


 By definition of medicine, if you drink it for the purpose of dealing with an ailment then it's medicine.  Again. You are doing the "Either- Or" thing.  The third possibility is that Milk is a food and can be used as a medicine.  

*Milk for managing blood pressure*.
"Milk can also plays an important role in maintaining healthy levels of blood pressure. The reason why consumption of milk is linked with managing blood pressure levels is due to its rich composition of three essential minerals namely calcium, potassium and magnesium. Therefore, regular consumption of milk provides the body with important minerals required to stabilize blood pressure."  Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/food-news/drinking-milk-can-reduce-the-risk-of-chronic-diseases/articleshow/71047000.cms

*Got Milk? It may lower your blood pressure*. Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/food-news/drinking-milk-can-reduce-the-risk-of-chronic-diseases/articleshow/71047000.cms



jobo said:


> so your NATURAL remedy isn't natural at all


 Again, I'm not talking about natural remedies.  For some reason you keep trying to present what I'm saying as if I'm some kind of "Natural foods, Traditional Medicine only Fanatic?  The term "natural foods" is actually a term created by marketing departments to help sell food.  *The definition for natural foods is simply this "food that has undergone minimal processing and contains no preservatives or artificial additives*"    I think the FDA, by law, requires that all food products with preservatives to state that the food has preservatives.  So if milk had no preservatives or artificial additives then it would be considered a Natural food by definition.  Again the term Natural Food is something created by marketing departments.  "Natural foods" and "Organic foods" are not the same thing but both were created by marketing departments to sell more of a specific food.



jobo said:


> building a case around this is better coz its natural doesn't work if its not infarct natural.


Again this is not my argument and it's not what I'm saying.   Here's an example.   I can take pill to help me deal with the symptoms of the flu.  I still have to eat and I still have to stay hydrated.  If chicken noodle soups helps to manage the systems equally as well or better then I can just eat Chicken Noodle soup which has the additional benefit of providing nutrients and hydration that my body needs.  So instead of taking a bunch of pills, I can just eat and provide my body with nutrients that it needs to recover.   The last time I checked cold and flu medicine doesn't provide nourishment.  If chicken soup doesn't work then pop a pill and eat a hamburger. 

Again. * Just because someone thinks that something is "old or out dated it doesn't mean that it's useless."*


----------



## Rusty B (Jan 13, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Folks who have taken bats away from others will disagree with that.



Right, just like guys who catch bullets with their teeth will disagree with anyone saying it's a bad idea to fight a guy with a gun.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> i am contesting his whole '' anti modern science'' the old ways were the best '' philosophy, which he has failed to support at all.


 Again.  My family has had cancer treated with Modern Medicine.  I take modern medicine myself.  Not for cancer but If that happens then yes. I will take modern medicine.  You keep trying to place me in this "either or" box and I keep telling you that's not me.   I'm also not "anti modern science".  The majority of the post that I make with references come from organization that depend on science and research.  This has always been my way of talking of about things.  I try to provide reliable sources.



gpseymour said:


> Things can fit in more than one category.


Exactly.  I didn't think this was such a big impossibility



Flying Crane said:


> Oh I am well aware of Jobo’s engagement style in the forums. That is why I ignore him.


I used, lately he's been good with the discussions and has, at least with me, debated less.  I'm not a fan of debating anything. Debates don't require truth or accurate information so it naturally isn't productive when trying to share knowledge or one's understanding of something.  Which is probably why congress in general is so inefficient. Arguing for the sake of Arguing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> One day you're going to be one of these "old things".  Should people not value you at that time because of your flaws?


ha ha ha.. I do now  he doesn't have to get old. lol..  Sorry I couldn't resist.  Someone had to say.   Sometimes he has good things to say, just not when he's in his debating moods.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> If you can do the job with abacus is there anything to complain about?


This reminds me of this





The big difference between the 2 is that you are using your brain for one and the other you are not computing anything.  Then people wonder why math scores are so low in the U.S.  because school allow kids to use calculators..  I'm not saying that the abacus doesn't have limitation, but in terms of developing math skills, I'm sure it does a better job than just using a calculator.  I think calculators are fine once the brain actually knows how to calculate math.  

Stuff like this is amazing to me., especially when they start doing it mentally.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 13, 2020)

Rusty B said:


> Right, just like guys who catch bullets with their teeth will disagree with anyone saying it's a bad idea to fight a guy with a gun.


Nice lack of understanding.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 13, 2020)

*Medicinal uses of the potato*
Caution:  How you prepare foods is equally as important, if not more important, as the food that you are preparing.  The information below didn't state which potatoes are being used.  Not all potatoes have the same benefits or nourishment.  In addition.  Everything must be taken in balance.  The information below doesn't mean that you should eat french fries every day. That will more likely affect your health in a negative way.  The purpose of posting the information below is to show the duality of things.  How Foods can also be medicines, which is probably why we often see such things in old home remedies and traditional medicines.

