# Pressure testing self-defence techniques



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

There is a school of thought within the self-defence community (RBSD although that label is fast becoming a stigma as somewhat unrealistic people join the bandwagon), that the training which best prepares you for real life situations is that which is closest to it. This school of thought acknowledges that whatever training you do, it is often going to be a step-up to the real thing. I say often because reality is itself an imprecise and variable factor. The goal therefore is to make the step-up as small as possible. 

So we need ways of comparing our training options with reality in order to assess the benefit we are getting and what we can do to get closer to reality. 

One model, my own in fact, plots training activities against two variables:
1. The contact level
2. The scope (bandwidth) or resistance you face

For practical reasons reality is plotted as notionally unrestricting in both scope and contact. Obviously this is not always the case, but it is best not to underestimate it. 

The graph ends up looking something like this:







You can plot virtually any martial arts training activity on the graph to assess its value.


----------



## Marvin (Mar 9, 2006)

Interesting chart, do you mind if I use it?


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

feel free. It's just common sense really.


----------



## Marvin (Mar 9, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> feel free. It's just common sense really.


 
There was a time when it wasn't common sense.
Thanks


----------



## Brother John (Mar 9, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> You can plot virtually any martial arts training activity on the graph to assess its value.



So the *"Value"* of a martial art, or of training in a martial art, is dependant upon the level of resistance and the level of contact w/in it's training????

So....If I go and take a running start, and slam my head into a Male "Silver-back" Gorrilla...and call it a martial art
That would make it a "Valuable" martial art?

I'm probably just not following your logic.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 9, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> There is a school of thought within the self-defence community (&#8220;RBSD&#8221; although that label is fast becoming a stigma as somewhat unrealistic people join the bandwagon) , that the training which best prepares you for real life situations is that which is closest to it.


I understand this 'way' of thinking, but really....when you get closer to this particular 'situation' (in this case, combat) you also get results that are "closer" to the results you'd get from the 'actual' thing as well. 
Like injuries, getting maimed/disabled, death.

Not good _training_, in my book.

Your Brother
John


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 9, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> So the *"Value"* of a martial art, or of training in a martial art, is dependant upon the level of resistance and the level of contact w/in it's training????


From a purely SD viewpoint, yes. There are numerous subtleties to factor in, but that's the general gist of it. 



			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> So....If I go and take a running start, and slam my head into a Male "Silver-back" Gorrilla...and call it a martial art
> That would make it a "Valuable" martial art?


If you were successful in defeating the gorilla then yes, that sounds like a good art for unarmed SD. The stupidity of your suggestion aside.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 9, 2006)

Cool chart!


----------



## still learning (Mar 9, 2006)

Hello, Great chart and this will lead to many of us to measure our own martial art classes to the real world of real street fighing.

Real fighting is total chaos, with no rules anything goes, anyone can jump in, anything and everything around can be and will be use for weapons to hurt/kill you. NO such thing as a fair fight. Biting,eye gouging,stratching, breaking bones and all. Real fighting many times will continue untill someone quits or cannot fight back anymore? 

People I know who do alot of street fights...tells me they keep on hitting until the person cannot move....base on there experience (they live in a rough housing area). Because many times before if the person can get back up...they will attack somemore and even grap a weapon of some kind. Are you prepare for this? and this style of fighting? ........Aloha


----------



## Sarah (Mar 9, 2006)

Interesting....

"Martial" Arts is far more than just fighting..


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 9, 2006)

Sarah said:
			
		

> Interesting....
> 
> "Martial" Arts is far more than just fighting..


 
No it isnt...its all about MMA and who can kick whos butt in UFC...No Holds Barred except the ones that are illegeal!

     

There are just to many variables in any fight situatiion be it in the ring or out on the street...skill sometimes plays little to no part in fights...sometimes it plays the biggest part, sometimes its power...sometimes speed...but everytime luck plays a part in it!

To really pressure test something, you can only do it by fighting..I mean real fighting... to the death (most TMA were tested under these conditions i.e wars etc). If you place rules in the test then you are only pressure testing a type of fighting e.g boxing is only pressure tested against other boxers..but they get nailed against a Judoka...but still it is about individuals not arts...so I would say it is about pressure testing individuals as IMHO there is no way to test an art because an art is what you make it!


----------



## Sarah (Mar 9, 2006)

Sounds to me like this is just about street fighting then, not self defense and not Martial Arts.

Self defense (as talked about in lots of other threads) is as much about keep yourself safe and not ending up in the situation where you need to fight as it is about ones confidence/attitude etc, these are just as important as any technical skill.

And if the only way to really test is a so called fight to the death, then fighting agenst 'resistance' in class is not going to cut it either and we are all screwed.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 9, 2006)

> "Martial" Arts is far more than just fighting.


-Maybe, if you're the philosophical type. But this thread is titled "Pressure testing self defense techniques".


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 9, 2006)

How do I use the ignore user thingy?


----------



## Cujo (Mar 9, 2006)

I think you have to balance between realiastic training and not maiming your students. It's a tough balancing act to maintain but has to be done. By the way, I do favor pressure testing, the closer to the real thing you get, the more accurately you can gauge your response, but safety must always be an issue.
Pax
Cujo


----------



## Lisa (Mar 9, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> How do I use the ignore user thingy?



User CP, miscellaneous, Ignore/buddy list.

Type in the name of the member you want to ignore and update.


----------



## Sarah (Mar 9, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> How do I use the ignore user thingy?


 
Go into User CP (top left) and go into ignore list and add name.


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 9, 2006)

Go to USER CP...click ignore....good so far...add SARAH and Lisa!!!!


JUST JOKING....You know I love you guys!!! Especially on this beautiful tropical day..I am going this evening to watch an electrical storm out at sea (I wont be out at sea)! 

Tomorrow another day at the beach, practicing Kata!


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 9, 2006)

Ostrich defense much?


----------



## Lisa (Mar 9, 2006)

SAVAGE said:
			
		

> Go to USER CP...click ignore....good so far...add SARAH and Lisa!!!!
> 
> 
> JUST JOKING....You know I love you guys!!! Especially on this beautiful tropical day..I am going this evening to watch an electrical storm out at sea (I wont be out at sea)!
> ...



I hate you.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 9, 2006)

Sarah said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like this is just about street fighting then, not self defense and not Martial Arts.
> 
> Self defense (as talked about in lots of other threads) is as much about keep yourself safe and not ending up in the situation where you need to fight as it is about ones confidence/attitude etc, these are just as important as any technical skill.
> 
> And if the only way to really test is a so called fight to the death, then fighting agenst 'resistance' in class is not going to cut it either and we are all screwed.


B I N G O !!

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 9, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Maybe, if you're the philosophical type. But this thread is titled "Pressure testing self defense techniques".


I Disagree...
What's generally termed "Fighting" in a martial arts class (especially in a MMA or contest oriented club), and in this case "Pressure Testing" also has little to do with Real fighting. 
Thing is, we can get prepared or not, somethings get us closer to being ready, others have diminishing returns for the time we put into them.
The Martial Arts are for WAY more than just fighting....AND  way more than just being a "philosophical type". The longer you've been a martial artist, the more you'll come to understand this.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 9, 2006)

Cujo said:
			
		

> I think you have to balance between realiastic training and not maiming your students. It's a tough balancing act to maintain but has to be done. By the way, I do favor pressure testing, the closer to the real thing you get, the more accurately you can gauge your response, but safety must always be an issue.
> Pax
> Cujo


THAT is a sensible approach!!!

Safety MUST prevail! Otherwise your training, which was aimed at making you MORE prepared to face a horrific physical assault, will injure or maim you.... and then you'd be MUCH less able to fend off a poodle.

Good call.

Your Brother
John


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 9, 2006)

> What's generally termed "Fighting" in a martial arts class (especially in a MMA or contest oriented club), and in this case "Pressure Testing" also has little to do with Real fighting.


-What makes you make such a claim?

And the thread is still about SD.


----------



## Adept (Mar 10, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> The Martial Arts are for WAY more than just fighting....AND way more than just being a "philosophical type". The longer you've been a martial artist, the more you'll come to understand this.
> 
> Your Brother
> John



Only if you want them to be. _Anything_  can be about more than it is on the surface. Pruning trees, mowing the lawn, ten pin bowling, playing snooker or pool, long distance running, chess, painting, whatever.

The thing is, all of these things are extras. They aren't mandatory for the activity in question. And that goes for martial arts as well. Any kind of philosophy, spirituality, self improvement or lifestyle change that comes through martial arts comes about because the people involved chose to add another dimension to their training.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 10, 2006)

Street Fighting, Martial Arts, Self Defense and Combat Techniques are 4 different animals.

If you want to pressure test them, you simply do it differently.
Want to test your street fight stuff?  Go take a walk through some bad neighborhoods late at night with cash sticking out of your pockets. An opportunity will find you.

Want to test your Self Defense stuff? Find a suitable scenario and run through your moves.

Combat stuff?  Go enlist and request deployment to Iraq. There are guys over there more than willing to let you go be a hero so they can come home.

Your Martial Arts?  IF you do the "art", enter a tournament. If you go for the deeper sides, the pressure test is within you at all times.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 10, 2006)

There seem to be those who think that the UFC, Boxing, even Pro Wrestling are real self defence or combat arts. Truth is, they are not. The techniques which will work in those environments will get you killed in a street fight. The techniques that work in a street fight will land you in a bag in a war zone. The pretty dance moves in a tourney will make you hurt if done when you are being held at weapon point.  The concept of pressure testing is solely dependant on what you are pressure testing for.  A popular argument seems to surround even agreeing on what is a self defence technique. The traditionalists will insist it is their fancy dance steps. The MMAers will insist it "all goes to the ground" and cite some stained posters of someone named Gracie as proof.  The intelligent will say it is whatever worked in that particular moment, as skill and luck often are a lot closer than the egos will admit. Be it hot ashes and an eye poke, or 3 steps to the left, spin on your back ankle and fairy kick the bloke in the john thomas followed by runlikehell-fu, you can't truely test it, because every single situation is different.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 10, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -What makes you make such a claim?


fair question.....

Pressure testing, and other similar ideas(very much en-vogue right now, chic.popular) actually makes some sense, but it often (as here) gets presented as the be all end all of martial arts ability or pragmatism. It is not. Not by a long shot.

You see, learning and preparing to deal with a physical altercation is MUCH more than just being very used to being able to crash and thrash like a brawler. When you have the gladiator mentality of Throw yourself into the fire and see whats left afterwards to Test your skillsyou dont end up as anything more than a brawler. Brawlers try to use brawn to accomplish their ends, not skill, not ability.adrenaline and little more. What happens when you get older and your Brawn just aint what it used to be? Or youre ill? Thenonly finesse would serve you; because your muscles will be shaky, but proper angles and good timing will always workif you learned your lessons well and engrained the work. 

Besides, how are you going to get real close to combat and keep from maiming one another??? The Martial arts is about gaining inner and outer control.....and please don't think that I'm getting all "Philosophical type" on you with the inner control part either. That too is still very much "still about SD". I'm talking about finesse, poise, and LEARNING....becoming a cultivated martial artist. Thats what helps you hold it together when the shiznit smacks the fan. Learning a martial art and cultivating yourself as such is NOT like buying the latest computer game, downloading it and then testing it to See if this stuff works. Its not about the technique. Its about the technician; the person.  You learn your lessons, rudimentary at first.building in both difficulty and finesse. But you can learn from it, when somethings not optimal it can still be tested, found wanting and improved. You can look at what went wrong, make adjustments/correct the flawand do better next time. What happens when I Pressure Test by getting close to reality and the martial athlete Im training with has the NORMAL human response of fight or flight and his adrenal surge, combined with his training and muscularityhelps me slip a disk in my neck?? WOW.that didnt go real far in the way of preparing me to be able to defend my family. (Maybe I can learn my lesson from that, but now I have a neck that will always be weakerand I may be gun and have lost some confidence to boot) SD is Really difficult while youre in traction or a cast. Hope my wife can cover for me should anything happen while Im healing .either that or I can just sit comfortably in my neck/back brace while she or my kids become victims. Nice 

The concept of Pressure Testing has some good logic that leads up to it. REALLY. But the end result that most people reach, that the most crucial things to make training valuable are 
1. Level of Contact 
2. Level of resistance. 
Is most illogical. THAT is why I used the ridiculous reference to the running head but to the Silverback Gorilla! Because nobody can hand to hand fist fight a Gorilla, let alone their alpha-male type. Its just as logical. Its like training and training to be a high powered swimmer and thenafter lots of training, conditioning and planning.you jump naked into the worst white water rapids in America.  Maybe youll live. Maybe. Quality of life is almost certain to go down though. Is that Success? Did I pass the test?? 

 COMBAT is a craps shoot.almost. Our martial arts training gives us an edge, at bestif you do things Right and really seek excellence, its a Really Really significant edge.; but still.just an edge. Not a guarantee. Sowhat if Im wrong. What if I wasnt ready to swim the white water rapids yet? There wouldnt even be enough of me left to bob in the kiddy pool. 

When you throw yourself into the fire to be tested you must be ready to find the flaws in your metalthing is.it doesnt just highlight those cracks..it Splits them to the point that all there is left is to melt it down and make some nails out of it. SO..what if youre not a natural Rambo? What if youre just a person of average athleticism who wants to be able to defend themselves well, but arent going to dedicate the HOURS a day in the gym and dojo, to become some kind of Martial Athlete to do so. See, I dont do martial arts to Get in the Ring and be the baddest mo-fo on the canvas. Im a father of twoI do my martial arts to be able to disassemble anyone wanting to harm me or my family/friends. Im not a weekend warrior, Im daddy who reads Dr. Seuss and pays the bills (hopefully on time). I train in techniques that dont NEED me to be a brute or Hulk Hogan. 

So here I gogonna go Pressure Testwhich means that too find the Greatest Value from my M.A. training Ive got to make the greatest level of contact with the fewest number of predictable variablesand so does my equally hostile adversary upon whom I test myself by going quite near All out combatas does he.

Woopswhats that? 
My partner is better at slipping that arm around my neck and cranking than I am at escaping in time???..cant make it to work for a week or two now. Sorry bill collectors. Sorry family that needs me.career that wont wait until I heal to move on. I just took a test and am now on the mend. 

Being a Brawler, which is...I think...the logical conclusion to the mind set presented as the rationale for things like "Pressure Testing",  is about throwing yourself in the deep-end and seeing if you sink or swim. Thing is...it's an all or nothing kind of game; and there's not a lot of "Learning" to be done from it. It's lesson IS the test and it's a final exam. IF not....then it's not even coming close to combat. MOST of the time, people that advocate this kind of crucible-mindset trainingthinking that their Brutal training is so very close to real combat. Most of my family was in Vietnam, some Army, more Marinesand Ill tell you from speaking with themtheyd thought that the crucible was rugged and that they could survive and thrive in any HEAT
Then they went to Nam

You cant FAKE combat, you cant even approximate it. 
You cant even really come close. 
What do you do when the brutal thug on the street improvises and does something completely unexpected and deadly? You OUT THINK and outmaneuver because you have that edge, a cultivated ability to keep your wits when all goes dark and the spit starts flying. You match his shifty-trickiness with your own cunning .backed by SOUND training.and when combined with your greater strength/stamina/timing/distancing..etc that youve engrained through your hours in the dojo.hopefully you fair MUCH MUCH better than any untrained person in the same circumstance.

How do you train to Pressure Test if your anti-headlock efforts Work if your adversary is ACTUALLY intent on killing you or knocking you out. Do you Really train with people who have NO morals, no respect for life and no inhibitions toward doing the nastiest thing thy can think of? Are your training partners Desperate? Animals?

Please dont get me wrong. Im all for Good Hard training.but I like the type that doesnt come with traction or prosthetics. 
And if you say that training that mimics, or even comes close to Combat Realism Does NOT include such things.
Id say
Get real.

Honestly.with respect..

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 10, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> There seem to be those who think that the UFC, Boxing, even Pro Wrestling are real self defence or combat arts. Truth is, they are not. The techniques which will work in those environments will get you killed in a street fight. The techniques that work in a street fight will land you in a bag in a war zone. The pretty dance moves in a tourney will make you hurt if done when you are being held at weapon point. The concept of pressure testing is solely dependant on what you are pressure testing for. A popular argument seems to surround even agreeing on what is a self defence technique. The traditionalists will insist it is their fancy dance steps. The MMAers will insist it "all goes to the ground" and cite some stained posters of someone named Gracie as proof. The intelligent will say it is whatever worked in that particular moment, as skill and luck often are a lot closer than the egos will admit. Be it hot ashes and an eye poke, or 3 steps to the left, spin on your back ankle and fairy kick the bloke in the john thomas followed by runlikehell-fu, you can't truely test it, because every single situation is different.


