# Evidence based training vs faith based training.



## drop bear (Jan 23, 2016)

What Martial Arts Have to Do With Atheism

A fairly decent article on it and the pitfalls of subscribing to social pressure when it comes to training martial arts.

I am an advocate of evidence based training. And that the majority of training should be based in scientific method. But accept there is faith based training needed to get you over the line. 

I feel this is a defining difference between good training and bad training.


----------



## mdavidg (Jan 24, 2016)

Good article.


----------



## Buka (Jan 24, 2016)

So explain the headache I have from reading this. I don't mean that in a negative way, I mean that in a "Oh, my head hurts" sort of way.


----------



## mdavidg (Jan 25, 2016)

Sam H. just got you to think for yourself. That's why your head hurts.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 25, 2016)

Yeah… no. That "article" was rather atrocious, the subject (Sam Harris? Never heard of him…) makes a huge number of false generalisations, some off-base assumptions, and overall, says little of value. The connection with atheism is tenuous at best, and seems simply shoe-horned in to provide relevance for the readership of that site, which is nothing to do with martial arts… frankly, nothing in that article would have me searching for Harris' books… I have deeper and more informed conversations with my green belts. They're also far more informed on those topics.

As to the OP, the thing that you need to get your head around, drop bear, is that you have to understand the context first…then understand what type of evidence would be appropriate… then see how it's presented and found. In other words, there's plenty of evidence for many, many arts… just not in your single perspective, one only context that you're always looking for. Seriously, open your eyes, ears, and mind, and recognise that there's a hell of a lot more to these topics than you have ever realised.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah… no. That "article" was rather atrocious, the subject (Sam Harris? Never heard of him…) makes a huge number of false generalisations, some off-base assumptions, and overall, says little of value. The connection with atheism is tenuous at best, and seems simply shoe-horned in to provide relevance for the readership of that site, which is nothing to do with martial arts… frankly, nothing in that article would have me searching for Harris' books… I have deeper and more informed conversations with my green belts. They're also far more informed on those topics.
> 
> As to the OP, the thing that you need to get your head around, drop bear, is that you have to understand the context first…then understand what type of evidence would be appropriate… then see how it's presented and found. In other words, there's plenty of evidence for many, many arts… just not in your single perspective, one only context that you're always looking for. Seriously, open your eyes, ears, and mind, and recognise that there's a hell of a lot more to these topics than you have ever realised.









There is a point in your training where you can't hide behind context. You experiment with a movement or situation and it either works or it dosent. That is the data you need to absorb.

That would be the most open minded approach.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Buka said:


> So explain the headache I have from reading this. I don't mean that in a negative way, I mean that in a "Oh, my head hurts" sort of way.



There is conflict in the nuances. If everything was a product of evidence the you probably couldn't adapt. You can't take a piece of information and create new information with it.

I like the idea of a core of truth. So you could start with a throw. Then hypothesise how that throw works under all sorts of conditions. On gravel in the cold while you are wearing shoes whatever. But you want that throw to be basically bullet proof  before you apply it to these other circumstances.

If you don't start with that core of truth you get into trouble.

You see this in the self defence portion of almost any grading Where the self defence move must always end in success. Nobody is going to try to fail their partner. So at some stage you let the move work.

This is not a true representation of how that move works.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 25, 2016)

Some comments on what the author said



> But if you're swarmed by several people at once, it becomes a problem for which no martial art has a solution.



That statement is not true. Baguazhang is training for several attackers at once. But many who train it these days, do not train it that way. However some still do.



> Have you ever encountered real-world violence?



Yes, multiple attackers too. Oh and a comment on something said later. I was also in a situation that I resigned myself to as "unwinnable' for me. However winnable for those that would have had the chance to get away. Luckily I was what I saw as a threat, and it would have been in NYC, was more curiosity in Beijing and I can happily say my assessment of that situation (speaking culturally) was incorrect



> Yanagi Ryuken



started to beleive his own hype, and there was not a martial artist I knew, that believed him. My statement on all "no touch knockout" cases,is that the teacher has done only one thing, "succesfully taught his students how to fall down on que"



> whole cultures can change, radically and quickly



Yes, but not without some rather large impetus; Think natural disaster, war, and/or societal collapse

My opinion of the article is; Not bad, don't really get the need to connect it to Atheism, and you are better off reading things by Rory Miller


----------



## Spinedoc (Jan 25, 2016)

Exactly, Aikido ALSO trains for and ALWAYS assumes multiple attackers. Even if you are only engaged with one, the assumption is that there is always a friend or accomplice close by.


----------



## Buka (Jan 25, 2016)

mdavidg said:


> Sam H. just got you to think for yourself. That's why your head hurts.



Think for myself? Why would I do that, I'm married.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> That statement is not true. Baguazhang is training for several attackers at once. But many who train it these days, do not train it that way. However some still do.



This always fascinated me. See I don't train with chumps. So I can barely handle one guy and quite often can't handle him. If I went against two guys in my gym I would get bashed.

(And honestly if I was silly enough to suggest it. I would get no Sympathy in regards to the outcome of that)

So where do these Baguazhang guys get these training partners from that they can handle two or three of them at once to train that?

Because for me my training environment is about getting people to a level that you couldn't mnhandle you way though a group of them.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> started to beleive his own hype, and there was not a martial artist I knew, that believed him. My statement on all "no touch knockout" cases,is that the teacher has done only one thing, "succesfully taught his students how to fall down on que"



Yeah but what do people do here?

Look at that an say there is no way that could happen to me. Now let's Baguazhang a dozen guys.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 25, 2016)

You have reading comprehension issues don't you.

This is what I said sonny



> But many who train it these days, do not train it that way. However some still do.



Let ne use fewer and smaller words for you: they use to, but not much these days.... its rare.

Sorry if that goes against our reality, but that is who it was and is



drop bear said:


> This always fascinated me. See I don't train with chumps. So I can barely handle one guy and quite often can't handle him. If I went against two guys in my gym I would get bashed.
> 
> (And honestly if I was silly enough to suggest it. I would get no Sympathy in regards to the outcome of that)
> 
> ...



So then everyone who trains an art or some lace other than with you is a chump...that is interesting.....shows a bit of insecurity...but still interesting



drop bear said:


> Yeah but what do people do here?
> 
> Look at that an say there is no way that could happen to me. Now let's Baguazhang a dozen guys.



Please allow me to reiterate...this is what I said junior



> But many who train it these days, do not train it that way. However some still do.



again meaning they use to, but they don't much anymore.

I tried to have a bit of a conversation with you, I should have known better. I have been on MT for over 10 years and I tend to not use the ignore list because (about to use some big words here kiddo) I feel that even those that are argumentative and annoying will have something worth reading and there has only been one person I put on my ignore list and will never take off because there is nothing that they ever posted or they were ever going to post that was worth reading.... Welcome to that list.

Now I await your pals to show up and tell me how mean I am being.


----------



## geezer (Jan 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but what do people do here?
> 
> Look at that an say there is no way that could happen to me. Now let's Baguazhang a dozen guys.



Looks fun, but honestly the resolution was so bad I really wasn't sure what was going on, and I couldn't get any sound so I don't know what kind of music they were dancing to.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 25, 2016)

geezer said:


> Looks fun, but honestly the resolution was so bad I really wasn't sure what was going on, and I couldn't get any sound so I don't know what kind of music they were dancing to.



Honestly 1 on 1 it doesn't look much better:






All those years of training, and you end up fighting like _that_? 

As for the article, Harris is spot on, especially about multiple attackers. Some martial artists actually believe they can stomp multiple guys at once, when in reality they probably can't even stop one guy coming at them.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Let ne use fewer and smaller words for you: they use to, but not much these days.... its rare.
> 
> Sorry if that goes against our reality, but that is who it was and is



So that is a YouTube video from when exactly?

Because I would say at least those guys are still training it.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 25, 2016)

So if I show you a bad video of BJJ and MMA then all BJJ and MMA people are exactly the same and do not train right and are horrible martial artists......and what part of "But many who train it these days, do not train it that way. However some still do." are you not understanding.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> I tried to have a bit of a conversation with you, I should have known better. I have been on MT for over 10 years and I tend to not use the ignore list because (about to use some big words here kiddo) I feel that even those that are argumentative and annoying will have something worth reading and there has only been one person I put on my ignore list and will never take off because there is nothing that they ever posted or they were ever going to post that was worth reading.... Welcome to that list.
> 
> Now I await your pals to show up and tell me how mean I am being.




Probably more accurately described at a bit emo rather than mean. That it is my fault you don't agree with me. Honestly it is nobodies fault. It just is.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> So if I show you a bad video of BJJ and MMA then all BJJ and MMA people are exactly the same and do not train right and are horrible martial artists...a bit of a shallow attitude based on very little data...
> 
> You do realize you are once again trying to talk like a master about styles you never trained...need I remind  you about your whole Sanda post where you knew nothing buit wanted to sound like a expert of the style



If you show me an example of bad mma. It is an example of bad mma. I don't get caught up in trying to protect my ego over it. I recognise that if I am not careful I could also do bad bjj or mma.