From a biological perspective it only makes sense that things that can be use as medicine are often things that we can eat. Animals will often eat certain plants to help deal with illness and symptoms.. Humans have always done the same as well.  

*Source:*https://www.webmd.com/vitamins/ai/ingredientmono-809/potato

People take raw potato juice for stomach disorders and water retention (edema). A purified protein powder made from potato is mixed with water and used to control appetite for weight loss. Some people put raw potato directly on the affected area for arthritis, infections, boils, burns, and sore eyes.

*Source:* https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/280579.php#10_possible_health_benefits
*2) Blood pressure*
A low sodium intake is essential for maintaining a healthy blood pressure, but increasing potassium intake may be just as important. Potassium encourages vasodilation, or the widening of the blood vessels.  According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), fewer than 2 percent of American adults meet the daily 4,700-milligram recommendation. Potassium, calcium, and magnesium are all present in the potato. These have been found to decrease blood pressure naturally.

*Source:* Potato Uses, Benefits & Dosage - Drugs.com Herbal Database
*Uses and Pharmacology*
*Antiproliferative effect*
An antiproliferative effect on human colon and liver cancer cells has been demonstrated in vitro.3, 15 Glycoalkaloids from other species have demonstrated inhibitory action on tumors in mice and human solid tumor cell lines, as well as on basal and squamous cell carcinomas and adenocarcinomas.15, 16, 17 The traditional use of potato juice for the management of dyspepsia has been supported by limited clinical trials.18, 19


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

Haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been said already or this may be an entirely different discussion by now...

Fun weapons are fun to play with, so people play with them.


Unless your occupation puts you in dangerous situations there's quite frankly no requirement for active and constant self defence in the western world these days - or if you seek it out. You have to have pretty bad luck to come across street roaming gangs of thugs that you have to defend yourself against using improvised or 'boring' weapons on a daily basis. Or even in most cases on a once in a lifetime basis.

So why train for it if you don't find it interesting?

I'm exceedingly unlikely to be accosted by a 7' tall mugger, but it's fun to practice flying side kicks against a target 6-7' high, so I do. When that 7' tall guy tries to get my wallet, I'll kick him in the throat


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Then people wonder why math scores are so low in the U.S. because school allow kids to use calculators..




All a calculator does is enable you to add/minus/multiply etc numbers quicker. You still have to understand the maths problem and to know how to calculate the answer before you can use the calculator or abacus. it's just a tool.


----------



## skribs (Jan 16, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> All a calculator does is enable you to add/minus/multiply etc numbers quicker. You still have to understand the maths problem and to know how to calculate the answer before you can use the calculator or abacus. it's just a tool.



The argument made sense when I was in school and teachers would say "you're not going to carry around a calculator with you everywhere you go."  Back then, drilling in math was important.

Today, with smart phones having calculators built in...


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> The argument made sense when I was in school and teachers would say "you're not going to carry around a calculator with you everywhere you go."  Back then, drilling in math was important.
> 
> Today, with smart phones having calculators built in...




I am totally unable to do arithmetic in my head, I had really good teachers and I tried to learn my times tables by can't, I have the number equivalent of dyslexia, its called dyscalculia. I didn't get to take maths just try the arithmetic but I could do it if I used a calculator or pen and paper. Calculators in mobile phones are the greatest thing ever for people like me. My father could never understand why I had O and A levels plus a degree and other qualifications but can't add up in my head.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> All a calculator does is enable you to add/minus/multiply etc numbers quicker. You still have to understand the maths problem and to know how to calculate the answer before you can use the calculator or abacus. it's just a tool.


I don't know about that.   What's the square root of 765?    All you need to know is symbol on the calculator to get answer.  You don't have know anything about square roots or how to calculate it.  

5789 +5684.2 =?   same thing.  You don't have to know anything about addition.  Just enter the numbers into calculator.  GPS devices are also an easy one.  If you travel at X speed, how long will it take you to get there.  That's a math problem that is rarely calculated by anyone with a GPS.  Even when I didn't have a GPS, I've never calculated that.  So when you say that you still have to know how to solve the problem,  I'm going to say that's not always true.  

Weight conversions, distances, and temperature are also other examples of you not having to know the math .and you can still get the answer.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2020)

skribs said:


> The argument made sense when I was in school and teachers would say "you're not going to carry around a calculator with you everywhere you go."  Back then, drilling in math was important.
> 
> Today, with smart phones having calculators built in...