Ah--geeze Edmund....
There ya go....making good sense again, and with way fewer words than me.
Fine!!!!!! 
(Great Post old man)

Your Brother
John


----------



## bydand (Mar 10, 2006)

Bob Hubbard, Edmund BlackAdder, & Brother John;

Thanks for all of you putting down what I was thinking, but couldn't come up with a diplomatic way of expressing it in a post.  "Pressure Testing" is just asking to get hurt, and the majority of people simply cannot afford to take that chance.  Regardless if it be Family, work, bills, or self-esteem;  yes I want to know if what I have been learning will work, but not at that price.  Another thread on this forum dealt with "belief" if I remember correctly, that is so true!  We all train in our respective MA's not because we think it is a cut-rate art, but one that will deliver what we are each seeking.  It instills confidence in each of us and that WILL lead to a clearer head if and when a situation arises.  
I also agree that we must "test" what we have learned, but not at the level those who advocate real pressure testing lean toward.  If you have been training for some time, your body will remember what needs to be done without having to think over each and every move.  That way your most important organ can be working on how to get OUT of the situation.
IMO - I don't think you can "pressure test" *self-defense* techniques,  because there are far to many variables out there that can arise.  In  fighting techniques I belive you can get much closer, but we are talking about Self-defense here.
I know I just opened myself up for some major dipute, but... all discussion can help view the whole picture I guess. :shrug:


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

Sometimes I wonder if people even read or think about the original post. 

Anyway, 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> To really pressure test something, you can only do it by fighting..I mean real fighting... to the death


To the death???? 



			
				SAVAGE said:
			
		

> (most TMA were tested under these conditions i.e wars etc).


Like Karate was ever used on battlefields, or Judo... 




			
				Sarah said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like this is just about street fighting then, not self defense and not Martial Arts.
> 
> Self defense (as talked about in lots of other threads) is as much about keep yourself safe and not ending up in the situation where you need to fight as it is about ones confidence/attitude etc, these are just as important as any technical skill.
> 
> And if the only way to really test is a so called fight to the death, then fighting agenst 'resistance' in class is not going to cut it either and we are all screwed.


It's about self-defence, at least as I envisioned the chart. Awareness, Avoidance etc are all vital, but this chart specifically deals with the physical aspect, though one of the key reasons that contact levels are plotted is because of the adrenaline desensitization that comes about by sparring/testing at harder contact levels, which can also impact on the non-physical aspects.  

The fundamental theme, which Cujo and others pick up on, but Savage and others miss, is that it's about reducing the step-up from your training to the real thing. The idea that engaging in pressure testing, or even MMA type training, automatically results in casualties is a myth, and all too often a wimpy excuse. 

We have to remember that whilst "the street" can be a lethal place, not every self-defence situation will be an all-out fight to the death. Leave that mentality for the melodramatic paranoia peddlers. Therefore when we plot the reality of physical self-defence it is only notional. 

At the end of the day I think this is really about self-honesty, and for the instructors amongst us, honesty with your students. We all train in a manner that is less than absolutely realistic, even within the RBSD niche, but the extent varies depending on how we train. So every student everywhere is likely to have a Step-up between training and a real life self-defence situation. We therefore need to gauge how great that step up is and not kid ourselves otherwise. We see these false senses of security, brought about by pride, ignorance, delusion, whatever. 

So when you assess the merit of models like this, please do it in a completely objective and honest manner. Too many people come to it with the desire to validate the training they already do, rather than to see how they can improve it. A couple of years ago I posted a forerunner of this model on another forum  you would not believe the fall-out, mostly of people who practice kata trying to argue that kata is high pressure who are they trying to kid?!?!?!? 

I dont train as realistically as I could. Im honest with myself and it motivates me to ever increase my comfort zone to accommodate ever higher pressure training. Better than sticking your head in a bucket of sand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 10, 2006)

First off, I want to say that I believe in "pressure testing" ones SD material.  I think that it is imperative.  A real, live, resisting opponent will give you feedback on how to make a technique actually work on the street.

Is every technique able to be directly tested in this fashion?  Obviously not.  However, there always exists some measureable adaptation that a creative instructor will make in order to make testing said technique safer.  

Will this reduce the amout of "reality" in the practice?  Yes.  But this is better then just practicing against human models who do nothing.  

The key to this type of training is safety.  The proper modifications and safety precautions always have to be made in order to make sure that everyone involved walks away healthy (and hopefully happy).  Training without these precautions is dangerous, ill-conceived, immature, and ultimately makes the instructor liable for damages.

One of my pet peeves is when e-warriors get on the soapbox and start spouting how they fight full contact with no pads and how this is the only worthwhile training and that all training in every single technique should be like that.  For one thing, that mentality is a load of garbage, because of what I said above.  For another, I know for a fact that it is BS.  I've got enough injuries from not being safe to know that if I kept it up, I would no longer be training.  People who claim this are, to put it simply, lying.  They are trying to show off and make other people feel smaller for whatever god aweful reason.  

Train hard and be safe.  That's the bottom line.  One's overblown sense of _machismo_ is not worth a debilitating injury or even your life.

upnorthkyosa

ps - wow, that turned into a rant! :asian:


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 10, 2006)

I've sparred near-full- and full-contact.  It's not something you can sustain over a long period of time, no, and it requires a great deal of trust in your instructor or training partner.  I've lost track of the minor injuries I've incurred, though nothing permanent, thankfully.  It is not something I would recommend anyone else do.  To be honest I'm not sure it _teaches_ you so much as it _affirms_ (or doesn't) what you believe about your approach and the techniques you prefer.

I reviewed an e-book whose author recommended this methodology:
http://themartialist.com/pecom/beyond.htm

The myth of "pressure testing" is, of course, that sportive dueling in controlled environments, with a symmetrical competitive mentality dominating the exchange, truly _proves_ anything about pragmatic real-world self-defense strategies.  Such sportive competition does prove who is better at it, within context, and it does tell us some things about techinques that can be performed against resistance and while under certain kinds of stress.  

These are indicators only, though; they're not _proof_ of anything other than what works for such types of competitions.  You can learn the same thing about works against resistance, for example, by simply working combat drills with a partner who is not complying with you.  Someone in this or another thread mentioned adrenal stress and padded assailant training, too -- that's another good method for learning things about what you do.  None of what you learn is what I consider conclusive or "proof," however.

Even blooded combat veterans disagree on many things.  Take the war in Iraq.  Every third veteran has a book deal and many of them disagree with each other about the nature of the conflict, what was or was not accomplished, etc.  Firearms experts who are veterans of police and military programs, some of whom have taken lives while under fire, disagree vehemently on matters of technique and execution.  One could easily say any and all of these people have "pressure tested" what they believe -- but at the end of the day, they still disagree.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 10, 2006)

Good points.  But how can I prepare myself for what may happen?  If self defense is the goal, what should I do to ensure that I have the best chance?

ron


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 10, 2006)

Going back to the original post, with the graph: I really don't think it is appropriate to try to graph the martial arts in this way.  To do so makes a lot of assumptions that are far from universally accepted, and the arts contain a lot of gray areas and are very subjective, and this kind of thing just cannot be measured in concrete terms like this.  I think the exercise of making this kind of graph is misleading and short sighted, and I would not recommend anybody put stock in this kind of attempt to quantify the arts.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Going back to the original post, with the graph: I really don't think it is appropriate to try to graph the martial arts in this way.  To do so makes a lot of assumptions that are far from universally accepted, and the arts contain a lot of gray areas and are very subjective, and this kind of thing just cannot be measured in concrete terms like this.  I think the exercise of making this kind of graph is misleading and short sighted, and I would not recommend anybody put stock in this kind of attempt to quantify the arts.


If whole arts can be messured by the chart it would only be because of the training activities in them. The chart cites examples such as "MMA sparring" but ultimately that's an ACTIVITY not an art. 

Just out of curiosity, would you say that ballet and Tracy kempo are equals as self-defence training systems?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, would you say that ballet and Tracy kempo are equals as self-defence training systems?


 
no, but neither would I try to put them on a graph to express that.

everyone knows Ballet kicks Tracy Kenpo's ***


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> no, but neither would I try to put them on a graph to express that.
> 
> everyone knows Ballet kicks Tracy Kenpo's ***


lol, maybe you could suggest better ways to express and define WHY ballet kicks Tracy Kempo's bottom?


----------



## still learning (Mar 10, 2006)

Hello, Remember... the people who attack you could be hard core criminals, who are let out very often,(70%) of crimes are commited by repeated offenders.

and they don't care about you.....are you ready to defend yourself against someone who is bent on destroying you?

They don't think and act like us? ............Aloha


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 10, 2006)

I really should just log out and forget this whole thing, but.....

When I started martial arts back in the Stone Age there were no pads no protective gear and you did get hurt. My first teacher never even mentioned protective gear (Japanese Jujitsu) and my second teacher thought the whole idea was pretty funny (non-sport Taekwondo) There were also fewer people willing to sue if a member of their family did get hurt doing martial arts.

Pressure testing, in my opinion is still not going to prepare you for what can happen in a real fight. Kata certainly will not prepare you either. Until you are up against someone that potentially is going to kill you, you simply have no idea how you will respond. There are no rules in a fight and there are no forms to follow. Is pressure testing going to prepare you for this better than kata? Probably. Is pressure testing going to get you hurt? Very likely. Will a teacher that pushes pressure testing get sued? Highly likely.

Am I a proponent of pressure testing? no. I tend to believe it can bring out the bully in many people, which is decidedly not what martial arts are about, at least to me.

I do not agree with charts in general, they are based on statistics and statistics can be manipulated depending on what you are looking for (mean, median, range, average, etc.). Basically you can make them look any way you want them to.

Martial arts are much more than fighting, but it certainly was started for fighting. 

As for Ballet, I didn't see it on the chart so why use it for comparison
As for Judo it was not made for combat, it is a "do"


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> lol, maybe you could suggest better ways to express and define WHY ballet kicks Tracy Kempo's bottom?


 
Well, I would probably do a whole lot of academic research and then write a dissertation complete with footnotes and pompous, academic sounding quotes from original sources and it would be incredibly dry reading that would put you to sleep on any anxiety ridden night when you are tossing and turning and unable to fall asleep due to the pressures of your job and life in general.  Eventually I could turn it into an actual Doctoral dissertation and get all kinds of academic credit and get it published and establish myself as a Martial Academic, outstanding in my field.

Ok, I'm being rediculous, I know.

The problem with using a graph like this is that it makes assumptions that few people will agree upon.  For example, you put aikido and Chi Sau on the low end of the scale which implies they are not very effective at preparing you for an encounter.  First off, I doubt any Aikidokas or Wing Chun players would agree that their art is such a poor approach.  From my own experience, I have met Aikidokas who would be very formidable opponents.  Having studied Wing Chun I know some players who use Chi Sau extensively to develop their skills and I would have to go home and change my underwear at the mere thought of facing off against them because they are FIERCE.

You placed Muay Thai higher on the scale, but keep in mind that it is a sport as well as a martial art.  The art focuses on techniques that work well under the rules of the sport, such as in a ring, wearing gloves, no real grappling, no weapons, etc.  While I believe Muay Thai has a lot to offer that would translate well into a street situation, it carries no guarantee.  

The thing is, all systems have tools and approaches that are designed to prepare the practitioner for combat.  Not everything works equally well for everyone, but that doesn't mean they are ultimately ineffective.  In the right hands, they are all devastating.  Trying to place them on a graph is an attempt to assign them a measurable "value", and I just think this is ultimately impossible.  You may have your own opinions about what "value" certain styles or training methods have, but that is about the time when you meet someone who trains that way and you find out they can kick your *** in their sleep.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 10, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> I
> Until you are up against someone that potentially is going to kill you, you simply have no idea how you will respond.


 
BINGO!!

Sometimes people ask me "what would you do if I attacked you with XYZ?"  I could give a laundry list of possible techniques designed to defend against that particular attack, but the real answer is "I have absolutely no idea".  Until the attack happens and I have to actually deal with it, I don't know what I will do.  Hopefully my training will serve me well and I have some general approaches that I would probably follow, but ultimately I have no idea until it happens, and I think that anyone who tells you differently is either lying or fooling themselves.


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> BINGO!!
> 
> Sometimes people ask me "what would you do if I attacked you with XYZ?" I could give a laundry list of possible techniques designed to defend against that particular attack, but the real answer is "I have absolutely no idea". Until the attack happens and I have to actually deal with it, I don't know what I will do. Hopefully my training will serve me well and I have some general approaches that I would probably follow, but ultimately I have no idea until it happens, and I think that anyone who tells you differently is either lying or fooling themselves.


 
Exactly!  And that is/should be, the ultimate goal that we all should srtive to acheive...to be able to react without having to stand there and think what we're going to be doing.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> First off, I want to say that I believe in "pressure testing" ones SD material. I think that it is imperative. A real, live, resisting opponent will give you feedback on how to make a technique actually work on the street.
> 
> Is every technique able to be directly tested in this fashion? Obviously not. However, there always exists some measureable adaptation that a creative instructor will make in order to make testing said technique safer.
> 
> ...


 
Very well said!  I was going to post a little more, but IMO, this pretty much sums up what I was going to say.

Mike


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 10, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> the ultimate goal that we all should srtive to acheive...to be able to react without having to stand there and think what we're going to be doing.


How would a sensible person train this attribute? - by doing kata or by pressure testing? (serious non-bashing comment)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 10, 2006)

Practice. Lots and lots of practice.


----------



## MJS (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> How would a sensible person train this attribute? - by doing kata or by pressure testing? (serious non-bashing comment)


 
I never said anything about kata, so I'm guessing you are just using this as an example?  As for your question.  As I stated, pressure testing is an important area to include in ones training.  I've said this in many of my past posts.  However, this area, being able to react without thinking about our moves, can also be trained without having someone gear up in the redman suit.  I've ran and taken part in line drills where you will have one person, the defender, line up facing his attackers.  They'll throw half to three quarter speed random attacks.  

We need to keep in mind, as its been already said, there are some areas that can't be trained.  How can I pressure test a knee break, arm break or neck break?  Secondly, I have a job that I need to go to.  Our bodies can only take so much, so speaking for me only here, I really don't need to put myself through a daily full contact fight.  

IMHO, we should really be concerned with our training individually.  If someone else does not want or does not feel the need to do this sort of training, that is really up to them.  I've realized that there comes a time when constantly talking about the way everybody should train, pushing this and that on people really gets to be :deadhorse


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> How would a sensible person train this attribute? - by doing kata or by pressure testing? (serious non-bashing comment)


 
Please see next quote



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Practice. Lots and lots of practice.


 
I agree.

I believe it is that you have to practice something about 2000 time before it becomes habit.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 10, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> How would a sensible person train this attribute? - by doing kata or by pressure testing? (serious non-bashing comment)


 
It is not "either-or".  Both methods, as well as other not named here, can contribute to the skill development.

Many people claim kata practice is not realistic and doesn't develop one's combat skills.  But I believe kata practice has its place within the bigger picture.  Kata develops the basic techniques of a system's curriculum.  By practicing kata correctly (many people practice it incorrectly, or without an understanding of the kata), one develops strong and clean technique.  However, this must be accompanied with drills and exercises designed to develop the ability to realistically use and apply the techniques found within the kata.  This means drilling with partners, as realistically as possible while minding safety for those involved, to develop useage.

Some arts do not include kata.  Does this put them at a disadvantage in my opinion?  No, there are clearly other methods that can also develop quality skills.  My point is, don't ignore kata as a useful training method.  If done correctly, kata practice can be a powerful tool.


----------



## SAVAGE (Mar 10, 2006)

KICK CATCHER said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _To really pressure test something, you can only do it by fighting..I mean real fighting... to the death _
> 
> To the death????


 
Yeah....did you not understand that...wasnt it clear to you! Its what I said let me see:



> To really pressure test something, you can only do it by fighting..I mean real fighting... to the death [/I]



Yeah its pretty clear to me!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SAVAGE*
> _(most TMA were tested under these conditions i.e wars etc). _
> 
> Like Karate was ever used on battlefields, or Judo...


 
Goju Ryu Karate was taught to Japanese Military personell during WW2...GEKISAI DAI CHI and GEKI SAI DAI NI were created during this time period! HKD has been taught to the militaries around the world...true arts like Judo and BJJ are sports and I doubt that SUMO was tested in the battle fields.

Now I am going to point out a very important part of my post...I said MOST.....(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ look the word up)......martial arts were tested in the battle fields...not ALL!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 10, 2006)

Well, some people think that the UFC is "real fighting", y'know?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 11, 2006)

Now Bob, cmon.  Everyone knows that practicing an MMA is the only way to ever win a fight.

Thats why for hundreds of years, up until the 1990's at somepoint... 

Eveyone lost.

​


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 11, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> If whole arts can be messured by the chart it would only be because of the training activities in them. The chart cites examples such as "MMA sparring" but ultimately that's an ACTIVITY not an art.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, would you say that ballet and Tracy kempo are equals as self-defence training systems?



But you CAN'T measure arts this way because quality training is not just about the art - it is 90% WHO IS TEACHING IT.  And you're linking martial arts and self-defense and actually self-defense is an application of martial arts - only one application, and not even of a handful of martial arts.

To paraphrase, if I may, what my teacher said tonight - Brazillian jujutsu, MMA, alive training ... it's all been done before and rehashed, made pretty and sold as something else under different names or with another nice adjective in front of it.  It's New Coke, Pepsi Free, Red Bull.  Same ****, different package.