And here is the point. This is why evidence is so important rather than being too emotionally attached to the subject to see what you are looking at.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Honestly 1 on 1 it doesn't look much better:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which would make sense considering you are going to train with other guys who do bazangadang. Which should be in theory the best equipped to prevent you rolling over multiples.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

I revel in my bad mma as I appreciate my good mma.






That is how you leave your ego beind


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 25, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> So if I show you a bad video of BJJ and MMA then all BJJ and MMA people are exactly the same and do not train right and are horrible martial artists......and what part of "But many who train it these days, do not train it that way. However some still do." are you not understanding.



Well are there some better Baguazhang fighting videos that we can see?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You see this in the self defence portion of almost any grading Where the self defence move must always end in success. Nobody is going to try to fail their partner. So at some stage you let the move work.
> 
> This is not a true representation of how that move works.



That's not how a self-defense test should work. In ours, the attacker is assigned an attack (given on a card, so the defender doesn't know it). There's a percentage of successful outcomes necessary, and it doesn't matter what manner or technique is used, except that at the black belt test, there's a requirement to see the "aiki" principle expressed regularly, since that's a core principle of our art. That means we actually attack to see if they can defend, because they should earn that success the same way we did. It gets ugly sometimes (I actually hid behind a large attacker in one of mine, restraining him for about a second until I saw an opening to take his partner down).


----------



## drop bear (Jan 25, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's not how a self-defense test should work. In ours, the attacker is assigned an attack (given on a card, so the defender doesn't know it). There's a percentage of successful outcomes necessary, and it doesn't matter what manner or technique is used, except that at the black belt test, there's a requirement to see the "aiki" principle expressed regularly, since that's a core principle of our art. That means we actually attack to see if they can defend, because they should earn that success the same way we did. It gets ugly sometimes (I actually hid behind a large attacker in one of mine, restraining him for about a second until I saw an opening to take his partner down).



If you get a position like a rear bear hug. The position itself is increadably dominant. Basically if you are both fighting for sheep stations the guy in the bear hug will probably loose.

We do drills as you describe. Sometimes the person can defend only one in twenty attacks. But they are elements like taking someone's back or mount.

Unarmed veses knife also falls into this trap a bit.

If a grading hinges on succeeding then you have to manipulate the test to make it work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 25, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you get a position like a rear bear hug. The position itself is increadably dominant. Basically if you are both fighting for sheep stations the guy in the bear hug will probably loose.
> 
> We do drills as you describe. Sometimes the person can defend only one in twenty attacks. But they are elements like taking someone's back or mount.
> 
> ...



Of course, otherwise, you're just competing. I seriously doubt I'll ever be attacked by someone who has 20 years of experience in Nihon Goshin Aikido. Thus, seeing if I can defend the attacks that person would give someone else with the same art, is simply unrealistic. We train most against a range of attacks that are more likely to happen, so those are the attacks that show up in the self-defense tests. No sense testing a brown belt to see if he can stop me from defeating his NGA - I probably can do that nearly 100%. I'd expect the same for that level of differential in any art. To simulate self-defense situations, you have to simulate a more common attacker than the person in the school, otherwise you don't get to practice against some of the likely attacks and responses.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Of course, otherwise, you're just competing. I seriously doubt I'll ever be attacked by someone who has 20 years of experience in Nihon Goshin Aikido. Thus, seeing if I can defend the attacks that person would give someone else with the same art, is simply unrealistic. We train most against a range of attacks that are more likely to happen, so those are the attacks that show up in the self-defense tests. No sense testing a brown belt to see if he can stop me from defeating his NGA - I probably can do that nearly 100%. I'd expect the same for that level of differential in any art. To simulate self-defense situations, you have to simulate a more common attacker than the person in the school, otherwise you don't get to practice against some of the likely attacks and responses.



And you have the conflict between evidence based and faith based.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 26, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> Well are there some better Baguazhang fighting videos that we can see?



Don't know...try looking.

Let me explain the culture to you one more time most of your good Chinese Sifus are not going to film anything to prove anything because they don't want to, or see the need to. They are not all about chest thumping and advertising. I lost a real good sifu because he was web savvy and I was so excited about training in the style that I went and posted about it..... he saw it... Training stopped. 

you don't believe me, or want to respond with some condescending comment.... I'm ok with that.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't know...try looking.
> 
> Let me explain the culture to you one more time most of your good Chinese Sifus are not going to film anything to prove anything because they don't want to, or see the need to. They are not all about chest thumping and advertising. I lost a real good sifu because he was web savvy and I was so excited about training in the style that I went and posted about it..... he saw it... Training stopped.
> 
> you don't believe me, or want to respond with some condescending comment.... I'm ok with that.



So that is essentially faith based training? Or does evidence exists somewhere else?

Why is there any Baguazhang video on YouTube?. I would have thought if there was an aversion to it then we would not see any. Rather that as you believe just a poor representation.

Are the Baguazhang sifus who do appear on video chest thumpers? That seems a bit mean.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 26, 2016)

For the record, all I see it "Ignored Member" in reference to whatever the Ignored Member posted


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> For the record, all I see it "Ignored Member" in reference to whatever the Ignored Member posted



That's strange. I can read your posts fine.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> That's strange. I can read your posts fine.


He is ignoring you, so he cannot see your posts.
You, apparently, are not ignoring him, so you can still see his posts.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 26, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't know...try looking.



I have. I'm hoping that you have access that I simply don't have.



> Let me explain the culture to you one more time most of your good Chinese Sifus are not going to film anything to prove anything because they don't want to, or see the need to. They are not all about chest thumping and advertising. I lost a real good sifu because he was web savvy and I was so excited about training in the style that I went and posted about it..... he saw it... Training stopped.



Then why are there literally hundreds of thousands of Kung fu videos showing chest thumping and advertising? Even if we go beyond Chinese sources, we still have plenty of western Kung Fu instructors who are all about pushing their MA. I know some of the instructors out of NYC are notorious for their shameless self promotion and "fraud busting".

Here's one such example;






I don't think any of those guys were excommunicated from their respective schools.



> you don't believe me, or want to respond with some condescending comment.... I'm ok with that.



I don't remember making any condescending comments towards you. I'm simply asking questions and seeking answers.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> If you get a position like a rear bear hug. The position itself is increadably dominant.


When you use "bear hug" on your opponent, you have controlled his waist, the center part of his body, that will be your advantage. If your opponent can control your head, put pressure on your neck, force your body to "bend side way" and spring your legs into a bow-arrow stance, your bear hug advantage will be gone.

The issue is whether you can use your "bear hug" to pick your opponent up, or drag him down, or spin him in circle before his "head lock" can bend your spine side way. You just can't do anything to your opponent is your "spine is bending side way".


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you use "bear hug" on your opponent, you have controlled his waist, the center part of his body, that will be your advantage. If your opponent can control your head, put pressure on your neck, force your body to "bend side way" and spring your legs into a bow-arrow stance, your bear hug advantage will be gone.
> 
> The issue is whether you can use your "bear hug" to pick your opponent up, or drag him down, or spin him in circle before his "head lock" can bend your spine side way. You just can't do anything to your opponent is your "spine is bending side way".



I am not suggesting there are not escapes i am saying you still have the mechanical advantage if you are bear hugging someone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> And you have the conflict between evidence based and faith based.



Well, the only way to get evidence of real-life effectiveness is to get into real-life danger. Nobody is going to do that. So, we mix sparring with simulations. Some testing against people who know what you're doing and can counter it, some training to deal with more likely attacks and attackers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I am not suggesting there are not escapes i am saying you still have the mechanical advantage if you are bear hugging someone.


Yes, and a dangerous advantage if they don't respond well and quickly to neutralize that advantage.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Well, the only way to get evidence of real-life effectiveness is to get into real-life danger. Nobody is going to do that. So, we mix sparring with simulations. Some testing against people who know what you're doing and can counter it, some training to deal with more likely attacks and attackers.



Again this is nuanced. You don't have to get mugged to find someone to bear hug you.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 26, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Again this is nuanced. You don't have to get mugged to find someone to bear hug you.



No, but if they give a bear hug attempting to defeat precisely the kinds of responses I'm likely to give (for instance if I gave that bear hug to another black belt, doing my best to stop him), that's not a realistic test of the response for the real world. Will we do that some? Yes - it's good to get frustrated and have to look for other openings. But that's still not realistic training for the real world. So, we give more specific instruction to the attacker - "grab him and pull back like you're going to throw him to the ground" for instance. Now they have to follow through on that attack, rather than simply trying to stop the response. Combine that simulation with some sparring and randori (freestyle grappling - like "rolling" in BJJ), and you have both sides. You get to work on likely attacks and responses, and you get to work on what to do when someone stops you.