Compared to what I used to do when I was in my 20's, the only thing I really calculate are bills and when it's time to eat.   Even with money at the cash registers, how many people behind that register actually calculate how munch money they should give back to the customer.  And for the customer, do we calculate the money in our minds or look so see what the register says?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> I am totally unable to do arithmetic in my head, I had really good teachers and I tried to learn my times tables by can't, I have the number equivalent of dyslexia, its called dyscalculia. I didn't get to take maths just try the arithmetic but I could do it if I used a calculator or pen and paper.


This is different.  So the calculators thing that I'm talking about doesn't apply to you.. There's a big difference between* I'm not able*, and *I don't want to*.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know about that.   What's the square root of 765?    All you need to know is symbol on the calculator to get answer.  You don't have know anything about square roots or how to calculate it.
> 
> 5789 +5684.2 =?   same thing.  You don't have to know anything about addition.  Just enter the numbers into calculator.  GPS devices are also an easy one.  If you travel at X speed, how long will it take you to get there.  That's a math problem that is rarely calculated by anyone with a GPS.  Even when I didn't have a GPS, I've never calculated that.  So when you say that you still have to know how to solve the problem,  I'm going to say that's not always true.
> 
> Weight conversions, distances, and temperature are also other examples of you not having to know the math .and you can still get the answer.



Odd.

With the exception of the square root (even then, I know the square of 25 is 625 and the square of 30 is 900 so the root of 765 is going to be between those two, I'd dismiss squaring 26 because that's too close to 25 and hey, I'm pretty much there - in my head I'd settle on 27.5 being close enough for government work), the majority of the other maths problems I would usually do faster in my head than the time it would take me to get out a calculator (or launch the app if I wasn't already holding a phone).

Even when I do use a calculator, I'll run a rough mental calc.

Say that one of "5789 +5684.2 =?" - well, I might punch it into a calculator (well, I wouldn't for something so simple, but for the sake of example) I'd stick say 5800+5700 into my head and tell myself "the answer is somewhere near 11500".

It's just what my dad taught me as a numpty check - I've seen plenty of times when someone would say the answer is 6273.2 and not notice that they missed a 7.

I can get usable accuracy with the other conversions quickly as well - lbs/kg is usually close enough to just double or half, °c/°f is a case of halving in combination with adding or subtracting 32, distance is also easy enough - I'll be within a reasonable percentage of accuracy for most applications and if required can then increase the accuracy if the need arises.



JowGaWolf said:


> Compared to what I used to do when I was in my 20's, the only thing I really calculate are bills and when it's time to eat.   Even with money at the cash registers, how many people behind that register actually calculate how munch money they should give back to the customer.  And for the customer, do we calculate the money in our minds or look so see what the register says?



As a customer, I always mentally calculate and check my change - and if there's not a massive amount of items I'll estimate the bill before I go to pay - the vast majority of items are very close to whole or half pounds (like £1.99, or £5.49, or even 37p where 50p is a good number for a fast estimate). It's happened many times that I've caught a double scan of an item when the cashier has read the total to me and I've noticed the too large discrepancy from my estimate...





I just realised, there's a remote possibility that I'm a bit of a nerd...


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 16, 2020)

pdg said:


> I just realised, there's a remote possibility that I'm a bit of a nerd...


ha ha ha.. nope. just one of the rare ones or good with numbers.

Some people are good with numbers and some aren't.  My son is much better at numbers than I ever was.  Not sure where he got that from but it definitely wasn't me lol.  I'm not that great in math.  It always requires a different level of focus for me.  Which is strange because give me a set of numbers and data points and I'm heaven.  For example, I can tell you what percentage of time I spend of certain tasks in my workplace.  I can break down into task completed, tasks not started, tasks in progress.   If any one asks me my contribution I can show it in a chart and I can tell you what time and day I began the task and how long I worked.   But as far as calculating all of that, I'm like. nah.. that doesn't sound like fun.

Keep in mind I'm not required to do any of this.  This is stuff that I do simply because it's interesting to me.   When I turn on my GPS I analyze the time that the GPS says I will be their and I can hit get really close to how much the GPS will be off, even when the GPS is analyzing traffic.

Come to think about it, it may be that if there was a physical or analytical aspect attached (something beyond the answer) then I become more involved with math.  If it's just solving a math problem for the sake of solving a math problem then I didn't enjoy it.

I like to play football, but don't like to watch it.  I ran track for 6 years and may have only watched televised track single events in my entire life.  I've played soccer but I don't watch it; it's the same with tennis.  I was never good in Calculus, but one day I had to tutor a student who was having trouble with it,  to my surprise After more than 10 years of even seeing Calculus, I was able to grasp the concepts after one read and explain it in a way that helped the girl, I was tutoring get an A on her test.   If I can have that "something beyond the answer" then my focus and absorption are excellent. 

If it's an answer for the sake of an answer and no other purpose then I'm going to be sub average.


----------



## pdg (Jan 16, 2020)

@JowGaWolf - as is to be expected, we have things in common and also differences...