Alive training for self defense is good, but it has to be worked up into - we've rehashed this here before - you don't bring in a class full of noobs and tell them if they don't block your punch they're gonna get hit. That is irresponsible teaching.

Curious - where'd you get the graph?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 11, 2006)

kickcatcher

I suppose I should have asked this question prior to my last post. 

What data did you use to produce this chart and how was that data collected?

Also what controls were used?

Xue


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 11, 2006)

The chart, while very nicely rendered, is not intellectually supportable.  It attempts to quantify factors that are entirely subjective and imposes on the question the author's prejudices in judging other systems and methodologies.  It is an attempt to render in "official" presentation the author's own preferences.  

There's nothing wrong with graphically representing your preferences, but you cannot then present them as objective evaluations.  Couching them in some sort of quasi-mathematical context only exacerbates this misrepresentation.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 11, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> There is a school of thought within the self-defence community (RBSD although that label is fast becoming a stigma as somewhat unrealistic people join the bandwagon), that the training which best prepares you for real life situations is that which is closest to it. This school of thought acknowledges that whatever training you do, it is often going to be a step-up to the real thing. I say often because reality is itself an imprecise and variable factor. The goal therefore is to make the step-up as small as possible.
> 
> So we need ways of comparing our training options with reality in order to assess the benefit we are getting and what we can do to get closer to reality.
> 
> ...




Honestly confused here.

Are you tryting to rate the value of an art in this chart for self defense?

I know some MMA guys who cannot handle themselves on the street, and would be dead as the opponents three bodies with either stomp him to death or stab him or shoot him. 

While you have kata which is not an art per se, hence part of my confusion teaches techniques that later can be used by people. Now while I personally do not like kata for myself, and will not argue it as the best, I do see it as part of a learning tool. 

As to common sense, I do not see MMA comps working multiple opponents not handling small circle joint locks or breaks (* most are not allowed *), nor are they checking or dealing with hand held weapons. 

While I agree that playing and working to randomize something improves your self-defense I am confused by the usage and placement of the styles of competing on this chart.

I know some boxers that are great. And can defend themselves, while others could not.

I knew a street fighter he knew two techniques. parry or drop the opponents hand when the are not looking and hit them and break their nose before the altercation is known to have begun by both sides.

While I have talked to a guy a trained a person to do well in a MMA comp and as soon as their was a crowd the guy was dumb struck he could not handle the confusion and input. He did fine one on one.

So, what I am asking is there a qualification on this? Or is it so common sense that everyone knows it is not the art or the competition, but the person who will make the difference?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 11, 2006)

I like the part about the opponents three bodies.
The fearsome Voldemort style I believe? 

Seriously though, the graphing makes numerous assumptions, many of them false. There are kata that are multiple person, contain contact and resistance.
It places "Actual Self Defense" at the peak point of possibility. Where would actual combat fall on this chart? Real street fighting? 

Why is kata ranked the lowest?
Why is chi-sao ranked so low?  Chi-sao is constant contact, as it's a sensitivity drill. 

The graph is pretty, but without solid data to back the placement of each point, is just a collection of dots.


----------



## Adept (Mar 11, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Seriously though, the graphing makes numerous assumptions, many of them false. There are kata that are multiple person, contain contact and resistance.
> It places "Actual Self Defense" at the peak point of possibility. Where would actual combat fall on this chart? Real street fighting?
> 
> Why is kata ranked the lowest?
> ...



I'm not going to argue with most of the positions as they are plotted. Except perhaps, I don't think MMA comps have a significantly higher level of contact than Muay Thai or Boxing comps.

Kata isn't ranked the lowest. As a rule, kata allows zero deviation from the list of tehcniques that make up the pattern, and have no contact. Their place at the bottom left is justified in that respect.

I have no experience with Tomiki Aikido comps, so I don't feel qualified to comment. Chi-sao is low contact. While you are in constant contact with the opponent, you don't come out of it battered, bruised and bleeding like you do from a boxing match. And it is limited. You can't kick your partner in the shins, or punch them, or use elbows or knees, or anything like that. It's not the purpose of the drill.

I'm pretty happy where the various activities listed have been placed on the chart.

The crunch comes when we try and extrapolate what an activities position on this chart translates to. When we try and make conclusions based on this chart.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 11, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Chi-sao is low contact. While you are in constant contact with the opponent, you don't come out of it battered, bruised and bleeding like you do from a boxing match. And it is limited. You can't kick your partner in the shins, or punch them, or use elbows or knees, or anything like that. It's not the purpose of the drill.


 
Sounds to me like you have no experience with Chi Sao.

While it is true, Chi Sao is an exercise designed to build sensitivity, it also is designed to develop reaction ability and technique useage.  It is not "true combat" or "free sparring", but it is a drill that approximates that within reasonable limits.  

Chi sao can be done gently, or fiercely with high contact, and you can certainly get beaten up black and blue doing it.  It can include elbows, knees, and kicks as well as hand strikes and trapping.  And these strikes can certainly be landed.  It depends on the level to which the players wish to take it.  

Your assessment of Chi Sao is absolutely wrong.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 11, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like you have no experience with Chi Sao.
> 
> While it is true, Chi Sao is an exercise designed to build sensitivity, it also is designed to develop reaction ability and technique useage. It is not "true combat" or "free sparring", but it is a drill that approximates that within reasonable limits.
> 
> ...


 
Now that you mention it, I do know someone that is a student of the younger son of Yip Mann and I once did Chi Sao with him, well to be more correct he did Chi Sao I did push hands and I got thumped in the chest pretty hard a couple of times and I wouldn't exactly call it low impact.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 11, 2006)

Yeah, we do chi sao at a higher level.

I think that the flaw in this entire discussion is the idea of "techniques".  If anybody is suggesting that a specific technique will work in self defense, they're deluded.  It won't, and you'll get creamed while you're thinking about it.

Martial arts is about attribute development.  People don't fight with techniques, people fight with attributes.  People don't plan to use a technique, people let their bodies react according to how they've trained themselves to react to various physical stimuli.  Anybody doing otherwise is probably going to get beaten down by an aggressive attacker.

So, when we talk about pressure testing self defense techniques, we're looking at things in a flawed fashion.  It's impossible to really test them - all we can test is the development of our attributes, reflexes, awareness, and the form of our movement - i.e. our balance, the structure and power of our strikes, our mobility, targetting, sensitivity, etc.

Again, if you think that techniques are the core of martial arts, you don't understand the arts at all.  Techniques are a finger pointing to the moon.  Look at the moon, not the finger.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 11, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> . . . Except perhaps, I don't think MMA comps have a significantly higher level of contact than Muay Thai or Boxing comps.




Pesonally for self-defense, I would put Muay Thai and Box over MMA comps because they are on their feet and able to run away. 

I have no disrespect for MMA comps. I enjoy watching them and it takes a great athlete. Those guys are tough, no question  about it. But I am talking about those taht are the tops and on TV and competing and winning the regionals and doing well nationally. 

That is why I asked my questions, becuase I am obviously missing something?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 11, 2006)

Chi sao and forms or kata are among those topics frequently misunderstood and incorrectly dismissed as methodologies for developing certain attributes or techniques.  They aren't just misunderstood by people with little or no experience with them, either -- they're frequently misunderstood by practitioners of the arts teaching them.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 11, 2006)

How long have you practiced kata,forms, xiang?

ron


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 11, 2006)

So basically, without the data to back up the chart it is fairly meaningless and becomes a matter of personal preferrence as to where something belongs on that chart.

I would place Chi Sau higher, I would place some Aikido higher, and I would place Judo much lower, it is all; at this point a matter of preferrence and the chart is meaningless, unless more information is given about how it was constructed.

I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I need more information before I support it or deny its accuracy


----------



## bydand (Mar 11, 2006)

When I first started reading this thread I thought that the chart was fairly subjective, and that it would depend on someones views of the particular art they were placing on it.  For it to be usefull to any degree the person placing each art on it would have to be VERY familar with each art.  By familer I mean a lot more in depth than either a few classes (less that a couple of years) or what they have witnessed.   I mean if I were to place the arts on the chart; Xue Sheng, Flying Crane, Bob Hubbard, (names I remember, the only reason I used them) and anybody else on this forum would probably laugh themselves silly and comment how little I understand, and vice-versa.  Way too many variables to place the MA's, or even competitions on something like this.  Look at the difference between schools and teachers doing the "same" art in a 25 mile radius from where you are right now.

My 2 cents only, take it for what it is worth - 2 cents IMHO


----------



## Adept (Mar 11, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Chi sao can be done gently, or fiercely with high contact, and you can certainly get beaten up black and blue doing it.



So praticing Chi-sao will leave you looking like you've just done ten rounds with Mike Tyson? I don't think so.



> It can include elbows, knees, and kicks as well as hand strikes and trapping. And these strikes can certainly be landed. It depends on the level to which the players wish to take it.



If you're taking it to this level, the exercise can no longer really be defined as Chi-sao. It becomes a form of sparring, instead.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Pesonally for self-defense, I would put Muay Thai and Box over MMA comps because they are on their feet and able to run away.



Thats one of the reasons why it's near impossible to draw any conclusions from the chart. MMA deserves it's spot. It's a similar level of contact to boxing, and the participants are not restricted as much as in either Muay Thai or Boxing. Thats all the chart measures, level of contact and limitations on techniques.



> That is why I asked my questions, becuase I am obviously missing something?



I think everyone, the opening poster included, is simply incorrect in making assumptions based on this chart. I'm not going to argue with where the various activities have been placed on it, but I will argue what an activities place on the chart really means.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 11, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> So praticing Chi-sao will leave you looking like you've just done ten rounds with Mike Tyson? I don't think so.
> 
> If you're taking it to this level, the exercise can no longer really be defined as Chi-sao. It becomes a form of sparring, instead.


 
Sorry dude, you just do not know what you are talking about.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 12, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> So praticing Chi-sao will leave you looking like you've just done ten rounds with Mike Tyson? I don't think so.


 
The only thing that leaves you looking like you've gone ten rounds with Mike Tyson is: Going ten rounds with Mike Tyson.  That is called Fighting, not Training.  While there is nothing wrong with getting roughed-up in your training, there is something wrong with getting _beaten_ up in your training.  It is irresponsible and myopic to train this way.  Your body cannot sustain that on a regular basis for long.  You will inevitably get injuries that will end your martial career.

Training is not combat.  Training can only go so far in approximating and preparing you for combat.  Nothing recreates combat except combat itself.  Combat is dangerous and if done often enough will guarantee debilitating injuries.  Real combat will always be a step up from any kind of responsible training.  You are foolish if you think otherwise.


----------



## Adept (Mar 12, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> That is called Fighting, not Training.



Which would be why the activity known as boxing (which, funnily enough, incorporates actual fights) is rated much higher than chi-sao in terms of contact.



> Training is not combat. Training can only go so far in approximating and preparing you for combat. Nothing recreates combat except combat itself. Combat is dangerous and if done often enough will guarantee debilitating injuries. Real combat will always be a step up from any kind of responsible training. You are foolish if you think otherwise.



Relevance? All I said was that boxing contains more 'contact' than chi-sao.



> Sorry dude, you just do not know what you are talking about.



You are partaking of an activity where you, in a freestyle manner, throw kicks, elbows, knees, punches, and utilise trapping as well as some grappling techniques. You can call it chi-sao if you want, but in any other school it's called sparring.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 12, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Thats one of the reasons why it's near impossible to draw any conclusions from the chart. MMA deserves it's spot. It's a similar level of contact to boxing, and the participants are not restricted as much as in either Muay Thai or Boxing. Thats all the chart measures, level of contact and limitations on techniques.



Level of Contact?

Level of Contact.

It measures the level of contact? This has me really confused. For if I applied my self-defense, and walked across a street, or left a building, or gave someone my wallet, there is no contact. No Contact. 

Or is this a level of contact after my first few levels of self-defense have failed and contact is a must? If so then why is kata in there at all? I thought this was training methods that were being rated, and could be used as common sense. While I agree that contct is good, and random is great, I am still very confused by this chart. 

Was it published some place in a book? Maybe if I read the chapters before and after I could get the frame of reference.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 12, 2006)

I noticed that too, thanks, Rich.  Not all self-defense requires contact and the intersection contact and limits is a very small part of what defense is all about.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 12, 2006)

Adept said:
			
		

> Which would be why the activity known as boxing (which, funnily enough, incorporates actual fights) is rated much higher than chi-sao in terms of contact.
> 
> Relevance? All I said was that boxing contains more 'contact' than chi-sao.
> 
> You are partaking of an activity where you, in a freestyle manner, throw kicks, elbows, knees, punches, and utilise trapping as well as some grappling techniques. You can call it chi-sao if you want, but in any other school it's called sparring.


 
OK, you are right, I would say that boxing has more contact than Chi Sau, but a boxer does not train by going ten rounds with Mike Tyson.  A boxer trains on the heavy bag, with focus mits, skipping rope, running, speed bag, contact sparring, and probably other methods that I am not aware of.  The ten rounds with another boxer is the culmination of his training for one specific event.  This preparation may take months.  If he trained every day with ten rounds of full contact boxing with a high caliber boxer, his body would not last long.  

Chi sau is not freestyle.  It can approach freestyle if the players wish to take it to that level but it is conducted within certain parameters that are flexible enough to change based on the desires of the players.  I may be mistaken but I get the impression you do not have experience with chi sau.  If you get the opportunity to witness and experience it with some talented individuals I think you will understand better what I am saying.


----------



## Adept (Mar 12, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Level of Contact?
> 
> Level of Contact.
> 
> It measures the level of contact? This has me really confused. For if I applied my self-defense, and walked across a street, or left a building, or gave someone my wallet, there is no contact. No Contact.



Level of contact is probably not the best wording, in reflection. It's more a reflection of how badly bruised or injured you may be, or are likely to be after partaking of that activity.

I think the opening poster created the chart himself. It looks neat, but I don't think it really serves much of a purpose at all.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 12, 2006)

There's a lot of misreading of the chart going on. It lists ACTIVITIES *not* arts. The Activities are placed approximately using the two axis. 

Chi Sao for example is placed based on the typical chi sao training found in Wing Chun clubs. _If_ you do Chi Sao FULL contact then by all means move it up the Contact level axis. The more 'free' you do it, the further along the Bandwidth axis you can move it also, although you probably cannot move it very far before it stops being what is commonly termed "chi sau". 

However, self-honesty is important - if you don't do your Chi Sau to the same contact level as say boxing matches, don't move it up to that level because it _could_ - plot it as it applies to your training. 

MMA _competition_ is placed where it is because it is "full" contact with thin gloves and allows a broader bandwidth of attacks (i.e. that you are likely to face) than the other ACTIVITIES plotted - but the exact placement would depend on the exact rules etc - and it is still 1:1 and unarmed, so it will never be as far to the right as the NOTIONAL "real" fight. 

A lot of the points being made would be cleared up if people read the thread more carefully.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> kickcatcher
> 
> I suppose I should have asked this question prior to my last post.
> 
> ...


 
kickcatcher

I suppose I should have asked this question prior to my last post. 

What data did you use to produce this chart and how was that data collected?

Also what controls were used?

I have read the post throughly (a couple of times), but unless there is data to back it up it is not a valid chart of anything and it is simply a matter of opinion.

I am trying to understand the study, if you will, that produced the chart.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 13, 2006)

The chart, while very nicely rendered, is not intellectually supportable. What quantitative data _could_ be used to create it?  I don't believe there is such data.  The chart attempts to quantify factors that are entirely subjective and imposes on the question the author's prejudices in judging other systems and methodologies. It is an attempt to render in "official" presentation the author's own preferences. 

There's nothing wrong with graphically representing your preferences, but you cannot then present them as objective evaluations. Couching them in some sort of quasi-mathematical context only exacerbates this misrepresentation.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 13, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The graph is pretty, but without solid data to back the placement of each point, is just a collection of dots.


 
I lean towards the "collection of dots" vote myself.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 13, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The chart, while very nicely rendered, is not intellectually supportable. It attempts to quantify factors that are entirely subjective and imposes on the question the author's prejudices in judging other systems and methodologies. It is an attempt to render in "official" presentation the author's own preferences.


 
Dang it all Phil!!!  
I was going to go into one of my LONG repliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiies again, when you come along and put it all so well. ...and without even an ounce of being snide....
where's the fun in THAT???



Your Brother
John


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 13, 2006)

Was my post deleted or am I going mad?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 13, 2006)

I just combed through the thread and don't see any deletions. Might be madness, or might be a software hiccup.

(If you find yourself thinking you're a lemon wedge and that the lake you're in is a gin and tonic, well, then you can be assured you've gone mad.)


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2006)

I think that what should be taken into consideration, and I will say that some people are seeing it and some are not, is the fact that we all will train our arts differently, and we will all look at a given art in a different way.  Was the chart set up the way it is because that is really where those arts fall into perspective or because the person setting up the chart used their own feelings about the mentioned arts?