Incidentally, part of our simulation time is spent working on specifically how to block a technique, so the defender has to figure out what to do next. That's one of the steps toward preparing students to handle someone who either has training or just gets lucky.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 26, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> No, but if they give a bear hug attempting to defeat precisely the kinds of responses I'm likely to give (for instance if I gave that bear hug to another black belt, doing my best to stop him), that's not a realistic test of the response for the real world



OK. This is interesting. So the real world is not what is happening at the moment but what should happen to you elsewhere.

Does that not seem a bit disconnected?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Why is there any Baguazhang video on YouTube?. I would have thought if there was an aversion to it then we would not see any. Rather that as you believe just a poor representation.


Because no one group controls the internet or the martial art i question.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 27, 2016)

This is not directed to anyone in particular, just a general comment.

There is more to evidence than what you can personally see with your own eyes or what you personally accept as evidence.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> Because no one group controls the internet or the martial art i question.



So then the representation of a martial art on YouTube is a true representation. And not just the really be martial artists.

Which sounded pretty implausible to me.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 27, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Don't know...try looking.
> 
> Let me explain the culture to you one more time most of your good Chinese Sifus are not going to film anything to prove anything because they don't want to, or see the need to. They are not all about chest thumping and advertising. I lost a real good sifu because he was web savvy and I was so excited about training in the style that I went and posted about it..... he saw it... Training stopped.
> 
> you don't believe me, or want to respond with some condescending comment.... I'm ok with that.



Are you referring to the Chinese culture? Are you Chinese or Asian? Have you lived in China?


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> So that is essentially faith based training? Or does evidence exists somewhere else?
> 
> Why is there any Baguazhang video on YouTube?. I would have thought if there was an aversion to it then we would not see any. Rather that as you believe just a poor representation.
> 
> Are the Baguazhang sifus who do appear on video chest thumpers? That seems a bit mean.




Here's a Bagua Zhang vs. Muay Thai video. They fought at the NYC tournament called "Man Up" or something like that. This was a huge grudge match between them as there was a lot of internet warring exchanges. But props to both for stepping up and backing up their mouths rather than just e-thugging all day.







Muay Thai was being very nice to not knee to the face when the Kung-Fu guy had no idea what to do in while caught in the Plum. Kung-Fu guy also complains about eye poke at 3:05 ??? That's a new one, especially when he had on fingerless MMA gloves vs. what looks like 16oz Boxing gloves for MT.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 27, 2016)

It's unfair to compare MT with Bagua. The MT is a "sport" that means MT guys would spar in the ring all the time. The Bagua is not a "sport" that means Bagua guys would spend more time in solo form training, walk in circle, and striking into the thin air.

IMO, it will be more proper to compare

- MT with boxing, or
- MT with wrestling.

If you spend your last 10 years in the ring and I spend my last 10 years on the mat, it will be interested to see whether you can knock me down first, or I can take you down first. To compare a "sport MA" and a "non-sport MA" is just unfair. How can a part time job person be able to do better job than a full time job person?


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 27, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's unfair to compare MT with Bagua. The MT is a "sport" that means MT guys would spar in the ring all the time. The Bagua is not a "sport" that means Bagua guys would spend more time in solo form training, walk in circle, and striking into the thin air.
> 
> IMO, it will be more proper to compare
> 
> ...



Well we've heard arguments that people who do forms and kata have better striking and more balanced punching and kicking than sports guys. A few here have also made the argument that the methodology behind styles like Baguazhang are better than the methodology of boxing and MT.

If all that is true, there's no reason that the baguazhang practicioner can't be successful in that environment.

Does anyone actually believe that the outcome of that fight be any different if those two fought on the street?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's unfair to compare MT with Bagua. The MT is a "sport" that means MT guys would spar in the ring all the time. The Bagua is not a "sport" that means Bagua guys would spend more time in solo form training, walk in circle, and striking into the thin air.
> 
> IMO, it will be more proper to compare
> 
> ...



How do you feel the muay Thai guy used that environment to his advantage?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> How do you feel the muay Thai guy used that environment to his advantage?


More fighting experience will be that MT guy's advantage. Also that MT guy's low roundhouse kick could give his opponent more trouble than his opponent's front kick can give to him.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> More fighting experience will be that MT guy's advantage. Also that MT guy's low roundhouse kick could give his opponent more trouble than his opponent's front kick can give to him.



Fair enough.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> OK. This is interesting. So the real world is not what is happening at the moment but what should happen to you elsewhere.
> 
> Does that not seem a bit disconnected?


What part of what I said did you actually miss? The response from someone trained in my art will likely not be what I encounter on the street, so I train for those, as well. Wet rain for both trained and untrained attackers. If you really think nothing happens on the street that won't show up between trained combatants, you are the one who is disconnected.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> What part of what I said did you actually miss? The response from someone trained in my art will likely not be what I encounter on the street, so I train for those, as well. Wet rain for both trained and untrained attackers. If you really think nothing happens on the street that won't show up between trained combatants, you are the one who is disconnected.



I am sure all sorts of things will happen on the street. But the real world is where you are now.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 27, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I am sure all sorts of things will happen on the street. But the real world is where you are now.


So the street isn't part of the real world to you? I'm not preparing for the dojo. I'm preparing for the street.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 27, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's unfair to compare MT with Bagua. The MT is a "sport" that means MT guys would spar in the ring all the time. The Bagua is not a "sport" that means Bagua guys would spend more time in solo form training, walk in circle, and striking into the thin air.
> 
> IMO, it will be more proper to compare
> 
> ...



Knocking someone out, answers most to all questions about the effectiveness of their training.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So the street isn't part of the real world to you? I'm not preparing for the dojo. I'm preparing for the street.



Punching someone really hard in the face to knock them the F out, works just the same in the street as it does in the ring. Usually, it's much easier in the street as compared to inside the ring where the other guy is of similar skill level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 27, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Punching someone really hard in the face to knock them the F out, works just the same in the street as it does in the ring. Usually, it's much easier in the street as compared to inside the ring where the other guy is of similar skill level.


What has that to do with the discussion? That punch is one possible response, but to what? That "what" is what's in question. There are attacks that can happen on the street that are unlikely from a trained opponent, unless they are simulating that attack.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 27, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So the street isn't part of the real world to you? I'm not preparing for the dojo. I'm preparing for the street.



Where I am is the real world. Where I might be is the hypothetical world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Where I am is the real world. Where I might be is the hypothetical world.



Then we need to use a common vocabulary, or we can't even keep up the discussion. When I am training, that's not the "real world" I'm training for - that world exists outside the dojo. Remember that my training is almost entirely centered around self-defense, so that's what we refer to when we say "real world" - a term we use frequently to remind people that what they experience in the dojo is never going to be the same as an attack out there.

I agree that, if we are being philosophical, the real world is the moment we are in, however, so let's call the situations I train for "real attacks" (as opposed to fights/sparring between partners/opponents).

Does that make it easier to discuss? So, now my assertion is that a real attack won't be limited to those a well-disciplined, trained martial artist (especially one in my own art) might deliver by choice. So, we add simulations of probable real attacks, in addition to our sparring.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Then we need to use a common vocabulary, or we can't even keep up the discussion. When I am training, that's not the "real world" I'm training for - that world exists outside the dojo. Remember that my training is almost entirely centered around self-defense, so that's what we refer to when we say "real world" - a term we use frequently to remind people that what they experience in the dojo is never going to be the same as an attack out there.
> 
> I agree that, if we are being philosophical, the real world is the moment we are in, however, so let's call the situations I train for "real attacks" (as opposed to fights/sparring between partners/opponents).
> 
> Does that make it easier to discuss? So, now my assertion is that a real attack won't be limited to those a well-disciplined, trained martial artist (especially one in my own art) might deliver by choice. *So, we add simulations of probable real attacks, in addition to our sparring*.


 
Just curious. When you prepare for these simulations, what kind of bias towards Aikido you add into the mind set. Or even if at all. Just wondering how difficult it is or not, to go from pure Dojo to everyday street life.


----------



## Jenna (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> I revel in my bad mma as I appreciate my good mma.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think striving to leave ego behind is one of the very best steps any martial artist can try to take to improve their effectiveness.. well said.. though maybe that was not the point you were making and but well said anyways because there often is wisdom tucked away in your posts that is not always picked up on  x


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> What has that to do with the discussion? That punch is one possible response, but to what? That "what" is what's in question. There are attacks that can happen on the street that are unlikely from a trained opponent, unless they are simulating that attack.



That punching someone in their face to KO them, solves most problems in the street, the ring, prison cells, Mad Max III Thunderdome, etc.  If someone's untrained, than it's just going to be a lot easier. So rather than just train a ton of different hocus pocus and be bad to mediocre at all of them.... just keep it nice and simple with basic striking and get real good at it, including hard sparring. Then later, some grappling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Just curious. When you prepare for these simulations, what kind of bias towards Aikido you add into the mind set. Or even if at all. Just wondering how difficult it is or not, to go from pure Dojo to everyday street life.