In common, there are things I like to do but get bored stiff watching much of, like cycling. I something watch videos of people doing tours, but racing I can't get into much (I watched the tour de France when I lived there, partially because it went past my house).

Conversely, I actually enjoy doing maths for no other reason than just to get the answer. I'm the sort of person who would take a few measurements to estimate the number of grains of sand on a beach, or sugar in a jar... I find it a relaxing distraction if other aspects of life are getting on my mind for whatever reason, I can have a sit with something like an electronic theory book and work some stuff out.

And another difference, I'm rarely good at teaching stuff, especially maths. I can explain how I understand it, but if the subject doesn't understand that explanation then the best I can usually do is repeat myself and see if it sinks in :/ Luckily for my kids, it's rare that they don't grasp my explanation first (or maybe second) time, sometimes simply because I explain it differently to their school teachers.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is different.  So the calculators thing that I'm talking about doesn't apply to you.. There's a big difference between* I'm not able*, and *I don't want to*.




Do Americans call everything maths? Maths to us is algebra, geometry and arithmetic, three separate subjects under one heading, but each is a subject in itself. I only did arithmetic as school as it was mandatory, didn't do the other two.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Do Americans call everything maths? Maths to us is algebra, geometry and arithmetic, three separate subjects under one heading, but each is a subject in itself. I only did arithmetic as school as it was mandatory, didn't do the other two.



I think that may be one reason we call it mathS and they call it just math.

We pluralise it for a reason.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Do Americans call everything maths? Maths to us is algebra, geometry and arithmetic, three separate subjects under one heading, but each is a subject in itself. I only did arithmetic as school as it was mandatory, didn't do the other two.


Not sure. I never thought about it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2020)

We call it maths because the whole word is  mathematic*s* not mathematic. I also forgot, my OH reminded me, that there's also trigonometry which obviously I didn't do either lol.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

Doing stuff like electronics and machining for hobbies, I use at least basic to mildly intermediate levels in most branches of maths just for fun...

And that's after probably making the stereotypical statement at school "when am I ever going to use this stuff anyway?"

All the time as it happens.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> "when am I ever going to use this stuff anyway?"




That could equally be said about the English taught at school, so many can't seem to remember that what they were taught is actually useful for communicating to other people lol. Grammar and spelling are important, it can change the whole meaning of a sentence if you don't use them properly.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Do Americans call everything maths? Maths to us is algebra, geometry and arithmetic, three separate subjects under one heading, but each is a subject in itself. I only did arithmetic as school as it was mandatory, didn't do the other two.


I think generally most folks include all of that in "math". The one difference is that we don't much distinguish (in lay discussion) between "arithmetic" and "math". In fact, you won't find most Americans using the word "arithmetic" - it's just the first stage of "math".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> We call it maths because the whole word is  mathematic*s* not mathematic. I also forgot, my OH reminded me, that there's also trigonometry which obviously I didn't do either lol.


Do you guys use the term "calculus"? And does that fall within "maths"?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Do you guys use the term "calculus"? And does that fall within "maths"?




Seems we do and it does lol. Found this from the BBC to help students, made my head hurt to be honest, give me a meaty bit of literature or history even geography to get stuck into any day! 
Calculus skills - Higher Maths - BBC Bitesize


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> We call it maths because the whole word is  mathematic*s* not mathematic. I also forgot, my OH reminded me, that there's also trigonometry which obviously I didn't do either lol.



MATHematic, MATHematics, the abbreviation works for both.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> MATHematic, MATHematics, the abbreviation works for both.



In proper English, the term "mathematic" (no s) can only be in such context as "mathematic ability", "mathematic process" or similar.

With no s, it would never be used in any other form. You would certainly never say anything like "I enjoy mathematic" because it makes no grammatical sense.

As for the abbreviated form, in any context you would only ever use "maths" and never drop the s, no matter the context.


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> In proper English, the term "mathematic" (no s) can only be in such context as "mathematic ability", "mathematic process" or similar.
> 
> With no s, it would never be used in any other form. You would certainly never say anything like "I enjoy mathematic" because it makes no grammatical sense.
> 
> As for the abbreviated form, in any context you would only ever use "maths" and never drop the s, no matter the context.



Why is "math" not an abbreviation for mathematics?

There are plenty of abbreviations for plural words where the abbreviation isn't pluralized.

Edit to add:
Definition of math | Dictionary.com
Definition of maths | Dictionary.com

According to this site, "Math" is a generally accepted abbreviation, and "Maths" is the chiefly British abbreviation.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Why is "math" not an abbreviation for mathematics?
> 
> There are plenty of abbreviations for plural words where the abbreviation isn't pluralized.
> 
> ...



Actually, it's the other way around.

"Maths" is the generally accepted abbreviation while "math" is pretty much exclusively used in one single country (plus a small portion of Canada).