Mike


----------



## DavidCC (Mar 13, 2006)

Teh chart is interesting but not perfect.

For example some of the data points are training activities (kata, chi sao) and some are not (competitions).  Unless you are saying that a competitive bout is a form of training, you are mixing apples and oranges.  

So remove the competition dots and add "punching heavy bag" "skipping rope" "shadow boxing" "practice rolling" "kempo sparring" etc. that might clear up some of the confusion.  Lets discuss doing kata vs puncing the speed bag.  Now you are closer to apples and apples.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

DavidCC said:
			
		

> Teh chart is interesting but not perfect.
> 
> For example some of the data points are training activities (kata, chi sao) and some are not (competitions). Unless you are saying that a competitive bout is a form of training, you are mixing apples and oranges.
> 
> So remove the competition dots and add "punching heavy bag" "skipping rope" "shadow boxing" "practice rolling" "kempo sparring" etc. that might clear up some of the confusion. Lets discuss doing kata vs puncing the speed bag. Now you are closer to apples and apples.


 
Regardless

What data was used to place the dots on the chart?

Research data gained though observation, data collected via a survey, random chance, throwing darts at a board, personal preference, what?

Without this the chart is meaningless. I can produce a similar chart that tells you Irish step dancing is better at preparing you for real life encounters than Judo and penguins are the best teachers of Irish step dancing if I do not need to produce the data.

I am not saying the chart is right or wrong, but without the date it is meaningless.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 13, 2006)

the data as such is the rule sets/typical nature of the activity plotted against the two factors. It really is that simple. You do not have to watch hundreds of muay Thai matches to know that Muay Thai competition is likely to expose you to being punched in the face and body, kicked in the head, body and limbs, kneed in the body and occassionally the face etc etc, all heavy ("full") contact. 

We can compare that with boxing and find that whilst a boxing match has about the same contact level, you are only likely to face punches to the face and body - a far narrower bandwidth of resistance relative to Muay Thai match - hence boxing is plotted at about the same level of contact but significantly less bandwidth.... 

Similarly, you don't have to do thousands of solo kata to realise that in so doing you do not face any resistance from an opponent so it scores zero in both contact and bandwidth of resistance. A two-person kata would score marginally higher but it is usually light/no-contact and completely choreographed so again scores extreemely low against both factors. 

If you were to plot skipping then that too would be right down there in the bottom left along with kata. Skipping can make you fit and agile footed but it isn't anything like a real fight.... it really is that simple.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> the data as such is the rule sets/typical nature of the activity plotted against the two factors. It really is that simple. You do not have to watch hundreds of muay Thai matches to know that Muay Thai competition is likely to expose you to being punched in the face and body, kicked in the head, body and limbs, kneed in the body and occassionally the face etc etc, all heavy ("full") contact.
> 
> We can compare that with boxing and find that whilst a boxing match has about the same contact level, you are only likely to face punches to the face and body - a far narrower bandwidth of resistance relative to Muay Thai match - hence boxing is plotted at about the same level of contact but significantly less bandwidth....
> 
> ...


 
So basically there is no data just assumption based on "A" certain combative activity. So If I see a boxing match that has a high number of strikes, hits, contacts and a Muay Tai match that has lower incidents of contact I can change there positions in the chart.

If I see a Judo competition that has fewer contacts, I could place it lower. And if you are using face punches, then Judo should be very low; judo competitions do not have face punches generally. 

And if contact is a general term then Sumo should be on the chart and very high since it is virtually 100% contact.

I have my doubt about the validity of this chart.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 13, 2006)

You could try to plot every single incidence of an activity (i.e. seperate boxing matches) seperately but I can't see that as particularly useful. It is fair to say that if you enter boxing matches you are going to dface someone smacking you in the face hard. With judo you aren't going to get punched in the face but you are likely to get thrown with plenty of hard landings, and choked/arm barred from time to time also. 

You can plot sumo if you like - I have no idea if Sumo throws are harder than judo throws. If you don't have Sumo open to you as a training option, there's not much point plotting it. 
The activities plotted are EXAMPLES.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2006)

Again, you are putting a lot of faith in the idea that if you can punch, kick and grapple that these are the best solutions and are global applications of self-defense and can work for anyone if you use this chart you've created.

Again, you just cannot put everyone's ability on that chart, you can't put every situation on that chart and you can't apply MMA to every self-defense situation.

Next?


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

ya know, I think this chart is really only useful for charting your own opinions.  There is really nothing objective about it, nothing that can be truly and accurately measured.  So you plot the activity based on your own notion and understanding of it.  Everyone's chart ends up looking different, because it is really just a chart of your own opinion.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 13, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Again, you are putting a lot of faith in the idea that if you can punch, kick and grapple that these are the best solutions and are global applications of self-defense and can work for anyone if you use this chart you've created.
> 
> Again, you just cannot put everyone's ability on that chart, you can't put every situation on that chart and you can't apply MMA to every self-defense situation.
> 
> Next?


?
I'm not where you are getting this from. Whether you coose to train in MMA doesn't concern me - how anyone can think that MMA sparring or comp isn't in RELATIVE terms closer to a real fight than say semi-contact point stop sparring, is mind boggling. 

For the 1000th time, it plots ACTIVITIES in general terms. It does not plot arts, people, your dog whatever. 

Flying Crane, the chart is really useful if you want to try to weigh up training options available to you and consider how you can get your training ever closer to the target activity. You get out what you put in. I don't know whether you are familiar with the term "comfort zone", but if you want to expand your comfort zone, then you need some way of plotting where you are and where you are going.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 13, 2006)

The point is that those activities are relative.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 13, 2006)

Right, it's quite obvious what the point of the chart is.  My question is, does anyone really need a chart to figure this stuff out?

It stands to reason, even without a chart, that the higher the level of pressure/contact in your training, the more closely you approximate combat.

However, the original premise:




> So we need ways of comparing our training options with reality in order to assess the benefit we are getting and what we can do to get closer to reality.
> 
> One model, my own in fact, plots training activities against two variables:
> 1. The contact level
> 2. The scope (bandwidth) or resistance you face


and specifically, the notion of "assessing the benefit we are getting", is faulty.  The chart, along with the premise statement, assign a "lesser value" to lower pressure activities.  This is an unreasonable exclusion.  We mustn't eliminate balance from our training.

For example, hitting the heavy bag affords us zero opportunity to get hit.  Does this mean it has no value?  I'd beg to differ.  Kata and chi sao (by some's definition) affords us little opportunity to get hit.  Does this mean it has no value?  I'd beg to differ.

So, the argument put forward here seems to be that the chart helps us assess.  I really don't see the chart as being necessary.  Any and all martial art training activities, if done correctly and in the right balance, will better prepare us for violent encounters.


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 13, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Flying Crane, the chart is really useful if you want to try to weigh up training options available to you and consider how you can get your training ever closer to the target activity. You get out what you put in. I don't know whether you are familiar with the term "comfort zone", but if you want to expand your comfort zone, then you need some way of plotting where you are and where you are going.


 
You are once again assuming that these activities will give a certain result.  Not everything works equally well for everyone.  Some activities that you might rank low actually produce fierce fighters.  Some activities that you might rank high produce some lousy fighters.  It all comes back to the individual and how well they respond to the method and how well they can make it work for themselves.  The whole problem with the chart is that it assumes static absolutes and that these are measurable, but they are not and the assumption is flawed.

an individual may engage in several of the activities on the chart, and that variety is what makes them a skilled martial artist able to defend himself.

Take Wing chun, for example.  We have forms that we practice.  This equates to your Kata practice that you have ranked the lowest.  But this practice teaches and develops the basic techniques of the system.  This is were we begin.

We also have Chi Sau, which you also ranked fairly low.  This is a contact drill that develops both sensitivity and technique useage, and can be quite rough.  But without prior Forms Practice you have no concept of the technique and cannot practice Chi Sau.

We also have Wooden Dummy practice, which you did not place on the chart.  It has a lot of physical contact that develops technique useage, proper angles, and conditioning, but the dummy can't punch back or wrestle you down.  So where exactly does that fit on the chart?  I don't really know.  Once again, without Forms practice, you would not be able to do Wooden Dummy because you have to understand the technique first, or else you are just randomly beating on the dummy and you don't develop skill.

And then we have contact sparring, that would develop the ability to use technique in a random and ever-changing environment with fewer rules and restrictions.  But for safety purposes there have to be some regulations.  This is something that you rank higher on the chart.  Once again, without Forms practice, we would have no technique to use in sparring, and Chi Sau and Wooden Dummy also develop a lot of skill that is then translated into Sparring.

None of these exercises stand alone, and nobody practices just one or the other.  They are all part of the big picture, and all work together to develop a skilled wing chun player.  

But another fallacy of the chart, or at least a fallacy in how it seems to be presented, is that you are picking and choosing one exercise instead of another, when in reality it should be one exercise AND the other, AND the other, AND the other.  Any of these alone is inadequate, but together, within the proper context of the art that you train, should produce a competent fighter.  And any well structured art should have a similar variety of exercises and drills that work together to create a skilled martial artist.  They may not be identical to Wing Chun's methods, but they have their own series of methods with a logical and meaningful progression, that give similar results.


----------



## MJS (Mar 13, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> ?
> I'm not where you are getting this from. Whether you coose to train in MMA doesn't concern me - how anyone can think that MMA sparring or comp isn't in RELATIVE terms closer to a real fight than say semi-contact point stop sparring, is mind boggling.


 
I may be wrong here, but I believe what people are saying is that MMA has rules, the street does not.  In MMA, if I find myself in a clinch position, I can't reach up and gouge the eyes.  

What about weapon defense?  Do you discount a knife defense because the people are not using a real blade, going full speed?  What about a gun?  Should I use a real one?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> You could try to plot every single incidence of an activity (i.e. seperate boxing matches) seperately but I can't see that as particularly useful. It is fair to say that if you enter boxing matches you are going to dface someone smacking you in the face hard. With judo you aren't going to get punched in the face but you are likely to get thrown with plenty of hard landings, and choked/arm barred from time to time also.
> 
> You can plot sumo if you like - I have no idea if Sumo throws are harder than judo throws. If you don't have Sumo open to you as a training option, there's not much point plotting it.
> The activities plotted are EXAMPLES.


 
First, let me apologize for not finishing my previous post. A thunder storm rolled through and I knew this would be a long one so I finished quick and shut down.

Let me explain what I am talking about when I ask for data, control and question the validity of the chart.

I am sure that there are many different ways to set up a study that would produce that chart, but to me there has to be at lest 3 variables. Number of strikes, duration and intensity.

For example.
Strike  what constitutes a strike or in you case contact
Duration - measured time period
Frequency  the number of strikes over a given period of time
Intensity  injuries received
And you have to be careful here, if you simply say contact is touching then Chi Sau and push hands rocket to the top of your chart above boxing and Judo. 

You need to define contact, number of punches, number of throws, amount of body contact, etc. you need to define the time period, for example 2 minutes. (I am attempting to avoid great detail and a doctoral dissertation so please allow a few leaps)

So you now have time of 2 minutes so how many strikes would be considered average in 2 minutes based on the events you have chosen to chart, After going to a multitude of different types of events you could come up with an average, say you come up with 10 hits in 2 minutes. 

Now in order to get the frequency of strikes you would have to watch a whole lot of boxing matches, Muay Tai matches, Judo matches, etc. You could ask the fans for an average number but that number is likely going to range far and wide depending on who they wanted to win and how excited they got. 

This is where you would need some sort of control. A group of people interested only in the research or films you could watch in order to get a strike count. Or an average based on the responses of a multitude of fans from a multitude of events. You could then have an accepted frequency based on the number of hits over a period of time

Now once you have this you can say low pressure is under 10 strikes in 2 minutes, medium is 10 strikes in 2 minutes and high is above 10 strikes in 2 minutes. And of course you would need a range around this figure in order to rate events within these areas.

You also need to take into account intensity, now there are several possibilities here, but I am going to use injury for intensity in this example. You need something like this, if you base the chart solely on contact a street fight could be over in 2 or 3 hits where a boxing match or a Judo match could go on much longer by comparison and therefore be considered higher pressure. 

Injury would require a series of interviews with the participants of fighting competitions and victims of street fights. And as a side note in a street fight the number of strikes may be very hard to get, it could be 1, 2, 3 strikes your out and 4 through 60 kicks while your down and out. Therefore injury may not be viable as a measurement eihter. But I am using it as an example not suggesting its use.

So something with little contact over a given period of time with little or no injuries would be low on your chart and it very likely could be kata. Where something with a large number of hits over a given period of time with multiple injuries would be high on the chart. And I would suggest some sort of calculation of average in this in order to get something with low strike rate but with high injury in the proper location.

This is what I am talking about when I am asking for data. If this was not how the chart was constructed then ok, how was it constructed? To say it is excepted understanding or anyone would agree, its obvious, or looking at the chart you can tell is not an acceptable answer, First the chart is what is in question and you cannot use the chart in question as proof of its validity. Also if any of those were acceptable reasons then there are an awful of things that would have to be accepted as fact ranging from Alien abduction to Racist beliefs to the loch ness monster. 

I do not think anyone is truly doubting the position of Kata on your chart if you are using the amount of contact as the basis of your chart. I do however question the placement of everything else on the chart.

But if you are using it to discredit other martial arts in favor of what you prefer you also must consider that although a kata is not real, when you are talking confrontation, it can help prepare you for reality. If I stand in San Ti for an hour it can help prepare my mind for a fight. Now I will admit there is a world of difference between standing in San Ti and getting hit in the face. But the fact I stood in San Ti may make it so when I am hit in the face I remain calm so I am more prepared for combat and thereby have a better chance at survival. So if you goal is to discredit or prove a personal belief then the validity of the chart is highly doubtful. 

If contact is your basis than as I previously stated Sumo should rate very high, but then again so should WWE wrestling. Should Kata be lower that boxing on your chart? Yes I believe it should. Should Boxing be higher or lower or considered more or less intense than Muay Tai? Without data and set definitions, it is at best arguable  but it is not a valid fact.

To make a chart and expect all to accept it as valid based on opinon is not enough, you need proof.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 13, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Flying Crane, the chart is really useful if you want to try to weigh up training options available to you and consider how you can get your training ever closer to the target activity.


This is what I am talking about, without the data behind it the chart is a matter of personal opinion and cannot be taken as proof of anything.If you posted the chart and said this is what I think then I have no argument, but you cannot use it as proof of anything and expect others to take it as such.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> This is what I am talking about, without the data behind it the chart is a matter of personal opinion and cannot be taken as proof of anything.If you posted the chart and said this is what I think then I have no argument, but you cannot use it as proof of anything and expect others to take it as such.


 
Hm, yes and no. Yes, the chart was based on a subjective analysis of typical martial arts confrontations, this is true.

On the other hand, such an analysis, though subjective, is not without its merits, if we consider the criteria used to create the chart.

As I see it, the chart DOES NOT present a "maximum benefits achieved according to kind of training" result. That is simply not its function: the chart itself does not judge the effectiveness of all kinds of training.

What the chart does, IMHO, is to evaluate the approximation of martial arts training to a (necessarily undefined) "real confrontation", by working on the sum of less restrictive rules+risk of injury.

So I believe the chart works like this:

less rules + greater risk of injury = closer approximation to real confrontation

This has nothing to do with benefits gained through training and/or sparring. We all know the benefits we get from drills trained without much resistance, and we all know a poorly done round of hard contact sparring will teach you close to nothing, while allowing for injury. 

Now, I suppose we can all agree that in tha street there are no rules. Duh. So this part of the chart, again IMHO, is not disputable: since in the street there are no rules, the best way to approximate MA training to a real confrontation is to reduce protective rules.

In that sense, and speaking only of UNARMED combat, the much vaunted MMA dispute would be the best approximation to a real encounter, at least rules-wise.

What can be disputed, I think, is that a greater risk of injury during training will necessarily be the better way to approach the reality of a real confrontation. This is subject to discussion, I believe, because NOT ALL ENCOUNTERS ARE TO THE DEATH AND/OR INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS.

I have seen plenty of stupid fights in clubs and streets, and some of them consisted of plenty of swearing and not much trading of blows. Not everyone who will fight you in tha street wants you dead or seriously injured.

So, in the end, I believe the chart does quite a nice job. Not a flawless job, but, considering its purpose, I believe it is quite a nice piece of work.

But please, do not mistake its purpose. It does NOT show what is the best training method, that varies with the purpose of the practitioner. It just tries to attach some values to different kinds of sparring as related to a real, unarmed confrontation, and THAT it does rather well.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Hm, yes and no. Yes, the chart was based on a subjective analysis of typical martial arts confrontations, this is true.
> 
> On the other hand, such an analysis, though subjective, is not without its merits, if we consider the criteria used to create the chart.
> 
> ...


 
Basically I would agree with you, if any of what you put forth was even mentioned in the beginning, and it wasn't. 

The use of undefined terminology "Level of Contact" and "Bandwidth" plus what appears to be random placement of various titles that from what I can tell have no data behind them other than personal opinion make it the chart invalid and certainly not scientifically sound as a measure of What ever Level of contact means based on Bandwidth which is also undefined.