Can you explain what you mean by "bias towards Aikido"? I want to make sure I'm answering what you're asking.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 28, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> That punching someone in their face to KO them, solves most problems in the street, the ring, prison cells, Mad Max III Thunderdome, etc.  If someone's untrained, than it's just going to be a lot easier. So rather than just train a ton of different hocus pocus and be bad to mediocre at all of them.... just keep it nice and simple with basic striking and get real good at it, including hard sparring. Then later, some grappling.



In my experiance it was easier to grapple, but I see what you mean. Obviously limited by local law and whatnot, a decent shot wins over a fancy move. Probably a good five out ten would submit with just a decent push anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> That punching someone in their face to KO them, solves most problems in the street, the ring, prison cells, Mad Max III Thunderdome, etc.  If someone's untrained, than it's just going to be a lot easier. So rather than just train a ton of different hocus pocus and be bad to mediocre at all of them.... just keep it nice and simple with basic striking and get real good at it, including hard sparring. Then later, some grappling.


That's a great approach if you assume every attacker is in position for that punch, and that none are on something that makes a KO more difficult, and that you can hit them that hard without hurting your hands (without gloves in the street), and that getting in position to do so won't put their buddy at your back, and that every attack is severe enough to warrant serious injury (which they can get if they hit their head on something hard), and that every student will remain fit enough their entire life to deliver that punch, and so much more.

Before you call something "hocus pocus", maybe figure out what you're overlooking in your over-simplified answer.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "bias towards Aikido"? I want to make sure I'm answering what you're asking.



IE how much of the Aikido and what you know and practice, would influence how you would set up a scenario for a street situation, and how much Aikido could you apply to a scenario legally. I'm sure there would be technique that you would have to resist using as to not go OTT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> IE how much of the Aikido and what you know and practice, would influence how you would set up a scenario for a street situation, and how much Aikido could you apply to a scenario legally. I'm sure there would be technique that you would have to resist using as to not go OTT.


Ah. This depends whether we are doing drills (not what we call them, but it's what they are) or simulations. 

The drills are built around learning a specific movement, technique, or principle, so the attacks there are designed to make those possible. This would be like if I'm training someone to do a high block, I'll have a partner delivering high strikes - low strikes and tackles don't serve any purpose for cleaning up a high block. Likewise, if I want someone to learn to use the principle of aiki, I have to make sure they get an attack at a level that's appropriate for them to find the aiki response. (Quick definition: the difference is mostly whether you disrupt the attack just before it develops power/control or just after, without aiki, it's pure jujitsu - still useful, but requires more muscle.)

For the simulations, we don't have to make those allowances. We train a wide range of responses, some of which are decidedly un-aiki, highly linear, and use force-on-force. This allows even relatively new students to handle attacks (within their personal limits of skill) without having to set up for the specific attack.

So, in parts of training, there's some bias to developing that feel for the moment when aiki is possible (because defense is much easier and more effective if we can access that moment), but our heaviest focus is on realistic self-defense. In fact, part of what I changed in the curriculum was to add two "self-defense sets". During those (the basic set is the first thing any student learns in Shojin-ryu), there is no mention of or practice of aiki principles - just a focus on simple responses to basic, common attacks. During simulations, these are what most newer students will reach for, while more advanced students will be able to access the more "aiki" areas of the art, as well.


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Ah. This depends whether we are doing drills (not what we call them, but it's what they are) or simulations.
> 
> The drills are built around learning a specific movement, technique, or principle, so the attacks there are designed to make those possible. This would be like if I'm training someone to do a high block, I'll have a partner delivering high strikes - low strikes and tackles don't serve any purpose for cleaning up a high block. Likewise, if I want someone to learn to use the principle of aiki, I have to make sure they get an attack at a level that's appropriate for them to find the aiki response. (Quick definition: the difference is mostly whether you disrupt the attack just before it develops power/control or just after, without aiki, it's pure jujitsu - still useful, but requires more muscle.)
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply. Interesting.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's a great approach if you assume every attacker is in position for that punch,



Which is why I said "most".



> and that none are on something that makes a KO more difficult,



Precision, this takes practice.



> and that you can hit them that hard without hurting your hands (without gloves in the street),



Again, precision. Also MMA fighters knows more about breaking hands than everyone else, because MMA gloves are paper thin. We train with 16oz Boxing and 7oz MMA sparring gloves....fight with 4oz. This makes us well aware of being careful to not break our hands and our partners' face.



> and that getting in position to do so won't put their buddy at your back,



This is not rocket science. You just use footwork to keep them in front and if possible, the weaker one immediately in front, blocking the stronger one's attacks.



> and that every attack is severe enough to warrant serious injury (which they can get if they hit their head on something hard),



Experienced fighters will understand this way more as we can adapt much quicker to the situation as fighting and sparring hard is just another day of good training. Many people that I see at Krav Maga gyms and other SD type TMA classes, usually get freaked out and excited way too soon and too much and often times goes ape-crap, swinging for the fences...gassing out real quick. And usually I can just play with them by jabbing and footwork. Trained fighters are way more calm and collected.



> and that every student will remain fit enough their entire life to deliver that punch, and so much more.



Having trained at TKD, Kung-Fu, Karate and Traditional Jujutsu schools (before MMA)....and pretty much started out with TKD mostly, I can say that the transition to MMA was way more tough with just about everything, including the warmup exercise. Average Muay Thai class is 90 minutes....with 20-30 minutes of non-stop warmup...sometimes with two, 2-minute rounds of trying to hit 50 burpees/each (so 100 burpees in 4 mins). Then 4-5 straight, 2 minute rounds on pads with either a 30sec break or using that 30sec break to do 10 left kicks and 10 right kicks and 10 sets of jab crosses.  Then 3-5 minutes of instructions, then 2-3 rounds each training that technique. Then the last 20 minutes of continuous clinch sparring.

After 90 mins of Muay Thai, we go straight to BJJ for another 90 minutes. So that's another 20-30 minutes of warmup drills....the instructions are 5-7 minutes, so that's a good time to rest.....then drilling the technique....then the last 30-45 minutes is sparring that works every muscle  that was just wrecked in MT plus all the muscles that weren't.  And this is minimum for the fighters, 3-5 days a week. It gets more intense if a tournament is coming up. Average people who trains there will usually do  only 1 class.



> Before you call something "hocus pocus", maybe figure out what you're overlooking in your over-simplified answer.



I've already been there and done that in TMA for many years and of different flavors. After such many years then transitioning to Muay Thai, I got my butt clobbered by MT students who've been training less time in MT (compared to the years I had in TMA). While you haven't trained in an MMA gym to know both sides.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2016)

Jenna said:


> I think striving to leave ego behind is one of the very best steps any martial artist can try to take to improve their effectiveness.. well said.. though maybe that was not the point you were making and but well said anyways because there often is wisdom tucked away in your posts that is not always picked up on  x



There is not much room for ego when you have been choked unconscious in class a few times.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> That's a great approach if you assume every attacker is in position for that punch, and that none are on something that makes a KO more difficult, and that you can hit them that hard without hurting your hands (without gloves in the street), and that getting in position to do so won't put their buddy at your back, and that every attack is severe enough to warrant serious injury (which they can get if they hit their head on something hard), and that every student will remain fit enough their entire life to deliver that punch, and so much more.
> 
> Before you call something "hocus pocus", maybe figure out what you're overlooking in your over-simplified answer.



There is more than enough hurt contained within the rulset to physically defend yourself. Eg.  Face punching. 

Now i am happy to break every rule there is in a street fight as well. But that is in addition to core technique. Not instead of it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Which is why I said "most".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem determined to keep saying MMA is "the way". Go ahead, have your way. I don't actually care enough to keep correcting your overstatements.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is more than enough hurt contained within the rulset to physically defend yourself. Eg.  Face punching.
> 
> Now i am happy to break every rule there is in a street fight as well. But that is in addition to core technique. Not instead of it.


Not sure how this is a reply to my comment, since I said nothing about rules.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> There is not much room for ego when you have been choked unconscious in class a few times.


Or had a friend or two hand your *** to you in sparring. Agreed.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Not sure how this is a reply to my comment, since I said nothing about rules.



This is an explanation of the dynamic you are discussing with fried rice.  If you are discussing something else then you are having a different discussion than what fried rice is having.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> This is an explanation of the dynamic you are discussing with fried rice.  If you are discussing something else then you are having a different discussion than what fried rice is having.


Fried Rice didn't say anything about rules, either.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Fried Rice didn't say anything about rules, either.




Which is why i did.  To explain the dynamic.


The idea is to train in a manner that is realistic. And not some pretend notion of what will occur in the street. So if you knock a guy out in the gym who is trying to knock you out while contending with 16 ounce gloves. Rules a ref and a mat.