Linking to an American dictionary really has no bearing on the spelling or usage of words anywhere outside the US.

I've just checked a few words using dictionary.com where your spelling differs, and they all came with "chiefly British" - making no mention of 75%+ of Canada, south Africa, Australia, the other countries within the UK and the whole raft of countries that were historically part of the British empire where English is used as a very strong second language as well as the majority of Europe and everything stretching into the eastern bloc.

Disagree with this post too if you like, just be aware that just because you disagree doesn't mean it's not a plain and verifiable fact (as long as you use sources from absolutely anywhere in the world except the US).

The case is identical for the US substitution of 'z' instead of 's', and also the insertion or removal of vowels from many words. As well as for numerical date format.

In all these areas, the US stands absolutely alone (usually while telling everyone else on earth that they're wrong).


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> In all these areas, the US stands absolutely alone (usually while telling everyone else on earth that they're wrong).



Um...I never said "maths" was wrong.  You're the one that said "math" was wrong.  So who is telling who which one is wrong?

All I did was argue that "math" is not incorrect.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Um...I never said "maths" was wrong.  You're the one that said "math" was wrong.  So who is telling who which one is wrong?
> 
> All I did was argue that "math" is not incorrect.



By saying that it's not incorrect, you expressly implied that my previous explanation was wrong.

The difference is that I was saying you were wrong to be applying American English language rules to anything other than American English - not that you were wrong to be using the rules governing your particular language.

"Math" is incorrect in everything except American English - and I have no problem with it being correct there, until the point where it's argued that because it's correct there it surely must be "not incorrect" for the rest of the world.


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> By saying that it's not incorrect, you expressly implied that my previous explanation was wrong.
> 
> The difference is that I was saying you were wrong to be applying American English language rules to anything other than American English - not that you were wrong to be using the rules governing your particular language.
> 
> "Math" is incorrect in everything except American English - and I have no problem with it being correct there, until the point where it's argued that because it's correct there it surely must be "not incorrect" for the rest of the world.



If you're going to lie about what you said, it's best not to do it in a written conversation.  This is the post I was replying to:



> In proper English, the term "mathematic" (no s) can only be in such context as "mathematic ability", "mathematic process" or similar.
> 
> With no s, it would never be used in any other form. You would certainly never say anything like "I enjoy mathematic" because it makes no grammatical sense.
> 
> As for the abbreviated form, in any context you would only ever use "maths" and never drop the s, no matter the context.



You said there is *no* context in which you could ever use the abbreviation "math."  You never said "there is no context in British English" or "there is no context, unless it is a convention of your local dialect."  Most of my students that exhibit this kind of behavior are in the 4-7 year old class.  Most people by age 8 (if not earlier) have learned that if someone sees you do something, you can't lie about it and expect them to believe you.

Going back to what you said, particularly this part: _By saying that it's not incorrect, you expressly implied that my previous explanation was wrong._
You're putting words in my mouth.  Words I did not say.  You are assuming an implication that I specifically worded my post to avoid.  But I should be used to that from you by now.


----------



## Buka (Jan 17, 2020)




----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> You said there is *no* context in which you could ever use the abbreviation "math." You never said "there is no context in British English"



The qualifier was in the opening phrase - "in proper English".

I wasn't using the term "proper" in a derogatory sense, but in the same sense as "proper noun" for instance.

Therefore, using the phraseology you suggest would have been an exercise in repetition. I would have been saying "in British English there is no context in British English".

In fact, it would also have been correct for me to just use "English" with no qualifier (because English is the language of England, just as German is the language of Germany and French is the language of France), American English is a modified derivative and subject to separate rules and interpretation.



skribs said:


> You're putting words in my mouth. Words I did not say. You are assuming an implication that I specifically worded my post to avoid



In that case, it wasn't worded very well in terms of achieving that aim - or maybe it was under American English grammatical rules...

With an understanding based on the contextual interpretation using international/British/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Australian/south African/empirical English (damn, "proper" is easier to type) then my assumption of your intent was perfectly acceptable.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

Buka said:


> View attachment 22665



Don't you start either


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> The qualifier was in the opening phrase - "in proper English".



Which means that anything which does not agree with you is improper.



pdg said:


> In that case, it wasn't worded very well in terms of achieving that aim - or maybe it was under American English grammatical rules...
> 
> With an understanding based on the contextual interpretation using international/British/Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Australian/south African/empirical English (damn, "proper" is easier to type) then my assumption of your intent was perfectly acceptable.



No.  Because you did read it correctly by the way you responded in the next post.  It's not my fault you got offended when I told you that telling other people they are wrong is wrong.  If that sentence seems convoluted, it's because that's the only way to make sense of your logic here.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

I've just re-had a thought.