Question were would "Competition San Shou - In the Ring" Be placed as apposed to San Shou done by a police office in Beijing? Be careful how you answer because I have given you no other variables which could make you positioning of them on the chart change. If I base this on one San Shou competition I happen to have seen and/or 1 police encounter in Beijing I happen to have seen I seriously doubt the validity of the results and the placement of that result on a chart.

The original post is below and there is absolutely no mention of any of the variables you suggest. I am not saying that the variables I suggest are any part of the chart, nor am I saying that this is the only way to make this chart. I am saying that neither what I have suggested nor what you have suggested has ever been mentioned or discussed in the defense of this chart when I have asked. 

Basically without the actual data behind the chart, if there is in fact any data at all, anything you or I say are suggestions. 

Without data and the parameters of the study that produced that data the chart is no more than personal opinion and certainly should not be considered any proof of "Value assessment" or "reality" 

It is the opinion, it is a "school of thought" which is not proof.

Is "this school of thought" correct in its statement "that whatever training you do, it is often going to be a step-up to the real thing"?

I have no idea. Am I going to be more prepared for the real thing if I do Kata all the time as apposed to MMA? Probably not.


Is Muay Tai going to make me more or less prepared that Boxing or what I had mentioned, San Shao, I have absolutly no idea and there is nothing to back up this chart to say yes or no because it is based on a "school of thought" not factual results from a scientific study.

Could this chart be used to suggest such a study or as a basis to create guidelines for such a study? Yes I believe it could, but it is not valid as it is presented as a measure of reality or measurement of value.





			
				kickcatcher said:
			
		

> There is a school of thought within the self-defence community (&#8220;RBSD&#8221; although that label is fast becoming a stigma as somewhat unrealistic people join the bandwagon), that the training which best prepares you for real life situations is that which is closest to it. This school of thought acknowledges that whatever training you do, it is often going to be a step-up to the real thing. I say &#8220;often&#8221; because &#8216;reality&#8217; is itself an imprecise and variable factor. The goal therefore is to make the step-up as small as possible.
> 
> So we need ways of comparing our training options with &#8220;reality&#8221; in order to assess the benefit we are getting and what we can do to get closer to &#8220;reality&#8221;.
> 
> ...


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> 1)Basically I would agree with you, if any of what you put forth was even mentioned in the beginning, and it wasn't.
> 
> 2)The use of undefined terminology "Level of Contact" and "Bandwidth" plus what appears to be random placement of various titles that from what I can tell have no data behind them other than personal opinion make it the chart invalid and certainly not scientifically sound as a measure of What ever Level of contact means based on Bandwidth which is also undefined.
> 
> 3)Could this chart be used to suggest such a study or as a basis to create guidelines for such a study? Yes I believe it could, but it is not valid as it is presented as a measure of reality or measurement of value.


 
1) Oh well, I am not the thread starter...

2) A fair point. I certainly agree the chart cannot be considered scientifically sound, since it attempts to compare various degrees of sparring, in various rulesets, without first establishing an objective criteria for such a comparison. Specially since it tries to compare levels of contact between striking and grappling arts!  

It just so happens that, even though I disagree with some of the assumptions made in that chart, most of it sounds eminently reasonable to me. We can certainly argue whether MMA fighting has more or less contact than, say, Muay Thai fighting, but I suppose we can all agree that kata training should be pretty low on that scale when compared to those two.

And, I suppose, that was Kickcatcher´s goal: the chart paints things with a broad brush, but some points are, objectively, correct (again, IMHO).

3) Indeed. I believe that chart is an interesting concept, and I am quite sure it is doable, but there must be a scientific basis for comparison between various styles of unarmed combat for it to be taken as fact, rather than opinion.




Still, according to my experience (some years of MA training, saw some fights from a safe distance), the opinions expressed by means of the chart are quite correct. A regular brawl, according to my experience, involves:

- Swearing;

- Shoving and pushing;

- A wild swing or a badly done front kick to the balls, which usually offends more than it hurts;

- A wild, unscientific but incredibly funny trade of punches which do nothing to the adversary, even though most of them land because the other guy is as pathetic as the first guy - usually not even a black eye arises from this;

- A sad attempt at a koshi guruma or osoto gari, as one of the contenders remembers the couple of months he did of judo in highschool;

- Both idiots fall to the floor in a complete mess of arms and legs, while their respective friends point, laugh and halfheartedly tell them to stop (at this point a girl usually screams);

- Some unscientific but rather dirty groundfighting takes place, usually by means of scratching, gouging, and spitting.

- At this point the bouncers/friends/bystanders decide they had enough fun and separate the two morons. Both of them curse and swear at each other while promising to kill each other´s guts, while halfheartedly attempting to escape the grasp of the bystanders/bouncers/friends (this is also known as the "keep your head high" stage of street fighting, very important to give the girls the impression you won, or could have won if it weren´t for these pesky intruders - "you are lucky, man, or I would have done you good").

- General rejoicing and divers alarums as the fighters go back to the bar and try to convince their respective friends they won. Sometimes there is some explaining to do at the nearest police station, where both fighters try to look as sheepish as possible to the sleepy officer taking notes.

- By the next morning, one of the fighters goes to the dentist because his mouth is bleeding a bit. His dentist tells him to stop being a pansy, that was nothing.

Now, this is what I usually think about when the words "real fight" come to my mind - if, of course, we remove sadistic bouncers, improvised weapons, and non improvised weapons from the equation. THIS is what we train for when we go to the gym.

Rather sad, I know.

Still, my point is - the whole affair looks much more like a MMA fight than a kata or a punching bag drill, and it looks more like a boxing match than a point sparring session. So the chart is not actually WRONG in that aspect, even if it presents no verifiable scientific method.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 14, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> 1) Still, according to my experience (some years of MA training, saw some fights from a safe distance), the opinions expressed by means of the chart are quite correct. A regular brawl, according to my experience, involves:
> 
> - Swearing;
> 
> ...


 

I have a few years of MA training as well and I have seen a few real fights and a few compititions and most unfortunately I had a job once (many years ago) that required me to get into some of these and I agree with you.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

> I may be wrong here, but I believe what people are saying is that MMA has rules, the street does not. In MMA, if I find myself in a clinch position, I can't reach up and gouge the eyes.


 
You are correct. But unless you are in control in the clinch, you most likely won't be able to eye gouge. How does one get good in the clinch? MMA training is a good place to start. Want to make it even more close to the str33t? Add a gi top and goggles so you can grab clothing and eye gouge. It's all about the training method. The training method. THE TRAINING METHOD!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 15, 2006)

Course, in the school, you rarely have to worry about the guy you're rollin with sticking something unpleasant in your ribs. 

Little different down at the bar.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 15, 2006)

It's easy enough to add hidden and obvious training knives to the same training method.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 16, 2006)

Treat it like the Pink Panther movies. Have an assistant always try to catch you "asleep", and attack you, whereever, whenever, and however !


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> You are correct. But unless you are in control in the clinch, you most likely won't be able to eye gouge. How does one get good in the clinch? MMA training is a good place to start. Want to make it even more close to the str33t? Add a gi top and goggles so you can grab clothing and eye gouge. It's all about the training method. The training method. THE TRAINING METHOD!


 
When I read posts like this, I always wonder about a few things.

1) Why everyone thinks that they'll always be facing a trained fighter on the street.

2) That everyone they may have a confrontation with is going to be an 'expert' grappler.

3) That anyone who trains in MMA is going to be immune to an eye gouge, or any of those other supposed useless MA techniques.  You know...the ones that can't be 'pressure tested' 

Mike


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

Personally, I don´t even like the expression MMA. I train in Muay Thai and I have some significante judo experience, but I do not consider myself a MMA guy.

I believe the MMA practice, as espoused here, should be taken in context: IMHO, the best thing such a practice offers self defense minded practitioners is the pressure testing mentality, NOT the sportive events themselves. It forces people to actually think about the limitations of their techniques, and it forces people to create new methods to TEST them, not taking anything for granted.

Do you want to know if eye gouges are workable? Pressure test them, and stop complaining about their prohibition in MMA events! Put on some goggles, find some training partners, and PRACTICE them! 

Instead of trying too hard to attack the validity of pressure testing, create ways to pressure test your SD methods against resisting partners! Sparring is not limited to a boxing ring or to MMA rules, and it does not have to exclude weapons or multiple adversaries.

The MMA pressure testing method indeed started in sportive events, but IT DOES NOT HAVE TO END THERE.


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> Personally, I don´t even like the expression MMA. I train in Muay Thai and I have some significante judo experience, but I do not consider myself a MMA guy.
> 
> I believe the MMA practice, as espoused here, should be taken in context: IMHO, the best thing such a practice offers self defense minded practitioners is the pressure testing mentality, NOT the sportive events themselves. It forces people to actually think about the limitations of their techniques, and it forces people to create new methods to TEST them, not taking anything for granted.
> 
> ...


 
For the record, and speaking for myself here, as I don't know if this post was directed at me, or just to the thread in general, but I'm not against pressure testing. I feel that there is an importance to first learning the technique slowly, so that the fine points can be learned and understood, and then gradually adding in some resistance. 

As for putting on the goggles and doing the eye jabs...I agree, absolutely! How do we pressure test breaks though? Basically, I get the impression that unless it can be tested, its useless, which is not the case. I've been put in enough locks to know that if the person applying them adds in a little more pressure, that my arm or wrist will break. 

IMHO, this issue has seriously been beat like a dead horse. Topic after topic gets started, but in reality, its all the same. The only difference is that the title of the thread is different. 

Everyone is going to train differently and have his/her own methods of training. What works for some may not work for others. IMHO, I feel that if we spent half the amount of time we spend pissing and moaning about who does what, how this one and that one trains, and put that time into some serious training, we'd all be a little better off!

Mike


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> 1) For the record, and speaking for myself here, as I don't know if this post was directed at me, or just to the thread in general, but I'm not against pressure testing. I feel that there is an importance to first learning the technique slowly, so that the fine points can be learned and understood, and then gradually adding in some resistance.
> 
> 2) As for putting on the goggles and doing the eye jabs...I agree, absolutely! How do we pressure test breaks though? Basically, I get the impression that unless it can be tested, its useless, which is not the case. I've been put in enough locks to know that if the person applying them adds in a little more pressure, that my arm or wrist will break.
> 
> ...


 
1) It was not directed at anyone in particular. And I agree with you.

2) Heh, well, I prefer to believe my arm will get ripped off its socket if I don´t tap. 

3) Yup. Still, I see an error in communication on this issue - people from both sides of the fence will confuse the sportive side of MMA with the pressure testing mentality engendered by MMA. I tried to make the distinction clear with my post, I´m not sure if I succeeded or not. 

4) But then we´d have to, like, work instead of posting!


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 16, 2006)

Last bar fight I saw, it was a 3 on 1. #2 and #3 didn't wait.  Hard to make someone tap when his buddies are hitting you in the head with a bottle.


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2006)

WingChun Lawyer said:
			
		

> 1) It was not directed at anyone in particular. And I agree with you.


 
Thank you for the clarification. 



> 2) Heh, well, I prefer to believe my arm will get ripped off its socket if I don´t tap.


 
Exactly. But I get the impression from some that unless we actually go through with the break, it technically won't be pressure tested. 



> 3) Yup. Still, I see an error in communication on this issue - people from both sides of the fence will confuse the sportive side of MMA with the pressure testing mentality engendered by MMA. I tried to make the distinction clear with my post, I´m not sure if I succeeded or not.


 
Basically, if someone is going to do it or whats to do it, they will. We can't force people to train a certain way, and IMO, rather than Police the Martial Arts world, we should focus on our training, instead of the training of others. People can preach about something until they're blue in the face, but if someone does not find value in what they're saying, there isn't much that can be done.



> 4) But then we´d have to, like, work instead of posting!


 
LOL! Hmm...work...post..work..post. I love my job but I love posting as well! I guess where I was going was...we can have productive discussions, but when they turn into flame wars, bash fests, etc., well, it makes for a less desireable posting session.

Thanks for the discussion.

Mike


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 16, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Last bar fight I saw, it was a 3 on 1. #2 and #3 didn't wait. Hard to make someone tap when his buddies are hitting you in the head with a bottle.


In much the same way as it's hard to hit someone when someone else is hitting you on the head with a bottle. I'm guessing you know more than you are letting show, but this sort of out of context comment cleverly avoids the real issues being discussed here. Like others you are confusing a sportive engagement with a training method/approach which is equally applicable to "the street".


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 16, 2006)

Well, what does Sporting have to do with Self Defense?

If I want to sport, I'll go play point paddy cake karate.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 16, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Well, what does Sporting have to do with Self Defense?


Sport in itself is not the topic of the thread, Pressure Testing is. Pressure testing is a TRAINING METHOD. Whilst some combat sports can be looked upon as pressure tests in themselves, so can any form of hard sparring or similar alive training &#8211; everything is relative. 

I take it you choose to confuse &#8220;sport&#8221; and &#8220;pressure testing&#8221;.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 16, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> When I read posts like this, I always wonder about a few things.
> 
> 1) Why everyone thinks that they'll always be facing a trained fighter on the street.
> 
> ...


-Where did I say any of that?


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> -Where did I say any of that?


 
Never said that you did.  If you look back at some of the many related posts, you should see where I was going with this.

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 16, 2006)

Actually, kickcatcher, I think you are confusing Pressure Testing - a training method - as being primarily (and perhaps originally) an MMA training tool, which MMA is a sport (not an art), hence it is you who are really confusing sport with pressure testing.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 16, 2006)

Edmund,

            What does sport have to do with self defense?  It lets you compete, albeit with rules, with another human being.  It teaches you to prepare so that you can win.  It teaches you that sometimes skill is not enough but that you have to reach inside for more.  It shows us that to stay at the top you have to train even harder.  Sport is a tool.  How can anyone say that any study of martial arts is not physical?  All of those things I listed can and should be used for self defense.  It is not the answer but it is part of the solution.

ron


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 16, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> 3) That anyone who trains in MMA is going to be immune to an eye gouge, or any of those other supposed useless MA techniques. You know...the ones that can't be 'pressure tested'



Sure it can, strap on some safety goggles.

The effects of said techniques are not usually what comes under question, the ability to pull them off in a live environment is.

Same as if someone where to only practice throws on a willing opponent, never any randori.  Put them next to a Judo fighter and the technique may be exactly the same, but the ability to execute it against a opponent that is fighting back won't be there.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 16, 2006)

MSUTKD said:
			
		

> Edmund,
> 
> What does sport have to do with self defense?  It lets you compete, albeit with rules, with another human being.  It teaches you to prepare so that you can win.  It teaches you that sometimes skill is not enough but that you have to reach inside for more.  It shows us that to stay at the top you have to train even harder.  Sport is a tool.  How can anyone say that any study of martial arts is not physical?  All of those things I listed can and should be used for self defense.  It is not the answer but it is part of the solution.
> 
> ron


A person does not need to compete to get that type of training.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 16, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> A person does not need to compete to get that type of training.



Depends on what you mean by "compete", in a sense we compete every class.


----------



## MJS (Mar 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Sure it can, strap on some safety goggles.
> 
> The effects of said techniques are not usually what comes under question, the ability to pull them off in a live environment is.
> 
> Same as if someone where to only practice throws on a willing opponent, never any randori. Put them next to a Judo fighter and the technique may be exactly the same, but the ability to execute it against a opponent that is fighting back won't be there.


 
As I said to RoninPimp...looking back at some past posts, you should see where I was going with that comment.  I keep hearing that MMA provides the most realistic pressure testing possible against a single unarmed opponent.  I know that you're involved in MMA Andrew, so please don't take this as a shot on you, but there seems to be this theory that the ring is the same as the street.  Personally, I dont think that causing someone death is on the mind of the people in the ring.  I don't do MMA, but I certainly pressure test the material in the arts that I do, as do my teachers.  I'm more than confident in what I do.

Mike


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 16, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Actually, kickcatcher, I think you are confusing Pressure Testing - a training method - as being primarily (and perhaps originally) an MMA training tool, which MMA is a sport (not an art), hence it is you who are really confusing sport with pressure testing.


An interesting theory of yours. Pitty I learned about pressure testing within an RBSD framework long before I ever even heard of MMA. MMA as a community or culture, uses pressure testing either deliberately or unwittingly. The closest training to "reality" is generally thought of as "animal day" which is an RBSD pressure testing form of sparring which is not at all unlike MMA.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 16, 2006)

MJS, You most certainly implied I said that. You quoted my post for crying out loud.

There may seem to be a theory that "the ring is the street" to you, but nobody here has said any such thing. So where are you getting this strawman theory?

Edited to add: shesulsa, can you please elaborate on your sport but not art comment.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 16, 2006)

Well then that is all that I would argue, MMA is just a name, what matters is that things are pressure tested.  It doesn't matter if you call it MMA, Karate, Kung fu, Jeet Kun Do or anything else you like.  