You really real world knocked him out. If you are training for the real world then that is the real world.

If you wanted to train for the street. You still need to train for the real world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Which is why i did.  To explain the dynamic.


I'm still not sure what the rules have to do with the issue. The discussion was about KTFO as a cure for most all attacks.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'm still not sure what the rules have to do with the issue. The discussion was about KTFO as a cure for most all attacks.



No he didn't. He said knocking someone out in the gym is the same as knocking them out anywhere else.

See the above edit.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Which is why i did.  To explain the dynamic.
> 
> 
> The idea is to train in a manner that is realistic. And not some pretend notion of what will occur in the street. So if you knock a guy out in the gym who is trying to knock you out while contending with 16 ounce gloves. Rules a ref and a mat.
> ...


So, I repeat. Do you assert that all likely attacks on the street are the same as what you'd get from a controlled, trained opponent? A few YouTube videos shows that to be untrue. We train to include those attacks I would not personally render, but which happen on the street. You are too clearly intelligent to not understand that, so I have to assume you're being purposefully belligerent.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 28, 2016)

gpseymour said:
			
		

> So, I repeat. Do you assert that all likely attacks on the street are the same as what you'd get from a controlled, trained opponent? A few YouTube videos shows that to be untrue. We train to include those attacks I would not personally render, but which happen on the street. You are too clearly intelligent to not understand that, so I have to assume you're being purposefully belligerent.



The attacks on the street will probably be less effective than the attack in the gym.

This is a brophy tent. Here you get drunk and challenge pro boxers. This is what an uncontrolled untrained attacker looks like when compared to a trained controlled attacker.






I spar everyone from trained guys to untrained guys and from any system I can lay my hands on. So that I get a real world evaluation of the sorts of attacks I may face.

Nobody has to pretend that they are a mugger or street fighter.

Recently we had a gymnast come in an roll. Untrained he could hold his own with trained jitsers due to his training in physicality. All of these dynamics are real world.

Asking someone to not really bear hug you so your defence works is not real world.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 28, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The attacks on the street will probably be less effective than the attack in the gym.
> 
> This is a brophy tent. Here you get drunk and challenge pro boxers. This is what an uncontrolled untrained attacker looks like when compared to a trained controlled attacker.
> 
> ...


I stand by my last sentence. You are choosing not to hear. I am done with this thread, because you choose not to see certain evidence - you need to be right. I can't fix that for you. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Transk53 (Jan 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> No he didn't. He said knocking someone out in the gym is the same as knocking them out anywhere else.
> 
> See the above edit.



Bear, really? The percentages are completely different between the gym and street. The gym is a controlled environment.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 29, 2016)

drop bear said:


> The attacks on the street will probably be less effective than the attack in the gym.



That is a lazy assumption. I have never seen anyone fight from a guard outside of a sporting or training environment. I've never seen that much space around two people fighting and I've never seen a first punch thrown where the recipient wasn't surprised by it even when there was clear arguing and aggression before hand. 

I am sure these things I've not seen do occur but thinking of real violence like ring sport is potentially dangerous. 



> I spar everyone from trained guys to untrained guys and from any system I can lay my hands on. So that I get a real world evaluation of the sorts of attacks I may face.
> 
> Nobody has to pretend that they are a mugger or street fighter.
> 
> ...



I for one totally agree that every skill you develop should be tested in sparring, not because if you can't make it work it should be abandoned, but because if you can't make it work you aren't doing it right and practicing in a live environment is the only way to learn what you need to make it work outside the dojo.

That being said if your focus is self defense then alive scenario training is just as valid a method and possibly more useful than sparring. 

You seem to be suggesting that intent can only be experienced through sparring. I can only suggest that you find different people to drill with.


----------



## Buka (Jan 29, 2016)

You know why I love this thread? Because I pretty much agree with everything everyone has said. I don't really how how that's possible, but as I read every single post I said, "yeah, okay, I know what you're saying."


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Bear, really? The percentages are completely different between the gym and street. The gym is a controlled environment.



Really? So your technique changes from the gym to the street. 

Must make training awkward.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2016)

DaveB said:


> I for one totally agree that every skill you develop should be tested in sparring, not because if you can't make it work it should be abandoned, but because if you can't make it work you aren't doing it right and practicing in a live environment is the only way to learn what you need to make it work outside the dojo.
> 
> That being said if your focus is self defense then alive scenario training is just as valid a method and possibly more useful than sparring.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that intent can only be experienced through sparring. I can only suggest that you find different people to drill with.



Not really. This being attacked as you would on the street. As opposed to being attacked.

We do resisted drills. They consist of things like backing a person against a wall and trying to either take them down or fight them off. We are not pretending to be anywhere other than where we are and anyone other than who we are.

How does this attack them like it is the street make any sense other than to give the other guy more chance to defend?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2016)

DaveB said:


> That is a lazy assumption. I have never seen anyone fight from a guard outside of a sporting or training environment. I've never seen that much space around two people fighting and I've never seen a first punch thrown where the recipient wasn't surprised by it even when there was clear arguing and aggression before hand.
> 
> I am sure these things I've not seen do occur but thinking of real violence like ring sport is potentially dangerous.



Do you put your hands up when you are fighting people?

Do you think this is an advantage or a disadvantage?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 29, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I stand by my last sentence. You are choosing not to hear. I am done with this thread, because you choose not to see certain evidence - you need to be right. I can't fix that for you.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



What evidence?


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 29, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> In my experiance it was easier to grapple, but I see what you mean. Obviously limited by local law and whatnot, a decent shot wins over a fancy move. Probably a good five out ten would submit with just a decent push anyway.



Based on the thousands of real street fight videos that we see over the recent 5-10 years due to YouTube, social media, iPhones, etc.  and my collection of over 2000 such street fight videos (with only about 0.50% resulting in death)....IMO,  most fights in the USA and Western Europe usually starts out with the throwing of punches, which is where good Boxing, would be the significant skill to have.  And it's usually the guy who's getting beat up who, out of desperation, initiates the grappling. Which comes back to mainstream MMA training being the best for Self Defense, as punching someone in the face or grappling them into submission as you stated, works just the same in the street as it does in the cage.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 29, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You seem determined to keep saying MMA is "the way". Go ahead, have your way. I don't actually care enough to keep correcting your overstatements.



I accept your surrender.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 29, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> So, I repeat. Do you assert that all likely attacks on the street are the same as what you'd get from a controlled, trained opponent? A few YouTube videos shows that to be untrue. We train to include those attacks I would not personally render, but which happen on the street. You are too clearly intelligent to not understand that, so I have to assume you're being purposefully belligerent.



I have over 2000 real fight videos, catagorized into specific types of fighting, with weapons, jumpings, mob attacks, trained vs. untrained, cops fighting, soldiers fighting, etc.  I doubt you've been in 1/4 the number of street fights that I've been in and definitely zero, full contact competition fighting.

You say you trained all sorts of scenarios, but you only really train them with light tapping and pretend-fighting with choreographed scenarios.... and never really throwing your fist as hard as possible into your training partners' faces to send them into la-la land, in order to understand what is meant by "punching someone in the face really hard, solves most to all problems in a street fight". 

I already know how you train because I've been there and done that for years. It's not bad and certainly better than nothing, but MMA fight training is just way, way superior in effectiveness.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 29, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Bear, really? The percentages are completely different between the gym and street. The gym is a controlled environment.



What's the difference between knocking someone out with a punch to the face in the gym vs. in the street?

And who's going to be better at knocking someone out....an experienced MMA fighter or an SD practitioner who only pretend-fight at tapping or light contact?


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 29, 2016)

DaveB said:


> That is a lazy assumption. I have never seen anyone fight from a guard outside of a sporting or training environment. I've never seen that much space around two people fighting



Your personal experiences is way too limited and can't be taken seriously when taking into account the tens of thousands of real fight videos available online, with many more being uploaded daily, that contradicts your assertion. Here's one:








> and I've never seen a first punch thrown where the recipient wasn't surprised by it even when there was clear arguing and aggression before hand.










> I am sure these things I've not seen do occur but thinking of real violence like ring sport is potentially dangerous.



How is getting KO'ed by a Sports Fighter in the street not dangerous? As you lie there on the ground, unconscious from getting punched in the face, maybe just once even.....the Sports Fighter can either go home or stay and stomp on your head repeatedly until you skull cracks open, brain oozes out and you die....and he goes to jail for life for murder. How is this not real violence and who's going to be better at knocking someone out in the street or in the ring.....you, who trains Self Defense through choreographed, pretend-fighting with tapping to light, or even medium contact sparring....or Sports Fighters who trains from tapping to hard sparring for full KO's and fights in the ring for KO's? Who's going to be faster, stronger, more precise and more used to taking damage, etc.? 



> That being said if your focus is self defense then alive scenario training is just as valid a method and possibly more useful than sparring.