All these linguistic conflicts could be completely avoided if America took ownership of the language it has modified for generations and simply called it American. Desperately clinging to the "English" part kind of suggests a deep rooted sense of inadequacy that can only be quelled by maintaining a psychological link to the country that sent out the settlers.

Then there could be universal acceptance that it is what it is - a different language derived from a common source. One which allows general communication to take place but contains fundamental differences.

Just drop the English part of the name, we'll let you, we don't mind at all. After all, we let you have your own government and everything 

Thing is, expecting us over here to qualify when we're speaking our own language by using a prefix is more than a little silly (British English, yeah right - I'm in England which actually makes it English English...)


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Which means that anything which does not agree with you is improper.



Yes, but not necessarily incorrect in it's own context.

Improper doesn't have to have negative connotations.


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

pdg said:


> I've just re-had a thought.
> 
> All these linguistic conflicts could be completely avoided if America took ownership of the language it has modified for generations and simply called it American. Desperately clinging to the "English" part kind of suggests a deep rooted sense of inadequacy that can only be quelled by maintaining a psychological link to the country that sent out the settlers.
> 
> ...



I understood the American Revolution through historical context, but your arrogance in this post is helping me to understand it personally.



pdg said:


> Yes, but not necessarily incorrect in it's own context.
> 
> Improper doesn't have to have negative connotations.



In what uses does it not have negative connotations?


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> In what uses does it not have negative connotations



In English, a great many.

In American, I honestly have no idea.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> Which means that anything which does not agree with you is improper.




No, it doesn't, in British English proper is another word for genuine or specific to.

ADJECTIVE

BRITISH
denoting something that is truly what it is said or regarded to be; genuine.
"she's never had a proper job" ·
real · genuine · actual · true · bona fide · kosher
of the required or correct type or form; suitable or appropriate.
"an artist needs the proper tools" ·
right · correct · accepted · orthodox · conventional · established · official · formal · regular · acceptable · appropriate · suitable · fitting · apt · due · de règle · meet
(proper to)
belonging or relating exclusively or distinctively to; particular to.
"the two elephant types proper to Africa and to southern Asia"
synonyms:
belonging · relating · pertaining · related · relevant · unique · peculiar · associated with


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I understood the American Revolution through historical context, but your arrogance in this post is helping me to understand it personally.




Then you will know that those in America at the time paid much less tax than the people in Great Britain so had far less to moan about.


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> No, it doesn't, in British English proper is another word for genuine or specific to.
> 
> ADJECTIVE
> 
> ...



The first two examples show the absence of proper as a bad thing.

The third example is "proper to" which is not what was said, and contextually inaccurate.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

Seeing as the first definition shows "genuine", we can use that.

English as a language is the language of England - just as an Englishman is a man from England.

American (English) as a language is not genuine English because the modifications made are such that it's no longer the same thing. It has become genuine American.

Therefore, it is no longer proper English. It is, by definition improper English - all the while being proper American.

Being improper, or non-genuine, is not necessarily a negative state, it does not imply being better or worse - unless it's being presented as proper.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Seems we do and it does lol. Found this from the BBC to help students, made my head hurt to be honest, give me a meaty bit of literature or history even geography to get stuck into any day!
> Calculus skills - Higher Maths - BBC Bitesize


I never liked math(s) much. I'm easily good at it, but find it...meh. It's too picky for my tastes, and most of it was easy enough I got bored in class. Maybe if I'd ever gotten to theoretical math, I'd have liked that, but there's not much theoretical math in a Psych major.


----------



## pdg (Jan 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It's too picky for my tastes



You know what would make maths better?

If it was even more picky


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 17, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Seems we do and it does lol. Found this from the BBC to help students, made my head hurt to be honest, give me a meaty bit of literature or history even geography to get stuck into any day!
> Calculus skills - Higher Maths - BBC Bitesize


Just think.  It gets worse. The US has "New Math" that teaches kids how to add by subtracting.  Then they want parents to help at home.


----------



## skribs (Jan 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Just think.  It gets worse. The US has "New Math" that teaches kids how to add by subtracting.  Then they want parents to help at home.



I think the problem with a lot of the Common Core stuff like this is that it makes sense to the teacher who created the concept, and it makes sense the way they teach it, but once it becomes standardized it's problematic.

We had a similar problem my 8th grade year in Middle School.  We got a disciplinary system that was taken from another school.  The other school had students create it and they embraced it, and it worked really well.  Our school, none of the students and only half the teachers even respected it, let alone embraced it.  The parents thought even less of it.  It didn't work well at all.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Just think.  It gets worse. The US has "New Math" that teaches kids how to add by subtracting.  Then they want parents to help at home.