Now the ring is not the street, I fully agree, I think most others would as well.  However, what we might claim is that regardless of the environment you are training for, be it a boxing ring, Judo match, MMA fight or a even a street fight the methods to optimize performance in that environment are going to remain basically the same.  The techniques might change, the strategy definately will, but the basic methods won't.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 16, 2006)

There's something that I don't understand here..... It seems as though everyone is basically in agreement with each other - pressure testing is an important part of self defense training.  So, what's the concern?

Nobody seems to be out there explicitly declaring that any particular art or method has exclusive domain over the concept of pressure testing, are they?

How about we approach it like this:

1) There is no better way to understand the application of a technique or movement than by attempting to apply it against resisting opponents of differing sizes on a regular basis.

2) There is no specific "artform" out there that can claim exclusivity with regard to the methods of "under pressure training".

3) Appropriate safety equipment for various types of training is wise to use.

If anyone would care to attempt to refute any of these statements, perhaps we'll uncover whether or not there is a genuine disagreement here on principle.  I'm confident that we'll find that we are all, in fact, in agreement on principle.

With that in mind, let's remember please that friendly discussion involves a collaborative approach to uncover the threads of truth that lie entwined within our respective points of view, and relative contextual frameworks.  This doesn't need to be an "I'm right, you're wrong" type of thing.  How about more of an "I'd like to understand what you mean, and respect your right to choose to train in whatever manner you believe to be suitable" approach?  We'll all find that to be a more enjoyable and informative read.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 16, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> The closest training to "reality" is generally thought of as "animal day" which is an RBSD pressure testing form of sparring which is not at all unlike MMA.



really?
What's it's distinction? 


Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> The techniques might change, the strategy definately will, but the basic methods won't.


How do you change the techniques and *Definately* change the strategy without the methods getting changed???

That doesn't really make sense. The strategy, guides the choice of techniques and sets the parameters of what can and can't, should and shouldn't happen.

This is confusing.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 16, 2006)

> Depends on what you mean by "compete", in a sense we compete every class.


 
Therein lies the problem with sportive training methodologies.  Properly conducted self-defense training is not about _competing_.  This is the wrong goal, the wrong mindset, and the wrong tenor if one's goal is pragmatic self-defense.  If one believes self-defense is a lost cause or not the primary focus of one's efforts, of course, competition is as good a goal as any.


----------



## MSUTKD (Mar 16, 2006)

Instead of pseudo-logic, what is the way that someone should prepare, if of course they want pragmatic self defense?  Can you answer that?

ron


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 16, 2006)

Phil, I'm going to ask something I asked you earlier but is now burried.  How do you pressure test your training?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 16, 2006)

I'm pretty sure I explained that thoroughly in the thread, "The Myth of Pressure Testing."


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> How do you change the techniques and *Definately* change the strategy without the methods getting changed???
> 
> That doesn't really make sense. The strategy, guides the choice of techniques and sets the parameters of what can and can't, should and shouldn't happen.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I believe I can help a bit here. Mind, you will have to accept the simple martial arts definitions I will give you here to continue this discussion, OK? They are not perfect but they should be good enough for now.

A technique is a bodily movement designed to achieve a certain result. A jab is a technique designed to hurt someone with a fist, a koshi guruma is a technique designed to throw people to the ground, etc.

A strategy is a combination of both goals and acceptable/possible means designed to achieve said goals. 

Methods, within the context at hand, are the means by which you will combine both your techniques and your strategy to achieve the goals pre-ordained by your strategy.

"Pressure testing", as I see it, is a method of training and practicing both techniques and strategies: it involves fully resistant partners and a variable element of risk of injury.

This method can be used to test and practice both weapon defenses and MMA competitions, even though in both cases the strategies and techniques will vary immensely, because the key elements of "pressure testing" - the method, according to my definition - are applicable to any and all human activity involving violence.

I hope that makes sense and is somewhat helpful.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 16, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Therein lies the problem with sportive training methodologies. Properly conducted self-defense training is not about _competing_. This is the wrong goal, the wrong mindset, and the wrong tenor if one's goal is pragmatic self-defense. If one believes self-defense is a lost cause or not the primary focus of one's efforts, of course, competition is as good a goal as any.


-Why is that Phil? Training is never competing in the sense of win at all costs like a SD situation could be. But if I am trying to perform techniques on a training partner who is resisting and he is trying to do the same to me there is definately a toned down sense of competition happening. What other way is there to get as good as humanly possible at specific techniques?


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 16, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> How do you change the techniques and *Definately* change the strategy without the methods getting changed???
> 
> That doesn't really make sense. The strategy, guides the choice of techniques and sets the parameters of what can and can't, should and shouldn't happen.
> 
> ...



Ok, consider wrestling and boxing.  They share no common techniques, and very little (if any) common strategy.  Yet if you look at how they train, without looking at what they train, the methods are going to be basically the same.  As they would be for training to fight under any rule set, including no rules, weapons, 2 on 1 or any other situation you can come up with.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Phil, I'm going to ask something I asked you earlier but is now burried. How do you pressure test your training?


 



			
				MSUTKD said:
			
		

> Instead of pseudo-logic, what is the way that someone should prepare, if of course they want pragmatic self defense? Can you answer that?


 
Gentlemen, give up. He won´t answer and will keep pretending there is no need to answer. Let´s all concentrate on the discussion at hand, shall we?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 16, 2006)

> Ok, consider wrestling and boxing. They share no common techniques, and very little (if any) common strategy. Yet if you look at how they train, without looking at what they train, the methods are going to be basically the same. As they would be for training to fight under any rule set, including no rules, weapons, 2 on 1 or any other situation you can come up with.



Absolutely.  Why, just the other weekend, during my latest close-quarters shooting class, we spent a couple of hours squared off on canvas, shooting each other in the torso.  After all, if those 9mm and .45 bullets won't work in the ring, how do you know they'll work on the street?  Now _that's_ "pressure testing."

Medic!


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 16, 2006)

Well, when I went through my infantry training, a good chunck of it had a very "sport like" feel too it.  With appropriate safety measures taken.

Anyways, how do you pressure test you hand to hand techniques?


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 16, 2006)

Phil, you continue to ignore legitimate questions. Why?



			
				Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Why, just the other weekend, during my latest close-quarters shooting class, we spent a couple of hours squared off on canvas, shooting each other in the torso. After all, if those 9mm and .45 bullets won't work in the ring, how do you know they'll work on the street? Now _that's_ "pressure testing."
> 
> Medic!


-No it's not. "Pressure Testing" would be running a tactical shooting course with simunations or airsoft equipment to use on real live training partners.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Absolutely. Why, just the other weekend, during my latest close-quarters shooting class, we spent a couple of hours squared off on canvas, shooting each other in the torso. After all, if those 9mm and .45 bullets won't work in the ring, how do you know they'll work on the street? Now _that's_ "pressure testing."
> 
> Medic!


 
Oh my, you are REALLY getting desperate to prove your points. Pity it´s hard to do that without actually arguing, isn´t it? Maybe you should start debating people´s points for a change instead of creating strawmen arguments and/or engaging in pseudo arguments like this one.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 16, 2006)

> Anyways, how do you pressure test you hand to hand techniques?


 
The same way I "pressure test" anything else, insofar as it is possible.  I describe it *here*.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The same way I "pressure test" anything else, insofar as it is possible. I describe it *here*.


 
Regarding unarmed combat, the drills you referred to on that article of yours do not carry a significant element of risk, or even of simulation of risk, compared to actual hard sparring. What you described are inferior methods of pressure testing unarmed techniques, nothing more.

That´s all there is in your article about unarmed combat, even though it IS a long article. 

In fact, I remembered an old saying from the brazilian judiciary system: "A petitioner´s actual right is inversely proportional to the number of pages used for the petition".


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 16, 2006)

I sit here and watch this debate go round and round like a twisty turny sort of thing, and wonder. Truly, there are some dizzying intellects at work here.

Competition has little to no part of Self Defense. Competition is just that, competition. It is not life or death, *** on the line, lose and go home in a bag. Self Defense however is. No part of real self defense deals with scoring points or going home friends. It's making it home alive, preferably intact. 

Playing paddy cake tap tap on a nice padded mat, wearing cushy padded gloves one on one is a game. You may get hurt, you may break bones and bleed, but it is as close to self defense as the last midget match on Monday Night Raw.

The topic here said "self defense", so anyone talking from the "sport" side of things, or the comfort of a nice air conditioned "dojo" is barking mad. And I know barking mad when I see it. Wibble.

The only way to pressure test them is to use them. You pass the test when you make it home. You fail it when you end up on a table with some old guy poking at your guts commenting on the quality of your liver spots.  

How do I test mine? Simple. I use every ounce of my wit, my cunning and my intelligence to outwit, confuse, mislead and out maneuver my opponents. I use the principles of sages past, and the techniques of those who have gone before me. Might mean some "modern", some "ancient". Maybe I'm a traditionalist, maybe I do what you call MMA. Doesn't matter. What works for me, won't work for you as our situations will be different, as will our reactions and responses.

You want to beat each others brains out under some made up rules, be my guest. You want to play modern day Rambo and exterminate the homeless, go ahead and make their day. Either way, it&#8217;s not real. If you want to lie to yourself and think that, go right ahead. The morgue is full of over confident warriors and heroes.


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

Edmund, ALL training of techniques useful for violence involves a compromise between safety and reality, this cannot be argued with.

The question is how much are you willing to risk to achieve a more realistic level of training, and how honest do you want to be regarding the inadequacy of your training - because, as you so rightfully said, all training carries a baggage of inadequacy.

Compromise and honesty are the key issues here. All else, as I see it, is splitting hairs.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 16, 2006)

That's just it. You can't achieve a "realistic" level. Even the military doesn't get 100% realism, nor perfection. If they did, there wouldn't be so many flags at half mast right now. If they can't get it, what make anyone with an ounce of intelligence think that 2 morons bashing at each other wearing hockey masks and bits of furniture somehow makes it more "real"?

You want "real", take a walk on the wild side and put your life up for grabs. Anything else is a lie. The old masters that some look down their "modern" noses at did just that, and lived or died as a result of their knowledge and ability. Anything else, is just playing games for ego points.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 16, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The same way I "pressure test" anything else, insofar as it is possible. I describe it *here*.


That doesn't describe _how_ you pressure test your methods, just gives a load of excuses why you don't. Are we to take it that you don't pressure test anything that you sell?


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 16, 2006)

Despite Phil's cop out by refusing to answer simple questions directly on the unlocked thread we are actually dicussing this on, I read his post/article/rant/thesaurus explosion he linked. He said this...



> Sport methodology is inherently unrealistic because it transforms the asymmetrical goal of pragmatic self-defense into the symmetrical goal of winning the match between two people.


-You are fundamentaly wrong here. The "sport methodology" or pressure testing is in no way limited to just 2 people. At least in training. 

Phil also said this...


> You see, the dirty little secret, the one no one seems to want to acknowledge, is that all self-defense training involves an element of _theory_.


-You are confused on scientific teminology. The problem with way too many MA techniques is that they never make it past the hypothetical stage to become good theory. In the scientific method, you come up with a hypothesis. Then, YOU TEST IT. Then you us that data to develop a theory. Test results that don't support your hypothesis force you to change your hypothesis and re-test. 

An example is this. A TMA guy sparring a boxer. His hypothesis is that his reverse punch rules. After eating round after round of leather he decides he's better off with the 4 basic punches of boxing. His hypothesis was wrong.

Another example. A SOMBO coach in Soviet Russia decides that their SOMBO techniques will work just fine in Judo competitions. Soviet Somboists competing in international Judo have done great. His hypothesis becomes sound theory. (an oversimplification of Sombo/Judo competition history I know)

Theory is about as best you can do in science, as its always changable when new evidence comes to light. Un pressure tested or sport methedology tested MA techniques are NOT theory they are hypothetical. There is no reason to keep MA's in the hypothetical realm in the 21st century.

Edmund, Are you arguing against all training then?


----------



## WingChun Lawyer (Mar 16, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> 1) That's just it. You can't achieve a "realistic" level. Even the military doesn't get 100% realism, nor perfection. If they did, there wouldn't be so many flags at half mast right now. If they can't get it, what make anyone with an ounce of intelligence think that 2 morons bashing at each other wearing hockey masks and bits of furniture somehow makes it more "real"?
> 
> 2) You want "real", take a walk on the wild side and put your life up for grabs. Anything else is a lie. The old masters that some look down their "modern" noses at did just that, and lived or died as a result of their knowledge and ability. Anything else, is just playing games for ego points.


 
1) True. And to be fair, some MMA practitioners do have this "if it doesn´t work in the ring it´s not worthwhile" mentality, which is, of course, a sign of ignorance, no question.

2) Now, I partially disagree with you on that. The way you write, it looks as if all training, by virtue of its imperfection, is ultimately futile! I am not sure if that is what you mean, but I disagree with that point of view.

I believe that, even though all training is, ultimately, imperfect, there are degrees of imperfection, there are compromises that need to be made and others that can be ignored in the interests of a better training.

I do not believe it is a waste of time to discuss training regimes because, by the end of the day, there ARE good and bad training methods; if you are not a wandering samurai, you can still achieve a measure of skill, and there are good and bad ways of doing that.

It is all nice and dandy to say it is not the art, it´s the person, but ultimately martial arts are measured and characterized by their training methods. Which means there are good and better martial arts.

That, of course, is my humble opinion. But I do believe there is more than a bit of truth in what I said.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 16, 2006)

Double post. Sorry for the itchy trigger finger.


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 17, 2006)

Why did this thread die? It must be because I'm correct and everybody agrees with me right???


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 17, 2006)

Ok, i know none of you know me from Adam yet, but here is my two cents on pressure testing.  The thing that is hard to replicate in training is the amount of stress you are under.  So, taking a page from my days in Ranger School, increase the stress levels.  Stay up for 20-24 hours, have only one meal during that time.  Run a couple miles hard and fast.  Do a crap load of pushups and situps.  Then do some self defense drills as realistically as possible, with good hard resistance.  You can't have the stress of a real attack, but you can get it a lot higher than most people think.  Just add other stressors.  They don't have to be directly related to the "attack".

Just my thoughts and techniques on the matter.  Never did the stay up all night and only one meal for SD practice, have done the rest though.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Phil, you continue to ignore legitimate questions. Why?
> 
> 
> -No it's not. "Pressure Testing" would be running a tactical shooting course with simunations or airsoft equipment to use on real live training partners.


But: a tactical shooting course has NO resistance and NO contact...which according to the position of the original post....means it's about as useful for preparing for combat as jumping jacks. It wouldn't be pressure testing, according to that graph.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 17, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> Ok, i know none of you know me from Adam yet, but here is my two cents on pressure testing. The thing that is hard to replicate in training is the amount of stress you are under. So, taking a page from my days in Ranger School, increase the stress levels. Stay up for 20-24 hours, have only one meal during that time. Run a couple miles hard and fast. Do a crap load of pushups and situps. Then do some self defense drills as realistically as possible, with good hard resistance. You can't have the stress of a real attack, but you can get it a lot higher than most people think. Just add other stressors. They don't have to be directly related to the "attack".
> 
> Just my thoughts and techniques on the matter. Never did the stay up all night and only one meal for SD practice, have done the rest though.


Agreed!
Good post...

and welcome to Martial Talk!!  ((PS: I'm not Adam, I'm John....Adam has more hair...))

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 17, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> Why did this thread die? It must be because I'm correct and everybody agrees with me right???


NO

I don't think it 'died', just slowed.
A reduction from 20 posts a day to just 5 or 6 a day is still a Very active thread.
I think that the DEAD HORSE element is what's slowing it though. 


Your Brother
John


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 17, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> But: a tactical shooting course has NO resistance and NO contact...which according to the position of the original post....means it's about as useful for preparing for combat as jumping jacks. It wouldn't be pressure testing, according to that graph.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


-I disagree. It depends on context. It also would depend on how you set up the course. If it was force on force with "bad guys" shooting back you, then you would have resistance as it applies to firearms. If you were doing very close quarter work, you could have actual physical contact. Ideally the only contact would be your rounds impacting on the "bad guys".


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Mar 17, 2006)

Thanks Brother John.  I'm glad I found this place, seem to be some good, knowledgable people here.  Have already learned quite a bit in just a couple of days.


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 17, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> But: a tactical shooting course has NO resistance and NO contact...which according to the position of the original post....means it's about as useful for preparing for combat as jumping jacks. It wouldn't be pressure testing, according to that graph.
> 
> Your Brother
> John


Thats an interesting example  many weapons courses such as tactical firearms often do not even remotely approach the target activity in terms of pressure, thus the step-up is massive. Its a compromise of safety  just like unarmed combat pressure testing, except the threshold is inherently far lower. 

However, it is foolish to conclude that these low-pressure (/unrealistic) tactical firearms courses are inherently effective in teaching optimum firearms capability. There are two obvious factors at play: 
1. The applied skill needed to be effective when you have a firearm is far lower than unarmed. 
2. The general level of competency in _applied_ firearms use is pretty low, even amongst enthusiasts (strong suspicion on my part, you may disagree. There are some military studies which suggest that is likely though). 