Probably the best way to prove this is for you to go to an MMA gym and ask to spar hard vs. one of their fighters. Ask to be paired up with someone of similar weight (say w/i 8 lbs) and similar number of years of training. You just need to bring some gloves, mouthguard, cup, shinguard and headgear. This way, you can find out how well you do, real fast.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 29, 2016)

DaveB said:


> That is a lazy assumption. I have never seen anyone fight from a guard outside of a sporting or training environment.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 29, 2016)

Notice at the 0:37 second mark, some were crying about how the BJJ wrecked his arm....and the guy said, "He F'ing bit him..." repeatedly.  Many people thinks that biting will save you, but it's just wishful thinking as it doesn't hurt that much compared to getting your elbow popped. He should have done way worse and keep craning on that arm, considering that the other guy was raining punches, bit and slammed him....you don't get to tap after that. You def don't get to tap  in Brazil or UFC 1-4 when Royce Gracie wouldn't let go due to TMA's biting and eye gouging him during their fights.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 30, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> Your personal experiences is way too limited and can't be taken seriously when taking into account the tens of thousands of real fight videos available online, with many more being uploaded daily, that contradicts your assertion. Here's one:
> 
> 
> 
> How is getting KO'ed by a Sports Fighter in the street not dangerous? As you lie there on the ground, unconscious from getting punched in the face, maybe just once even.....the Sports Fighter can either go home or stay and stomp on your head repeatedly until you skull cracks open, brain oozes out and you die....and he goes to jail for life for murder. How is this not real violence and who's going to be better at knocking someone out in the street or in the ring.....you, who trains Self Defense through choreographed, pretend-fighting with tapping to light, or even medium contact sparring....or Sports Fighters who trains from tapping to hard sparring for full KO's and fights in the ring for KO's? Who's going to be faster, stronger, more precise and more used to taking damage, etc.?



I have no idea how this paragraph is a response to what I said. I know you guys think non mma folk get annoyed because we deep down no were wrong etc. But really it is this nonsense. You are addressing someone who largely agrees with you, but the slightest variation away from your opinion and your making assumptions about my training, about my beliefs, and a simple idea like "making too many assumptions is bad", or there are variations on the idea of free fighting that can work as training", can't even begin to penetrate.

That is why people get annoyed and drop out. Learn how to discuss by considering what is being said, not just bludgeon with an opinion. 



> Probably the best way to prove this is for you to go to an MMA gym and ask to spar hard vs. one of their fighters. Ask to be paired up with someone of similar weight (say w/i 8 lbs) and similar number of years of training. You just need to bring some gloves, mouthguard, cup, shinguard and headgear. This way, you can find out how well you do, real fast.



You are arguing with someone else clearly, since I've told you nothing about my own training. That or you are conflating training and martial arts (see Dropbear).
And how would sparring trained fighters (which I do at every opportunity) test the effectiveness of scenario based training. The only thing sparring tests is your sparring skills.

I have already agreed that live fight training is the pinnacle of the skill building in a martial art, but for you a ring and gloves with a ref and predetermined start conditions is the only way. Fine, but for those who look at ma for self defense (which the first video isn't, not sure about the second), there are other things to consider and other ways to develop those skills.

And to clarify, I'm not a grappler, I meant a fighting guard, not bjj. And avoidable measuring contests between young men aren't generally considered self defense situations, they are consensual violence and so much the same as ring fighting.


----------



## Hanzou (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveB said:


> And to clarify, I'm not a grappler, I meant a fighting guard, not bjj. And avoidable measuring contests between young men aren't generally considered self defense situations, they are consensual violence and so much the same as ring fighting.



You're making an assumption here because you have no idea if any of those confrontations were avoidable, and just because someone is fighting back doesn't mean that the violence is consensual.

Further, I would consider avoiding getting your face and head smashed in by someone on top of you to be a pretty good example of self defense. Getting punched from that position can lead to severe head injuries or even death, especially on very hard surfaces.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveB said:


> You are arguing with someone else clearly, since I've told you nothing about my own training. That or you are conflating training and martial arts (see Dropbear).
> And how would sparring trained fighters (which I do at every opportunity) test the effectiveness of scenario based training. The only thing sparring tests is your sparring skills.



Sparring is scenario based training. The scenario is someone wants to beat you up and you have to stop him.

You create these differences based on what seems like silly reasons. Like nobody pulls guard in self defence. Except of course they do.
D
Mugger left begging for police after attacking martial arts champion

Which kind of breaks down that point a bit.

In my experience of self defence. People on the street fight however they want to.



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


So armed with this amazing insight into fighting. If it works for you that is how you should approach self defence.

This is an important difference between evidence based training and faith based training.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 30, 2016)

Hanzou said:


> You're making an assumption here because you have no idea if any of those confrontations were avoidable, and just because someone is fighting back doesn't mean that the violence is consensual.
> 
> Further, I would consider avoiding getting your face and head smashed in by someone on top of you to be a pretty good example of self defense. Getting punched from that position can lead to severe head injuries or even death, especially on very hard surfaces.



I didn't watch your bjj videos because that wasn't what I was talking about and pretty much every fight that starts with two guys puffing chests and arguing is avoidable. Say sorry and walk away.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 30, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Sparring is scenario based training. The scenario is someone wants to beat you up and you have to stop him.
> 
> You create these differences based on what seems like silly reasons. Like nobody pulls guard in self defence. Except of course they do.
> D
> ...



In my experience people gee themselves up internally until they are ready to fight, then they throw the punch/headbutt/tackle from whatever position they are in. Much like the guys in FriedRice's clips.

This was also the unanimous experience of the police officers that trained me.

When does experience become evidence for you? Or does only experience that corroborates your opinions count?

Last points I'll make are slightly tangential. Well done on finding video of a guy getting shoe'd in while ground fighting and of someone using the much maligned skill of small joint manipulation (and Aikido of all arts) to defend himself. It's good to see an mma trainee on a forum who can see past at least some of the dogmatic assumptions about fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveB said:


> In my experience people gee themselves up internally until they are ready to fight, then they throw the punch/headbutt/tackle from whatever position they are in. Much like the guys in FriedRice's clips.
> 
> This was also the unanimous experience of the police officers that trained me.
> 
> ...



I even have one of a krav guy winning a fight. (I was as surprised as anyone)

The experience idea was in direct relation to your remarks that these things happen in your experience. Which you have produced as evidence and have not accepted any body else's.

The police officers who trained you may have a clue. May not. I have seen both types. My security instructor ironically can fight and paradoxically has no idea what he is doing.

The ones that fall into the category of a fight will always do this. I tend to be doubtful of.

Obviously by now you have realised I don't believe people necessarily follow the script supplied to them by self defence instructors.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveB said:


> I have no idea how this paragraph is a response to what I said. I know you guys think non mma folk get annoyed because we deep down no were wrong etc. But really it is this nonsense. You are addressing someone who largely agrees with you, but the slightest variation away from your opinion and your making assumptions about my training, about my beliefs, and a simple idea like "making too many assumptions is bad", or there are variations on the idea of free fighting that can work as training", can't even begin to penetrate.



Sorry, I don't exactly remember who you are nor your overall stance on this type of argument. I merely went by this post of yours that I was debating and often times, I get too thorough with the argument.



> That is why people get annoyed and drop out. Learn how to discuss by considering what is being said, not just bludgeon with an opinion.





> I have already agreed that live fight training is the pinnacle of the skill building in a martial art, but for you a ring and gloves with a ref and predetermined start conditions is the only way. Fine, but for those who look at ma for self defense (which the first video isn't, not sure about the second), there are other things to consider and other ways to develop those skills.



But see, here's where we don't agree and it's significant. You somehow think that a Sports Fighter wouldn't have the training to beat the rap out of some average dummy in the street, way better than your average Self Defense Practitioner who've only trained with light to medium power striking.... of whatever techniques you train. I've started out in TMA for many years, which included Self Defense...and it's mostly, pretend-fighting with choreographed moves. And almost all of my street fights were before I trained in MMA. Then when I went to an MMA gym to start training Muay Thai, I got my butt whooped by most of the Intermediate students  there....so this is with years of TMA training, SD training and street fight experience...I was no match for most of the Intermediate Muay Thai students.

Now recently, I've trained quite extensively in Krav Maga....so yes, I can tell you that the average, low level, MMA  fighter with 1-3 MMA fights, will destroy most Krav Maga practitioners with the same number of years training....in the gym or in the street...because once again, punching someone in the face really hard, works just the same anywhere.



> And to clarify, I'm not a grappler, I meant a fighting guard, not bjj. And avoidable measuring contests between young men aren't generally considered self defense situations, they are consensual violence and so much the same as ring fighting.