 As long though as I have a calculator or a pen and paper I can do those old 'sums' ( what we used to call all maths lol) we used to get like 'if it takes a road worker three hours to dig up half a mile of road how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters?' I remember there were so many like that!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 18, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> if it takes a road worker three hours to dig up half a mile of road how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters?'


 My brain hits analytical mode with question like this.  Because a mile and three quarters of road isn't going to be consistent lol.  The one thing I like about physics is that it's measured on "if all things are consistent"   I can work with that.  If all things are consistent, how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters?  This question calms my brain and has me focus things being consistent. I literally feel the difference when I read the 2 sentences.  One makes me feel like I have figure out a bunch of other stuff.  The other makes me feel like I only have to figure out one thing. 

Me and my crazy mind


----------



## pdg (Jan 18, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> 'if it takes a road worker three hours to dig up half a mile of road how long does it take him to dig a mile and three quarters?'



From observing the council workers around here, the answer would be about 16 months.

And once he's filled it back in, someone from a different department would come and dig it up again to do something else.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 18, 2020)

When I wake up in the morning and find to my utter dismay that in addition to the seventeen zombies milling about in my front yard, Ive got twelve more in the street and nine who found their way into my back yard, I know I’ve got thirty-eight zombies and I’m in for some blade work this day.  Now I can subtract the five that fell into the swimming pool, as they can be dispatched another time, at my leisure.  This leaves me with a total of thirty-three that absolutely need to be dealt with before I head out on my daily scavenging mission.  

If I wake up my wife and alert her to the situation, I can now divide the number of zombies by two, leaving sixteen for each of us, with one left over.  That is sixteen and one-half zombies each.  We can double-team on that last one.   Or, the thought occurs to me that we could hand off the spare long sword to our son, age six, and let him have a go at the last zombie, who happens to be the mean neighbor who yelled at our son last year for trampling the flowers in front of his house.  This would be an opportune moment for our son to begin learning to take down Zed on his own, a skill that will serve him well for years to come.  Payback, baby.

If I estimate that a fresh Zed might burn thirty calories to take down and dispose of, I can multiply sixteen zombies by thirty calories and know that I need 480 calories.  That pitiful bowl of oatmeal that I had is not gonna get me very far.  I’ve got hungry work ahead of me.

What I also know is that I need to fix the yard fence, ‘cause how in the hell did those zombies get into the back yard and the pool in the first place??

So people, practice your blades and brush up on your mathematics.  How embarrassing would it be if I took out ten zombies and left twenty-three for my wife, just because I couldn’t do quick division in my head!!!???


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 18, 2020)

pdg said:


> From observing the council workers around here, the answer would be about 16 months.
> 
> And once he's filled it back in, someone from a different department would come and dig it up again to do something else.



As short a time as that wow!  My son lives in Bedale a small town up here, the roads are always up for something, you'd think they'd co-ordinate their roads works.


----------



## Buka (Jan 18, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> When I wake up in the morning and find to my utter dismay that in addition to the seventeen zombies milling about in my front yard, Ive got twelve more in the street and nine who found their way into my back yard, I know I’ve got thirty-eight zombies and I’m in for some blade work this day.  Now I can subtract the five that fell into the swimming pool, as they can be dispatched another time, at my leisure.  This leaves me with a total of thirty-three that absolutely need to be dealt with before I head out on my daily scavenging mission.
> 
> If I wake up my wife and alert her to the situation, I can now divide the number of zombies by two, leaving sixteen for each of us, with one left over.  That is sixteen and one-half zombies each.  We can double-team on that last one.   Or, the thought occurs to me that we could hand off the spare long sword to our son, age six, and let him have a go at the last zombie, who happens to be the mean neighbor who yelled at our son last year for trampling the flowers in front of his house.  This would be an opportune moment for our son to begin learning to take down Zed on his own, a skill that will serve him well for years to come.  Payback, baby.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 18, 2020)

Buka said:


> View attachment 22666


Yeah.  The POOL, damnit!!!


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 21, 2020)

pdg said:


> Haven't read the whole thread, so this may have been said already or this may be an entirely different discussion by now...



Essentially, we really nutted out the best ways to attack and defend against ALL types of zombies, making sure to delineate the different attributes, strengths and weaknesses of zombie types.

I HIGHLY recommend the zombie posts, could save your life!


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 21, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> We call it maths because the whole word is  mathematic*s* not mathematic. I also forgot, my OH reminded me, that there's also trigonometry which obviously I didn't do either lol.





pdg said:


> I think that may be one reason we call it mathS and they call it just math.
> 
> We pluralise it for a reason.





gpseymour said:


> I think generally most folks include all of that in "math". The one difference is that we don't much distinguish (in lay discussion) between "arithmetic" and "math". In fact, you won't find most Americans using the word "arithmetic" - it's just the first stage of "math".


Kids of this generation! Choose "math" over "meth"!