HOWEVER, to extend your analogy of firearms courses, lets look at military training as it relates to pressure testing. Using the British army (with which I am more familiar), soldiers put in far more time on basic skills than their LE counterparts Things like range practice, tactical movement, dry runs of basic squad attacks etc  these are the equivalent of padwork, kihon and non-contact sparring etc in MA. They are low pressure support training. 

The military then increase the pressure to include play battle using blank ammunition. This includes additional pressures to make it more realistic  sleep deprivation, water rationing, house clearing in urban areas etc  things to put the soldier under more pressure. In MA parlance this is training with medium pressure. 

But thats not enough, not close enough to the reality of combat for the Army. They up the pressure by advancing with live rounds whizzing over the soldiers head so that they get some mental conditioning against incoming fire. This is akin to the basic pressure testing I advocate in MA. 

Then you have the elite guys like the SAS. They push it further SO THAT THEY BECOME BETTER. They training in the killing house using live ammunition, they push everything further  they still work safe, but compared to the low-pressure tactical gun course you mentioned, they are training on a different level of realism. 

The evidence that the (British) militarys drive towards realistic training is a deciding factor when it comes to doing their target activity (war fighting) is very strong. The Falklands war is a very clear cut example. 

Now I cant talk for the SAS, but I am pretty sure if you asked them if the low-pressure gun course is good preparation for actually using firearms, theyd think it was inadequate. 

Bearing all this in mind, I do not think that unrealistic tactical gun courses are a very strong counter-argument against pressure testing.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 18, 2006)

kickcatcher said:
			
		

> Using the British army (with which I am more familiar), soldiers put in far more time on basic skills than their LE counterparts Things like range practice, tactical movement, dry runs of basic squad attacks etc


I'm really not very familiar with the UK side of things on this, I'll just have to take your word for it, and I'm OK with that.

Here in the USA, I'd have to say that this is true...unless you get into special teams or groups like the ATF, FBI (and appendant bodies) and especially the SWAT teams angle. These folks probably end up accumulating MORE time on these things....over the years....than our military brothers and sisters do. Another thing to consider ((again....I can only speak for what I'm familiar with..the USA)) is the fact that MOST of the members of thse special teams that I mention are themselves Military veterans...so they end up with Both trainings. Just another considerartion. 

Actually *KickCatcher*, I find many of your arguments _*very persuasive*_... especially this last one. (tried to give you a positive rep point, but I have to wait a while until the other, negative, one has been there for a while...) Maybe I don't agree 100%, and I'm never FOR trying to "Graph" or quantify non-material/insubstantial things, nor do I think that the "Usefulness" of a martial arts practice can be determined by the level of contact and resistance ((Though....those MUST be important considerations....I don't think they are 'stand-alone' criteria))...but I think that this is a very useful discussion that's come of all of this.
SO....until I get clearence to give you a positive rep point......
*Kudos!* (if for nothing else....for sticking to your guns. Obviously you value training ...and arguing... against resistance)

Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 19, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> NO
> 
> I don't think it 'died', just slowed.
> A reduction from 20 posts a day to just 5 or 6 a day is still a Very active thread.
> ...


of all the things I've said on here....
THIS one gets me a negative rep-point??

ok


Your Brother
John


----------



## Brother John (Mar 19, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *kickcatcher*
> _
> Using the British army (with which I am more familiar), soldiers put in far more time on basic skills than their LE counterparts Things like range practice, tactical movement, dry runs of basic squad attacks etc_




_Just thought of something else about this as well..._


_((((don't know why...but I can't get "Italics" off.........strange!))))_
_The training of the LEO and the Military personnel differs because their objectives are different. I'd imagine that along with your statement being true (generally) that also an LEO would get more verbal based skills training, tactics to pursuade and take command of a situation without NEEDING violence. The Military (w/the exception of MP, of course) would have little to no need for such skills as verbal deescalation or the use of restraints.... as the primary purpose of an LEO is to "Protect and serve" while the primary objective (quite crudely and bluntly put) of the military personnel is to "Kill people and break things"...as fast and definitively as possible._

_Just an observation._
_Your Brother_
_John_


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 19, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> of all the things I've said on here....
> THIS one gets me a negative rep-point??
> 
> ok
> ...


 
I wouldn't worry about it; occasionally you get these things for being right.




			
				Brother John said:
			
		

> [/i]
> 
> _Just thought of something else about this as well..._
> 
> ...


 
agreed


----------



## kickcatcher (Mar 19, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> [/i]
> 
> 
> _The training of the LEO and the Military personnel differs because their objectives are different. I'd imagine that along with your statement being true (generally) that also an LEO would get more verbal based skills training, tactics to pursuade and take command of a situation without NEEDING violence. The Military (w/the exception of MP, of course) would have little to no need for such skills as verbal deescalation or the use of restraints.... as the primary purpose of an LEO is to "Protect and serve" while the primary objective (quite crudely and bluntly put) of the military personnel is to "Kill people and break things"...as fast and definitively as possible._


It varys - in "peacekeeping" roles and counter-insurgency roles verbal negotiation and non-lethal force action can be vital to military operations, and British military training at least reflects that - Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq... 

Having said that, we have to consider training approaches RELATIVE to the TARGET ACTIVITY - the specific training optimum for any activity varies, but the general approach of "pressure testing" carries across most physical activities (IMO).


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 21, 2006)

Brother John said:
			
		

> of all the things I've said on here....
> THIS one gets me a negative rep-point??
> 
> ok
> ...


Positive or negative, you have still made an impression on someone, enough to stir them to action.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

> Positive or negative, you have still made an impression on someone, enough to stir them to action.


 
EXACTLY!  (Don't forget that you said that.)


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (Mar 21, 2006)

I never forget.
Wait, who are you again?  Ross Perot right?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

Too short.  I was thinking Teddy Roosevelt.  He had the pear-shaped physique, the glasses, the facial hair, and the itchy trigger finger.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 21, 2006)

Sadly, I can see it.  Then again, I get compared to Kevin Smith alot......a real lot..... LOL

Ok, we're really tangenting here....lets drift back to topic.


----------



## Hand Sword (Mar 24, 2006)

I still say that the pink panther movie way of testing is the best!


----------



## RoninPimp (Mar 24, 2006)

> Too short. I was thinking Teddy Roosevelt. He had the pear-shaped physique, the glasses, the facial hair, and the itchy trigger finger.


-He was also a combat athlete and would have been all about the "pressure testing".


----------



## Rook (May 23, 2006)

Hmm this was and is an excellent thread.  

I think alot of people missed Wing Chung Lawyer's point, which Kickcatcher restated himself - that the chart demostrates his personal approximation of various training activities to each other.  Being closer to streetfighting means more realistic, but he never once said that it was the only way to train or that other training methods were useless.  There are lots of ways to skin that cat, and most serious martial artists will, in training, uses low, medium and high levels of this.  

Excellent chart and good thread.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

His personal approximation is based on his speculation and is not grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting.


----------



## frank raud (May 23, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> His personal approximation is based on his speculation and is not grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting.


Could you do any better?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

I routinely do.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 23, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> I routinely do.



I think that is a matter of opinion don't you?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

Your opinion is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 23, 2006)

Yes, I don't try to deny that though.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

Yet you run around shrieking to anyone who'll listen that any opinion with which you disagree is, in fact, an opinion.  I think you need to evaluate why you are so threatened by any assertion of belief that differs from you own.  Instead of jumping up and down, pointing your fingers and whining, "That's an opinion!  That's an opinion!" you could be substantively replying with a meaningful rebuttal.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 23, 2006)

Go back up and have a read, see if you can figure out why I did.

I'll give you a hint:

"His personal approximation is based on his speculation and is not grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting."

Interesting claim, given that you do not know the poster or his knowledge base.

So it was asked:

"Could you do any better"

And responded to:

"I routinely do."

Now, having read both this threads initial post, and a few of your articles, I think it is rather safe to say that not everyone will agree that you have written better material.  In fact, some might flat out disagree.  So, blatently claiming that you write better, and have a better knowledge of the subject then the initial poster is not a fact as you stated it as, it is a opinion.  

Me, I'm on the disagreeing side.  While I don't fully agree with the initial post, I think it is quite well done and thought out and made more sense then much of your material.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

An objective reader can easily see that I can, do, and have routinely written better material.  Your personal agenda clouds your thinking and renders your _opinion_ less than reasonable.  I can give credit where credit is due, even if I do not like the person expressing the opinion.  If "Kickcatcher" spent less time writing libelous cartoons (well illustrated but poorly scripted) and more time actually _training_ in different martial styles, his speculation as to their efficacy would carry more weight -- at least among those of us capable of rational thought.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 23, 2006)

I have a personal agenda?  Sweet!

Any chance of you telling me what it is?


----------



## frank raud (May 23, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> I routinely do.


(quote+ Phil elmore)grounded in any real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting.(/Quote)

So where does your real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting on come from?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

Why, conducting yourself in a manner we can all consider exemplary of a forum moderator, of course.  Why, were you not pursuing that goal?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

> So where does your real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting on come from?


 
More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts, culminating in more than three years publishing a successful martial arts magazine and an equally successful book (or books, depending on how you look at it) in the same topic area.  Granted, that might not stack up against a series of computer-generated cartoons depicting caricatures of martial arts figures farting and defrauding their students.  It's all in your perspective, I guess.


----------



## green meanie (May 23, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts...


 
Can you be more specific?


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 23, 2006)

Hmm, and here I thought it was against the rules to take pot-shots at moderators. Seems someone is grumpy that they can't boot people who disagree with them from every part of the site. Too bad. 

Phil cannot be more specific as he has never spent enough time in any one art to really get to the true "meat" as it were. On the other side of that same coin, are those who have no real experience with an art, other than what their equally clueless buddies share who will then try to somehow "grade" it.
2 sides of the same coin, saturated in arrogence, ignorance and worse. As a friend of mine was known to say "Ahh. Arrogence and Stupidity in 1 package. How efficient of you."

My opinion of pressure-testing remains the same, as does my opinion of those who seem to think that their limited experiences somehow make them qualified to compare.  Double that if they are under 50 and have less than 40 years in, and less than 20 in any 1 specific art.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 23, 2006)

Might I also add, it's poor form to continue to take shots at someone who is not here to defend themself? Kickcatchers not on my "admired list" but he isn't a member any longer from what I can tell. Show good form gentlemen.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

And I find it "poor form" when a moderator takes shots at members because of his personal feelings.  I find the way you cannot resist jumping into every argument in order to take shots at everyone else to be "poor form," while we're at it.



> Phil cannot be more specific as he has never spent enough time in any one art to really get to the true "meat" as it were.



Wow, you've got me there.  Why, it's all I can do to hide behind the anonymity the Internet offers poor benighted souls like me, what with my phone number and links to multiple websites detailing almost everything I think, do, and believe (and why) all listed in my signature.

For those who prefer hardcopy there is a rather detailed martial biography of me in my first book, _Shorthand Empty Hand._ 

Somehow I'll manage to soldier on despite your negative opinion of me, Edmund.


----------



## shesulsa (May 23, 2006)

_*MODERATOR WARNING:

Keep the conversation polite, respectful, on topic and non-defamatory.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Moderator*_


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 23, 2006)

Hey, what can I say?  Some of us are just gifted like that. I know you will keep on soldiering on Phil. 

As to the "moderator", last I read here, having a badge doesn't somehow make them not have their own opinions. I think they bite their tongues quite a bit in regards to some of the primadonnas that have come through here. Of course, there is also your annoying little habit of deleting all opinion that doesn't agree with you inside your little cardboard box. Why don't you stay there Phil? I mean, you have complete control. Why come out here with us stupid people? Not enough people to talk to inside "Outpost Martialist"? Now you have to invite them to follow you to "Fortress Martialist" too? Hmmm?

But, I am but an anonymous internet trollkin.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 23, 2006)

> _*MODERATOR WARNING:
> 
> Keep the conversation polite, respectful, on topic and non-defamatory.*_


_*

:angel:
*_


----------



## frank raud (May 23, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts, culminating in more than three years publishing a successful martial arts magazine and an equally successful book (or books, depending on how you look at it) in the same topic area. Granted, that might not stack up against a series of computer-generated cartoons depicting caricatures of martial arts figures farting and defrauding their students. It's all in your perspective, I guess.


So, he asks politely, would that be 15 years of continous and progressive martial arts training, or dabbling here and there with no real advancement in any particular art that has given you this depth of understanding?
As the original poster is not around to post his resume, please feel free to denigrate his 12 years years of martial arts experience.

As your comment was not to the effect of "me write better", can you produce a chart that will more realistically reproduce the value for self defense training of the various martial arts that Kickcatcher did? Not " I regularly write better than that"(a paraphrase), can you develop a superior chart? Just for comparison purposes, as you have the higher level of experience, according to you?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

His experience is not borne out in what he writes, from what I've seen.  You asked and I answered; don't get snippy.

I could produce a chart and an accompanying article that was more coherent and more persuasive, yes.  The fundamental problem, however, is that this thread (and his chart and all that bother) was an attempt _to quantify subjective opinion_ -- to shoehorn an editorial belief into a pseudoscientific presentation.  That's the wrong approach and the reason it failed.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Any chart that anyone produces is based off their own opinions and experiences. Something like this is opinion based. I saw a taichi demo once that was anything but 'soft'. I saw a grappling match that was more cuddling than rolling. It's all a matter of opinion.

And Phil, I saw that warning, it was posted while I was posting. No need to go all "angelic" there. It doesn't fit.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

Opinions can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to objective reality.  They can be quantified accordingly.  All opinions exist somewhere on a continuum between wildly subjective and unverifiable at one extreme, and quantifiable and verifiable at the other.  When one attempts to shoehorn the former into a format appropriate only to the latter, you get the chart that started this thread -- a subjective, highly speculative, and (in my _opinion_) largely uninformed  _editorial_ couched as quantitative analysis.

Editorials are wonderful things; I write them all the time.  Attempting to reframe an editorial as scientific analysis is always awkward and rarely results in anything but a failed piece -- an essay that can stand neither as logical analysis nor as persuasive opinion because it does both functions poorly and out of context.  Many poor writers fall into the trap of attempting to graph or otherwise chart their opinions as if this gives them more credibility; I've seen some people who do it in a desperate attempt to determine and to define for themselves what they believe, and I've seen others who do it in the hope that it will lend their assertions the illusion of scientific substantiation when those opinions are viewed by others.  In either case, it simply doesn't work.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Some people make charts, some people write books. Anyone can do that, and anyone with a few bucks can publish it. Neither makes them somehow "right" or "correct".

When someone with little to no experience with a subject does this, I look at them as if they were a fool, which, often they prove themselves to be. Experience to me is defined as decades in the arts, not a decade. When Kick posted his chart, my first question was "what direct personal experience does he have with these to score them so?" Little it turned out. One cannot qualify "karate" after a few lessons, or a few friends opinions, or watching "Karate Kid". Careful research, over a prolonged period of time, looking at not the beginner, but the experts (who are deemed that by their peers, not their own PR). One must also be careful of putting too much stock into the opinions of "Art-Hoppers". Those are the "experts" who have seemingly tried every art in the world, who then "Mix and Match" to form their own arts, usually without achieving any recognized rank in the systems they "borrow" from. As most systems reserve the "good stuff" for after "black", it is questionable just how much real stuff they got. They often times will be found pointing at their "years of experience" as if it somehow means something, other than "I couldn't stick with anything long enough to really learn much".

So, both are little more than "editorials". 

And when a short billionaire with big ears starts whipping out the charts and waving a pointer around, I tend to pay more attention.
(points if you get the ref.)


----------



## shesulsa (May 24, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> And when a short billionaire with big ears starts whipping out the charts and waving a pointer around, I tend to pay more attention.
> (points if you get the ref.)



Ross Perot?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

The fact that something was written, drawn, or otherwise publicized means nothing, no.  When we start dismissing everything with a wave of the hand and the statement, "Hell, anyone can say anything," we are being intellectually dishonest.  The _fact_ is that we can judge the substance of an opinion based on its content, its context, and the degree to which these correspond to objective reality, as analyzed through the science (some would say art) of non-contradictory identification (logic).  We can then make conclusions, integrating the data of our senses into concepts with which we deal with life and make decisions (and extrapolations) for long-term survival.  

The chart is a subjective, speculative, and ill-informed attempt to couch inaccurate opinions as quantitative analysis.  This is why it fails.  Were it recast as an editorial, it would _still_ fail, but it would at least be honestly presented.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Shesulsa: Bingo. I'd give you a gold star, but I see you already have one.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> The fact that something was written, drawn, or otherwise publicized means nothing, no.  *When we start dismissing everything with a wave of the hand and the statement, "Hell, anyone can say anything," we are being intellectually dishonest. * The _fact_ is that we can judge the substance of an opinion based on its content, its context, and the degree to which these correspond to objective reality, as analyzed through the science (some would say art) of non-contradictory identification (logic).  We can then make conclusions, integrating the data of our senses into concepts with which we deal with life and make decisions (and extrapolations) for long-term survival.
> 
> The chart is a subjective, speculative, and ill-informed attempt to couch inaccurate opinions as quantitative analysis.  This is why it fails.  Were it recast as an editorial, it would _still_ fail, but it would at least be honestly presented.