Not necessarily true. I've been in many road rage incidents, where one side may not consent to  a fight, but still don't want to look like the wimp by running away scared. There are many variables in a Self Defense situation. And legally, SD can vary from State to State in the USA. Like some jurisdictions requires you to retreat and call the cops (unless you were physically trapped or something). While States with The Castle Doctrine's, "Stand Your Ground" provision.....does not require you to retreat and you may even use deadly force to not just protect human life, but also property.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 30, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> But see, here's where we don't agree and it's significant. You somehow think that a Sports Fighter wouldn't have the training to beat the rap out of some average dummy in the street, way better than your average Self Defense Practitioner who've only trained with light to medium power striking....


That's twice you've replied now to a fictitious conversation. Are the voices you ar hearing a comfort or a torture?

You realise that you have fabricated every single point that you claim I believe. Not one thing you wrote is anywhere in my posts.

There's little point to a discussion if one side creates both arguments.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 31, 2016)

DaveB said:


> That's twice you've replied now to a fictitious conversation. Are the voices you ar hearing a comfort or a torture?
> 
> You realise that you have fabricated every single point that you claim I believe. Not one thing you wrote is anywhere in my posts.
> 
> There's little point to a discussion if one side creates both arguments.



I just quoted everything you said so who's the one with these problems?


----------



## DaveB (Jan 31, 2016)

Okay, show me the sentence in my post that you have quoted where I say:
_
"a Sports Fighter wouldn't have the training to beat the rap out of some average dummy in the street, way better than your average Self Defense Practitioner who've only trained with light to medium power striking"_


----------



## Buka (Jan 31, 2016)

I haven't been in any road rage incidents. Am I driving on the wrong roads?


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 31, 2016)

Buka said:


> I haven't been in any road rage incidents.


There was one time when I was road raged a bit whist on the way to black and brown belt training with 3 other black belts. That might have been interesting.


----------



## Buka (Jan 31, 2016)

RTKDCMB said:


> There was one time when I was road raged a bit whist on the way to black and brown belt training with 3 other black belts. That might have been interesting.



I have two really funny/interesting stories of road rage. Fist hand stories in which I did not partake but was there. I'll post them later, I think you'll get a kick out of them.


----------



## FriedRice (Jan 31, 2016)

DaveB said:


> Okay, show me the sentence in my post that you have quoted where I say:
> _
> "a Sports Fighter wouldn't have the training to beat the rap out of some average dummy in the street, way better than your average Self Defense Practitioner who've only trained with light to medium power striking"_



Nice try in trying to take a part of a response, arguing your post, out of context.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 31, 2016)

Fine, show me the posts I made or the points in those posts that create this context that you are talking about.


----------



## DaveB (Jan 31, 2016)

Btw, I know that you can't do what I asked because it's not there. So really this is a challenge to see if you can admit you were wrong and that you made a bunch of baseless assumptions about me, my training and my position.


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 1, 2016)

DaveB said:


> Btw, I know that you can't do what I asked because it's not there. So really this is a challenge to see if you can admit you were wrong and that you made a bunch of baseless assumptions about me, my training and my position.



No, it's there.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 1, 2016)

DaveB said:


> Okay, show me the sentence in my post that you have quoted where I say:
> _
> "a Sports Fighter wouldn't have the training to beat the rap out of some average dummy in the street, way better than your average Self Defense Practitioner who've only trained with light to medium power striking"_



That is bit off centre there surely. Considering SD is under a wide umbrella. Sorry and I mean no offence, SD is an electric mix. Some fancy, some Batman and some extremely effective. I would say the average is higher than you believe FriedRice.


----------



## Buka (Feb 1, 2016)

Road rage story. A corker.

I was on the highway on my way to work. In my rear view mirror I spotted one of those sporty Mercedes weaving in and out of lanes cutting people off. Horns blared. An old guy in front of me was taking an exit when the Mercedes nearly hit him. Old guy blasted the horn and gave the finger out the window. (it's like a greeting in Boston) The kid in the Mercedes got pissed - but he had overshot the exit. No problem for this asshat, he goes over the curb, across the grass apron and tears after the guy.

I said to myself, "Crap, this could be bad." So I followed. I was hours early anyway, going in for a workout before my shift. I was off duty, but even if I wasn't I didn't have jurisdiction over traffic violations. But the kid seemed nuts and the old guy looked late seventies. Having the Lone Ranger syndrome isn't a good thing, but we are who we are, and my instinct told me to follow.

A few minutes down the road we come to a six way intersection, a traffic nightmare at times, but the stoplights usually work.
The old guy is in the far right lane at a red light with one car in front of him. The kid is three lanes to the left, also stopped in traffic at the light. I'm in the middle, one car back. The kid jumps out of his car, door wide open, sprints towards the old guy's car. He's dressed all fancy with a nice leather jacket that probably costs more than my five hundred dollar used jeep rattletrap.

He runs up to the car, screaming. The old guy screams back, gives the finger again. The kid starts pounding on the window.

Oh, crap, I think again, and whip out my cell to call 911. Out of the corner of my eye I see something and look. A guy is duck walking, staying low to the ground. Our eyes meet, he has a little grin on his face. He reaches the Mercedes, takes out the keys, hits the door lock, shuts the door and duck walks back. The kid is now booting the side of the guy's car and the old guy is leaning on the horn.

The light turns green, traffic starts to move, the old guy boots the gas and peels away. The kid sprints back to his Mercedes.
Which is now locked. Now he looks like a third base coach on cocaine. He's patting his jacket, feeling his pockets, looking in the car, spinning around looking on the ground. He's going nuts. A lot of motorists saw what had transpired. They're all beeping and giving him the finger out their windows, me included. I'm laughing my *** off. It was the funniest thing I had ever seen. Or so I thought.

Five minutes later I'm back on the highway again. I drive like an old lady, I'm in the right hand lane. A car starts to pass on the left, one of a million that pass me every day. But I notice it matches my speed when it gets abreast of me. I look over. At first I though the driver was pointing at me. But he's not, it's the duck walking guy with the grin. He has his arm extended, showing me the kid's keys. I start laughing my butt off again. He speeds up, puts on his blinker and gets in front of me - right where the highway passes over a low lying river. He lowers the window, and with a perfect hand grenade toss, the keys sail in a beautiful arc and splash! Right in the river.

It was the nicest ride to work I ever had.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 1, 2016)

All in all an interesting journey  Nice!


----------



## Balrog (Feb 1, 2016)

drop bear said:


> What Martial Arts Have to Do With Atheism
> 
> I am an advocate of evidence based training. And that the majority of training should be based in scientific method. But accept there is faith based training needed to get you over the line.


There is no evidence that anything faith based ever accomplished anything, whereas anything quantifiable and measurable does.  So I have to ask - why waste time and effort on anything faith based?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2016)

Balrog said:


> There is no evidence that anything faith based ever accomplished anything, whereas anything quantifiable and measurable does.  So I have to ask - why waste time and effort on anything faith based?



Because you may face a situation you have not prepared for and have to improvise.


----------



## Balrog (Feb 1, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Because you may face a situation you have not prepared for and have to improvise.


I would improvise by using techniques that I know will work, not by praying.  Or have I totally misinterpreted what you mean by faith-based?


----------



## DaveB (Feb 2, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> No, it's there.


And yet, though you know how to quote, it is missing from your post?

I'm normally sympathetic to those who can't manage life's challenges, but this is just pathetic. We all get the wrong end of the stick sometimes but at least have the grace to admit it.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 2, 2016)

Balrog said:


> I would improvise by using techniques that I know will work, not by praying.  Or have I totally misinterpreted what you mean by faith-based?



Possibly.

Faith based as in been told it works but have never made it work or seen it work.


----------



## Spinoza (Feb 2, 2016)

Buka said:


> I haven't been in any road rage incidents. Am I driving on the wrong roads?


Nah, it's probably just that most road rage incidents involve ego defense instead of self defense.


----------



## Buka (Feb 2, 2016)

Spinoza said:


> Nah, it's probably just that most road rage incidents involve ego defense instead of self defense.



I find it amazing, and really troubling, how much road rage goes on today. Do you see it, too?

To you guys and gals from places other than the U.S. - do you see or hear road rage incidents much? More than years ago?


----------



## Spinoza (Feb 2, 2016)

Buka said:


> I find it amazing, and really troubling, how much road rage goes on today. Do you see it, too?
> 
> To you guys and gals from places other than the U.S. - do you see or hear road rage incidents much? More than years ago?


Agreed--extremely troubling. If I'm in a car, avoiding a fight (the most important part of self defense, IMO) is one of the easiest things in the world. The few instances that I've seen have involved 1) Bruised egos (the most common, by far), 2) People attacking motorcyclists at stoplights, 3) People being followed until they stop in a parking lot. I don't see very many incidents, but more now that I live in a larger city.

We recently had an incident here where a guy got out of his car with a baseball bat and approached another vehicle. The other guy got out and pulled a long wooden pole from his cab. They wailed on each other a little, but both walked away. 

Austin Road Rage Fight Caught on Camera


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 2, 2016)

DaveB said:


> And yet, though you know how to quote, it is missing from your post?
> 
> I'm normally sympathetic to those who can't manage life's challenges, but this is just pathetic. We all get the wrong end of the stick sometimes but at least have the grace to admit it.