(Or is that meths..... )


----------



## _Simon_ (Jan 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> When I wake up in the morning and find to my utter dismay that in addition to the seventeen zombies milling about in my front yard, Ive got twelve more in the street and nine who found their way into my back yard, I know I’ve got thirty-eight zombies and I’m in for some blade work this day.  Now I can subtract the five that fell into the swimming pool, as they can be dispatched another time, at my leisure.  This leaves me with a total of thirty-three that absolutely need to be dealt with before I head out on my daily scavenging mission.
> 
> If I wake up my wife and alert her to the situation, I can now divide the number of zombies by two, leaving sixteen for each of us, with one left over.  That is sixteen and one-half zombies each.  We can double-team on that last one.   Or, the thought occurs to me that we could hand off the spare long sword to our son, age six, and let him have a go at the last zombie, who happens to be the mean neighbor who yelled at our son last year for trampling the flowers in front of his house.  This would be an opportune moment for our son to begin learning to take down Zed on his own, a skill that will serve him well for years to come.  Payback, baby.
> 
> ...


.... absolutely post of the year, hands down.. and it's not even February yet!!!!! Pissing myself laughing....

And wow, we now have the bunkai! The practical application of mathematics!!!


----------



## pdg (Jan 22, 2020)

_Simon_ said:


> Kids of this generation! Choose "math" over "meth"!
> 
> 
> (Or is that meths..... )



Meth is generally an abbreviation for methamphetamine.

Meths is an abbreviation for methylated spirits.

Neither are substances I would recommend as particularly healthy to consume for recreational purposes (although both are).


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 22, 2020)

pdg said:


> Meth is generally an abbreviation for methamphetamine.
> 
> Meths is an abbreviation for methylated spirits.
> 
> Neither are substances I would recommend as particularly healthy to consume for recreational purposes (although both are).



Meth is bad. Except when it's good. Because meth injection is either a good way to destroy your health, or a good way to allow higher levels of boost in turbo/supercharged engines.


----------



## pdg (Jan 22, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Meth is bad. Except when it's good. Because meth injection is either a good way to destroy your health, or a good way to allow higher levels of boost in turbo/supercharged engines.



For use in an engine, would that not be methanol?

We don't bother abbreviating that word, because it's only 3 syllables


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 22, 2020)

pdg said:


> For use in an engine, would that not be methanol?
> 
> We don't bother abbreviating that word, because it's only 3 syllables



It is, but it's generally referred to as meth in the car world. Just as a transmission is usually called a tranny - another word with drastically varying meanings.


----------



## pdg (Jan 22, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> It is, but it's generally referred to as meth in the car world. Just as a transmission is usually called a tranny - another word with drastically varying meanings.



Indeed.

Here (historically) a tranny (/trannie) was an abbreviation for "transistor radio" - loads of people used to walk around with a tranny in their hand...

Alternatively it referred to a Ford Transit van - for a time after that it was used as a generic term for any small/medium panel van irrespective of manufacture (You wanna shift a sofa? My mate Trev's got a tranny, I'll give 'im an 'oller on the blower - 'ere, Dave, Trev ain't got shot of 'is tranny 'as 'e?)

A car transmission refers to the entire drivetrain, the gearbox section just being a gearbox.

To make a gearbox (or 'box, as in autobox or slushbox if referring to an automatic) into a transmission you need to add a clutch or torque converter, prop (if rwd), diff, halfshafts...

And methanol is methanol - from my time working within the car and bike world (seems that the definition is somewhat like the "world series"...) - this may have changed in some circles over here with the incessant importation of foreign terms, but generally it's still methanol (or meth'nol/meffnol if the accent supports such).


----------



## Azulx (Jan 23, 2020)

Bullsherdog said:


> I'm watching High School of the Dead and I just watched Train to Busan. In both zombie apocalypse work, the more preferred weapon by the heroes is the baseball bat and most bystanders are using broomsticks, wrenches, crowbars, and one handed heavy clubs and sticks and other boring weapons. The few people who choose to use fancy martial arts stuff like Sai and Kama either get eaten quickly or are shown to be at an extremely high level of skill that a regular Joe can't expect to attain in years or even decades.
> 
> It leads me to ask why so many Westerners tend to search out specifically to train in weapons that are impossible to find in daily life and are often illegel or even impractical to carry around. Most commonly is wooden Japanese sword styles, nunchuks, Tonfas, and too many weapons I cannot name that are simply to bizarre to describe or to obscure even in Asia. Rather than learning the use of weapons that you can easily find an improvised tool to translate into impromptu such as flailing weapons (easily created with so many home tools, even simply putting a lockpad in a sock) and shield arts (you can simply pick up a metal trash can lid). Or even common weapons such as a bat.
> 
> ...



Where can you watch high school of the dead? Haven't seen that since freshman year lol


----------