I disagree with the bolded statement. Anyone can, and has writen and published.
Phil, with all bluntness here, I can write a book, "100 reasons why Phil is a Twit". It might even become a best seller (maybe even give Dan Brown a run for the money). It would however not make it "right", regardless of how much research I put into it. I mean, how many people think the Davinci Code is real?

I do dismiss everything. Everything that fails the acid test of "quality" of the source. I have quantified that previously.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

Saying, "Anyone can publish anything" is not reasoning; it is evading -- if we do not then follow it up with _critical analysis of what has been said_.  Judging everything by the "quality of the source" is a logical fallacy; someone you detest or whose resume you find lacking is not wrong simply because you think so.  You must judge the statement made, not the person making it.

You're stumbling over the notions of the "open mind" versus the _active_ mind.  The latter is desirable.  The former is popular but generally useless.  Don't worry, though; your mistake is a common one.  If I'm to guess I'd imagine you lean towards populism rather than ruthless logic.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Saying, "Anyone can publish anything" is not reasoning; it is evading -- if we do not then follow it up with _critical analysis of what has been said_.  Judging everything by the "quality of the source" is a logical fallacy; someone you detest or whose resume you find lacking is not wrong simply because you think so.  You must judge the statement made, not the person making it.
> 
> You're stumbling over the notions of the "open mind" versus the _active_ mind.  The latter is desirable.  The former is popular but generally useless.  Don't worry, though; your mistake is a common one.  If I'm to guess I'd imagine you lean towards populism rather than ruthless logic.


Phil,
  It is not evading. It is truth. Anyone can publish. There is however a large difference between McGraw Hill, and Kinkos. Tell me Phil, who is better qualified to judge the quality of an art? The 40 year expert in that art, the 30 year expert in another art, the 10 year non-expert in 6 arts?

I will take the first, give due consideration to the second, and look down my nose at the third.

Quality of the source is key. One does not need degrees and awards to be of quality, but one does need experience and quality sources. I can still detest someone, but that doesn't make them wrong automatically. I try to look at the quality behind their comments, not automatically label them "wrong". 
Case in point: You and I do not see eye to eye on many things, yet, there are times we are in agreement.

We are in agreement on the reliability of the chart mentioned previously. We may (I don't recall) be in agreement on the concept of pressure testing. We disagree on the idea that someone who art-hops is somehow qualified to be an art-expert. Such is life, and the joy of living.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Just 1 small point of clarification: My comment "101 reasons why Phil is a Twit" was not a suggestion or shot at him. I could have easily called it "Why Phil should be Sainted". My apologies to Mr. Elmore for any taken slight.
:asian:


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

As I've said twice now, it is evading _if our thought process stops there_.  

You are free to engage in as much *hero worship* as you like; you are free to engage in the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority; you are free to let others do your thinking for you.  The truth or falsehood of an idea is found _in the substance of the idea_, not in the resume of the person expressing it.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 24, 2006)

Edmund BlackAdder said:
			
		

> Tell me Phil, who is better qualified to judge the quality of an art? The 40 year expert in that art, the 30 year expert in another art, the 10 year non-expert in 6 arts?
> 
> Quality of the source is key. One does not need degrees and awards to be of quality, but one does need experience and quality sources.


I would like to offer an opinion of mine regarding the above approach to identifying quality or expertness.

IMHO, time in something alone is no guarantee someone is an expert and I believe this also applies to martial arts.  Experience and skill does not come about by osmosis or just being around "it".  It comes from doing and learning.  Some people learn fast, some learn slowly, some probably don't learn at all no matter how much time they spend trying.  I am hesitant to put a label on someone because of time.  Of course we all hope that when people put time in they are actually learning at or above some generally accepted rate.  

To muttle things even more, education and wisdom are completely different.  They are not bound together and a person can have one over the other or both or neither.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 24, 2006)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I would like to offer an opinion of mine regarding the above approach to identifying quality or expertness.
> 
> IMHO, time in something alone is no guarantee someone is an expert and I believe this also applies to martial arts. Experience and skill does not come about by osmosis or just being around "it". It comes from doing and learning. Some people learn fast, some learn slowly, some probably don't learn at all no matter how much time they spend trying. I am hesitant to put a label on someone because of time. Of course we all hope that when people put time in they are actually learning at or above some generally accepted rate.
> 
> To muttle things even more, education and wisdom are completely different. They are not bound together and a person can have one over the other or both or neither.




I agree with the time reference. Just because you started training a long time ago and stopped advancing or training with an instructor and you have more time in does not mean you are better than someone with less time who trained harder and or spent the time training quality.  Although I give those who started before the respect of being a senior in the sense that they started before me, but let us touch and play and see who is leading who. If they lead me then great I can learn from it. If I am leading them then great as hopefully I can help them out.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 24, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I agree with the time reference. Just because you started training a long time ago and stopped advancing or training with an instructor and you have more time in does not mean you are better than someone with less time who trained harder and or spent the time training quality.  Although I give those who started before the respect of being a senior in the sense that they started before me, but let us touch and play and see who is leading who. If they lead me then great I can learn from it. If I am leading them then great as hopefully I can help them out.


Rich, I totally agree!


----------



## RoninPimp (May 24, 2006)

Kickcatcher's chart is subjective. Phil is correct on this count. Phil disagrees with the chart because he lacks hard contact training despite his "15 years experiance". Phil is wrong on this count.


----------



## James Patrick (May 24, 2006)

I'll just make one point before fading into the background again...

Arguements need to be observed for their own merits or logic and evidence. Subjectivism, personal attacks, and credential contests don't really have a place in logical debates.

Carry on...


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

> Subjectivism, personal attacks, and credential contests don't really have a place in logical debates.


 
Precisely.


----------



## Kreth (May 24, 2006)

James Patrick said:
			
		

> Subjectivism, personal attacks, and credential contests don't really have a place in logical debates.


Nor does selective moderation to weed out points opposing your own... :uhyeah:


----------



## shesulsa (May 24, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Nor does selective moderation to weed out points opposing your own... :uhyeah:



That's not selective moderation ... that's troll-eliminating.  Riiiiiight????


----------



## Kreth (May 24, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> That's not selective moderation ... that's troll-eliminating. Riiiiiight????


Is that sort of like:
"One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter?" :uhyeah:


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

Judging the evil of an action is not simply a matter of perspective.  Situational ethics might tell us that it is, but morals are objective, not subjective.  

Ask yourself, "Shesulsa" -- if a poster started dragging disputes from other threads into this thread in order to pursue some sort of grudge based on the disagreement and/or handling of the disagreement in the other threads, would that be trolling?  Would that warrant one of those "please keep the conversation polite and respectful" warnings?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 24, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Judging the evil of an action is not simply a matter of perspective. Situational ethics might tell us that it is, but morals are objective, not subjective.



I don't think you'll find many Ethics professors or Cultural Anthropologists too back you up on that one Phil.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Requiring those who are making statements to be qualified to make them is not hero worship.

However, this thread continues to go hell, and is losing its own quality. What was the subject again?
Phils need to iron fist control all conversation in outpost Martialist?
Hmm, nope.
Phils opinion of this sites staff as trolls when they wander into his little reservation land?
Damn, no again.
The MT staffs opinion that Phils a wart on the fabric of cyberspace?
By Zeus, no again.

What could it possibly be?
Oh yeah.
"Testing" your stuff out to see if it worked.
We're so far off course here, even the Skipper's laugh at us.

Now you'll excuse me, I have to go talk to Sensei Gilligan about lessons. He's been training for 20 years now, and has read Lack Belt magazine so I know he's good.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

The Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy.  The truth or falsehood of an idea is not determined by the resume of the person uttering it.

If I point out that you're not abiding by the moderator warning issued for this thread, Edmund, I imagine I'm engaging in some sort of unfair control of the discussion, or insulting you by implying that you didn't see it, right?



> I don't think you'll find many Ethics professors or Cultural Anthropologists too back you up on that one Phil.


 
Popularity does not determine truth.  I'm an Objectivist.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Well then Phil, since the qualifications of the person commenting aren't of any value, what is?  Are you saying that someone, with no real experience, no credentials, no background can write expertly? Oh wait. You did.

Also, I have to ask, are you now calling for the same people you branded as trolls in your little pit to now come and punish me?  Now thats an interesting picture.  "Hey Pigs!  Yeah, you scumbags over there with the badges. Come take out this piece of trash, he's bothering me."


----------



## Flatlander (May 24, 2006)

*Final Moderator Warning:*

This thread is way off topic.  Further disruptions in thread will not be tolerated.  Clean it up now, please.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT SuperMod-


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

> Well then Phil, since the qualifications of the person commenting aren't of any value, what is?


 
I didn't say they werent' of _any_ value.  I said they don't determine the truth or falsehood of a statement.  This is simple logic.

When you evaluate an idea, hopefully applying critical analysis as part of maintaining an active mind in everything you do (note that this is NOT an "open" mind), you are certainly free to consider the source.  You must also consider the context.  Finally and most importantly, you must consider the idea _itself and as such_.  If you dismiss out of hand any idea whose "quality of source" does not meet with your approval, you are doing yourself and everyone else a grave disservice -- because you are allowing others to do your thinking for you.  

Revered _experts_ in many fields frequently and ardently disagree with each other -- people whose credentials make them authorities.  If they cannot agree despite the great "quality of source" each of them brings to the argument, there is no hope for the mere mortals among us -- unless we acknowledge that, ultimately, _we must think for ourselves_.  To do so requires that we examine ideas _on their own merits_ and in context.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

But one of the key points of those real experts is that they have true experience. It may not agree with the other experts experience, but it is however real experience. Never once did I ever say or suggest blindly following them. I do however insist that anyone schooling me on a subject have more than a novices background. You for example, are a much better writer than I. I might be a better painter. I would look to you as an expert on writing, but not painting, despite our differences. The opinion of those you disagree with can also be of value, helping to avoid the "yes men" problem. But, based on your limited martial arts background, I do not find you to be credible on the martial front, even though your conclusions on the idiotic idea of pressure testing your art is a sound one.  Even a blind man might get a bullseye, and neither of us are so much blind as vision impared.

Pressure Testing my skills makes as much sence to me, as crash testing my car to see if the airbag really works. It's expensive, it's painful, and it's outright dangerous. At some point, one needs to simply trust that things work, and will work when you need them, provided you keep the system running correctly. In a martial application, this means training, practicing, and drilling, maybe even competing.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

There is your problem.  My martial arts background is not "limited," nor am I a "novice."  My work bears this out.  I imagine you see it as such because, apparently, you accept as having valid experience only those whose official credentials correspond to whatever criteria you've set.  This is perfectly understandable.  It remains a logical fallacy, however.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Then Phil, why don't you simply post your resume. Not a link to where I can buy your book or read it elsewhere, or such, but tell us what makes you neither limited nor a novice? If I am mistaken, and you have such true qualifications, then I will publically apologize. You lack an instructor level certification (ie no black belt) in any legitimate system, yet I recall you are now the co-founder? of your own system?  Most of the information I have on your background is from your own sites, a few of your detractors sites, and the listing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Elmore
However, I take all sources with a grain of salt. I am asking you, here, now, to please list your 15 year martial arts background so that we can settle the question of just how limited or not it is.

You will either do so, and shut me up, or post a link, or go off on how you don't need to do so, or, call the cops on me.  Regardless, we will have our answer, since if you evade the question, you will have proven my point.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

With all due respect, Edmund, you're not making much sense to me.  I've just gotten done telling you that I have no credentials that would impress you -- how would my detailing those unimpressive credentials make any difference one way or another?  Quite the contrary, I have *stated so publicly*.  My resume would likewise not impress you, unless you wish to hire a writer.  

I have said repeatedly that my understanding of self-defense is borne out in the body of my work. My ideas stand on their merits.  I am proud of them and I stand by that.  If you wish to know my martial history, you can read it in _Shorthand Empty Hand_, but it won't impress you.  It's not _meant_ to impress you.  I have never said, "Believe me and agree with me because I am Phil Elmore!"  I have instead said, "Agree with me because what I am saying _makes logical sense_."

A lot of people never get over their own ego in the martial arts.  They're too busy trying to tell the world how tough they are, or how much better they are compared to someone else, ever to truly produce something of value.  That's not how I approach the field and it never will be.  I am ordinary guy writing for other ordinary people, using the benefit of years spent studying the topic.  I've never pursued rank for its own sake; it's never interested me.  It never will.  While critics continue to complain, I continue to train, to write, and to contribute productively and constructively.  That won't change.  We will never agree, apparently, nor do I care if we do.  I have argued simply because I respect the truth and will continue to stand up for it.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

As expected, he evades. He points to his "15 years experience" but cannot produce them, nor back them up. I need say no more.

Now I will exit this pointless debate, and go read some Star Trek since I want to know what tommorow will bring.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

Stating the truth is not an evasion.  Providing sources is not an evasion.  Stating flatly that you will not be impressed by that which you've said will not impress you is not an evasion.  When you don't get the answer you want, this is not the same as not getting an answer.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Phil,
  You evaded. I asked for a listing, not a link. You gave a link, and explained away the matter.

Either your "15 years experience" counts or it doesn't.
You have no black belt.
You have been an art gypsy for most of your career.
That tells me that regardless of personal fall outs, and current applause, that you have not gotten to the deeper levels of any 1 art, but instead only have the novice knowledge. Book learning is not the same as real experience, and I don't care how big your vocabulary is, or how many pages you write, it's simply not the same.

You did not answer, you evaded and gave a non-answer. I would have been more impressed if you had said "I've tried many, the longest was 3 years of X, and left that as my focus diverged from that of the school". Of course, I didn't ask to be impressed. I asked for facts.


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

No, I did not evade.  I answered your questions in an entirely reasonable manner.  Why did you say you were done with the conversation if you were going to keep arguing about it?


----------



## Andrew Green (May 24, 2006)

What was the answer again?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

I have never claimed to have any credentials anyone would find impressive.  I have studied various traditional and non-traditional martial arts for the last fifteen years, including but not limited to Chidokwan Karate (my first), Wing Chun Kung Fu (my longest, to date), Liu Seong Kung Fu (my current), and Jeet Kune Do (my most recent and also current).  A detailed martial biography can be found in my book, Shorthand Empty Hand.  My work bears out my understanding of the martial arts as gained through the study of these and other martial arts.

It's pretty simple, really.  It's amazing how much some people's hostility can cloud their ability to accept the truth.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

Um, buy his book, visit his site, read his whatever. Not sure if he had an answer.  What is the highest belt you reached? "Belts are not important". Phil has 15 years as a hobbiest, and he writes alot. This makes him qualified to make statements on martial arts. Whatever. Why don't you post the detailed list then, or are sales of your book hurting so that this is the only way you have to drum up business?

So, now that Phils true nakedness has been exposed, can we go back to discussing pressure testing?


----------



## Phil Elmore (May 24, 2006)

You have received perfectly reasonable answers that are perfectly consistent with everything I have stated publicly.  The fact that you do not like the answers does not mean that you did not get them.  I am disappointed by your refusal to discuss this in a civil, respectful fashion.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 24, 2006)

Guys, can we stop arguing credentials?  This thread is way off topic.  I unsubscribed this thread earlier because it is running off into the outer rim of the galaxy.


----------



## Edmund BlackAdder (May 24, 2006)

No Phil, you didn't answer them. You evaded. To continue this is pointless. I will leave you in peace now. Good Writing!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 24, 2006)

Folks.

*Enough.*

Go back the the thread topic, or let the thread die. Take your personal issues off the board.

No further debate will be tolerated.


----------



## Rook (May 24, 2006)

> Pressure Testing my skills makes as much sence to me, as crash testing my car to see if the airbag really works. It's expensive, it's painful, and it's outright dangerous. At some point, one needs to simply trust that things work, and will work when you need them, provided you keep the system running correctly. In a martial application, this means training, practicing, and drilling, maybe even competing.


 
I, for one, would never buy a car model that has never been crash tested.  Realizing that crash tests are imperfect simulations of the road, I still look at the Insurance Institute's crash safety rating when searching for a car.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 24, 2006)

I think what the vacationing Mr. Adder meant was, he doesn't have to crash his car to test that. Someone else already did the testing and he can rely on their results. Least thats what I do. 

But, I won't be loaning him my car anytime soon.


----------



## Don Roley (May 25, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> I, for one, would never buy a car model that has never been crash tested.  Realizing that crash tests are imperfect simulations of the road, I still look at the Insurance Institute's crash safety rating when searching for a car.



But if all you looked at was the crash safety rating, it would not be a good examination.

And there are somethings that just can't be tested outside the real thing. Not to mention that some things work a lot off of the fact of something like that they are surprises- which make a test where the other knows what is coming or at least suspects it a bit of a problem.

And there are ways of testing things under pressure without a UFC type of competition. Web search the words Peyton Quinn and see how that is an even more realistic simulation than the UFC. But I have trained very briefly under him and he is the first to admit there are things his armored assailent scenario training just can't do.


----------