You just pretend it's not there, try again.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 3, 2016)

Buka said:


> I find it amazing, and really troubling, how much road rage goes on today. Do you see it, too?
> 
> To you guys and gals from places other than the U.S. - do you see or hear road rage incidents much? More than years ago?



I don't think it happens much more than it used to. I don't do them. I don't see the point.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 3, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> You just pretend it's not there, try again.



Oh let me assure you that those "life challenges" are overcome. Very arrogant and misguided statement.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Feb 3, 2016)

Folks it is all faith based until you actually have to use it.  After that point, no matter the outcome, it is fact based ( at least for you).


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 3, 2016)

drop bear said:


> What Martial Arts Have to Do With Atheism
> 
> A fairly decent article on it and the pitfalls of subscribing to social pressure when it comes to training martial arts.
> 
> ...



I see your point and the example I use in classes and seminars, is the following:

1 + 1 is 2. Correct?
Nods, and yeses and other affirmations. 
I then ask the simple question they usually asked me. Why? 
They mostly look at me blankly. I then tell them, there are three proofs, I know of, one is a dissertation, another is a few pages and the other is graphical and or can be explain in less than a page. 
Still blank looks. 
I then state, you can accept that 1 + 1 is 2 until you learn enough mathematics to prove it is true, or until you use it enough that it just becomes a habit. 

** Yes of course, Mathematics is different than martial arts as there are bad techniques, and that would be like saying 1 + 1 is 3 and accepting that and moving forward **

So, yes testing is good, or working with those who have tested it themselves is also acceptable, in my mind.


----------



## Buka (Feb 3, 2016)

tshadowchaser said:


> Folks it is all faith based until you actually have to use it.  After that point, no matter the outcome, it is fact based ( at least for you).



Well heck. That might the truest thing I've ever read.


----------



## Steve (Feb 3, 2016)

tshadowchaser said:


> Folks it is all faith based until you actually have to use it.  After that point, no matter the outcome, it is fact based ( at least for you).


So true.  And not a real issue when it's just you, on an individual level. 

The trouble I see is when it's faith based for you, but you put out your shingle and begin teaching it to other people, some of whom put out their own shingle and begin teaching others.  It's a quick way to create a lot of presumptions of skill based upon hope and faith.


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 3, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> Oh let me assure you that those "life challenges" are overcome. Very arrogant and misguided statement.


 
about what?


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 3, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> about what?



About the fact that was a deliberate bait about how people should be big enough about making mistakes. You're answer is quite apt. Thankyou


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 3, 2016)

tshadowchaser said:


> Folks it is all faith based until you actually have to use it.  After that point, no matter the outcome, it is fact based ( at least for you).



But isn't the argument about following/training in a faith that may not work? Like, there are certain faiths that can be tested out better than others.


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 3, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> About the fact that was a deliberate bait about how people should be big enough about making mistakes. You're answer is quite apt. Thankyou



what bait? and you're welcome.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 3, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> what bait? and you're welcome.


Look, just to add. Argumentative posts and replys are okay, just on a friendly level.


----------



## Steve (Feb 3, 2016)

Spinoza said:


> Nah, it's probably just that most road rage incidents involve ego defense instead of self defense.


what if you're in your car and someone who is all raging out gets out and starts heading your way?  Wouldn't that be a self defense situation for you?  If you're stopped at a light behind other cars, would you stay in your car?  Would you get out? 

What if you couldn't see both of his hands? 

I don't agree that it's ego defense.  It may not be entirely rational, but it's not always voluntary.  I've seen otherwise very rational people completely lose their cool on the road. 

I also don't agree that it's always or even mostly a mutual, voluntary altercation.  I've seen plenty of situations (and been involved with a few myself) where one side is genuinely confused and actively seeking to avoid confrontation.


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 3, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> But isn't the argument about following/training in a faith that may not work? Like, there are certain faiths that can be tested out better than others.



No, you missed the point about faith.


----------



## Steve (Feb 3, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> No, you missed the point about faith.


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 3, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> No, you missed the point about faith.



That's what you think.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 4, 2016)

Rich Parsons said:


> I see your point and the example I use in classes and seminars, is the following:
> 
> 1 + 1 is 2. Correct?
> Nods, and yeses and other affirmations.
> ...


Hey Big Man  I think your point neatly sums up the thread.. I would ask you what you think of the idea that some arts or styles by their very way of doing things lend their selves better to empirically verifying whether 1+1=2 ??  Also, do you think in an MA setting that the 1+1 calculation must then be CONTINUALLY verified as true rather than verified once then taken as fact thereon, I am right about that yes??

Likewise some styles or training setups are designed in such a way that a student -specially a new student- have no good route to doubt or disprove or even naysay that what their instructor told them that 1+1=3 because it just is and always has been that way from the inception of the art by awesome authorities who are badass in that style and every body say so.. would you agree?? 

My point below the talk really is how do you suggest the student, either new or long inculcated, break this indoctrination and find out the truth of their art or style for their selves -like the proof of the pudding-  if they have never been given any reason even to QUESTION the false doctrine let alone test it out?? Thank you, Jx


----------



## Transk53 (Feb 4, 2016)

FriedRice said:


> That's what you think.



I was just kidding.


----------



## Buka (Feb 4, 2016)

Steve said:


> what if you're in your car and someone who is all raging out gets out and starts heading your way?  Wouldn't that be a self defense situation for you?  If you're stopped at a light behind other cars, would you stay in your car?  Would you get out?
> 
> What if you couldn't see both of his hands?
> 
> ...



I agree with this. And especially this part - *" I've seen otherwise very rational people completely lose their cool on the road."*

I've been seeing this for years now. Why do you suppose that is? What is it about being behind the wheel that causes this? I've also noticed it happens more frequently with solo drivers.


----------



## FriedRice (Feb 4, 2016)

Transk53 said:


> I was just kidding.


me too.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2016)

Buka said:


> I agree with this. And especially this part - *" I've seen otherwise very rational people completely lose their cool on the road."*
> 
> I've been seeing this for years now. Why do you suppose that is? What is it about being behind the wheel that causes this? I've also noticed it happens more frequently with solo drivers.



You are angry at the car not the person.


----------



## Buka (Feb 4, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You are angry at the car not the person.



Hadn't thought of that. Could that be the reason?

And why do I never see a woman in a road rage incident?


----------



## drop bear (Feb 4, 2016)

Buka said:


> Hadn't thought of that. Could that be the reason?
> 
> And why do I never see a woman in a road rage incident?



Because girls are made of sugar and spice.


----------



## Steve (Feb 4, 2016)

Buka said:


> Hadn't thought of that. Could that be the reason?
> 
> And why do I never see a woman in a road rage incident?


I have, often.   Women who drive SUVs and volvos can be very aggressive.


----------



## Buka (Feb 5, 2016)

Steve said:


> I have, often.   Women who drive SUVs and volvos can be very aggressive.



So interesting. I've been trying to remember a case of road rage with a gal. (Although, I think the term "Road Rage Woman" could be  a great title for a song or album.) If I was asked what brand of vehicle driven by a woman would be less likely to get into a road rage incident than any other - I would have picked Volvo. I'm not even sure why. I have no facts or experience concerning that. Maybe I'm just influenced by commercials or something.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Feb 5, 2016)

Jenna said:


> Hey Big Man  I think your point neatly sums up the thread.. I would ask you what you think of the idea that some arts or styles by their very way of doing things lend their selves better to empirically verifying whether 1+1=2 ??  Also, do you think in an MA setting that the 1+1 calculation must then be CONTINUALLY verified as true rather than verified once then taken as fact thereon, I am right about that yes??
> 
> Likewise some styles or training setups are designed in such a way that a student -specially a new student- have no good route to doubt or disprove or even naysay that what their instructor told them that 1+1=3 because it just is and always has been that way from the inception of the art by awesome authorities who are badass in that style and every body say so.. would you agree??
> 
> My point below the talk really is how do you suggest the student, either new or long inculcated, break this indoctrination and find out the truth of their art or style for their selves -like the proof of the pudding-  if they have never been given any reason even to QUESTION the false doctrine let alone test it out?? Thank you, Jx




Jenna,

Yes, it is hard for the student to know when is 1+1 = 2 and when is 1+1= 3 or Null Set or what have you. 

yes it needs to be tested over and over again. 

Not sure if there is a way for the community to be able to accept 2 + 2 = 4 and 1 + 3 = 4 and 4 + 0 = 4 and that 5 + (-1) = 4. the result is the same 4, but lots of ways to get there.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 5, 2016)

Rich Parsons said:


> Jenna,
> 
> Yes, it is hard for the student to know when is 1+1 = 2 and when is 1+1= 3 or Null Set or what have you.
> 
> ...



Well that would be the point of evidence based. Not just to cull the stuff that dosent work but to find the stuff that does.


----------

