# How can you become a good fighter if self-defense is your goal?



## Kung Fu Wang (May 16, 2020)

Today in China, people train MA only for self-defense and health. Even if they may have trained MA to the highest level, since they don't have real combat experience, if you ask them to step into a ring, it will be a totally suicide.

You may be the best of the best in China, but when you test your skill in the global level, you will find out that you are nobody.

When you teach your students, you tell them that they should train MA for self-defense and health. You don't encourage your students to test their MA skill against people from other MA systems.

How can you become a good fighter (a person who can handle himself in the ring) if your goal is only self-defense and health?

Your thought?


----------



## skribs (May 16, 2020)

I think there's two components to this.

The first is training styles that don't really translate to the real world.  Some arts may be more susceptible to this than others, but things like:

Not sparring at all
Sparring with very specific rules
Too much focus on conceptual drills and not enough practical drills
Most arts are very good at fighting against their own art.  Someone who is only trained at Wing Chun is going to be very good at fighting against someone who is fighting the Wing Chun way, but since nobody else fights like that, their drills may not be the most practical.  Someone who is trained in modern Taekwondo may have great kicks, but if they don't know how to use them against a puncher or a grappler, they're toast.  Grappling arts are the same way.  A BJJ expert is going to be better than just about anyone on the ground.  But take a fight on hardwood or concrete, and they'll be a lot less eager to use the majority of their training.

This isn't true of all schools, or even all fighters within a school.  Someone taking Wing Chun may go to a school that teaches all of the aspects of the art, instead of just Chi Sau.  A Taekwondo fighter can learn a lot about footwork and managing range, and still has very powerful kicks.  They may go to a school that teaches a lot more of the martial arts than most of the modernized ones.  And a BJJ fighter may learn a lot of the stand-up in addition to the ground game.

The second component is who you expect to fight.  Let's go back to BJJ.  How much of their skills are only necessary against another BJJ expert?  If the average blue belt can beat the average white belt, then what do you need beyond that unless you're fighting against other highly trained grapplers?  It makes sense for the sport, because that's what you're going to face.  But I doubt the average person you need to defend against is a seasoned martial artist.  A seasoned martial artist is much more likely to avoid a fight (unless it's a sanctioned bout).  They're more likely to de-escalate or walk away from a situation than to instigate one.  That's not to say it doesn't happen.  Just that I think it leans heavily in favor of fighting against people of much lower skill level when you need to defend yourself.

This is important, because a lot of the arguments I see about an art being bad are because "that wouldn't work against a high-level ______."  There seems to be the assumption that in order to defend yourself, the necessary skill level is:

Defend punches from the heavyweight boxing champion of the world
Defend kicks from a gold-medal Olympic Taekwondo fighter
Out-clinch the top-ranked Muay Thai fighter in the world
Defend throws against a Judoka Olympian
Defend takedowns against a collegiate superstar
Survive the ground against a BJJ black belt
This is not much of an exaggeration from some of the posts I've seen.  I think there's an absurd standard that every martial artist needs to have skill levels and fitness level of a professional MMA fighter or Olympic competitor in order to be considered good, and that if your school isn't pumping out notorious knockout kings then you're school (and possibly your art) are completely useless.  I don't think that's the case.  I think the average person you're going to fight in self defense is probably:

Barely trained in martial arts, may have some practical experience if they've been in a lot of fights
Looking for an easy opportunity, and will give up when they realize you know how to fight (if you didn't de-escalate the situation)
I may not have the take-down defense to deal with a ranking wrestler, the boxing skills to go up against a proficient pugilist, or the ground-fighting skills to go up against a submission savant.  I do think I have the skills to go against the average Joe who thinks he knows how to fight.

With that said, in the last several years that I've been in martial arts, I've gotten in 0 fights.  In several years before that, I got in 0 fights.  You have to go back to high school to when I watched my friend get in a fight...it was over in 1 punch.  Not a KO, but the other guy decided it wasn't worth it.  You have to go back to middle school for the last time I was in a fight.  One throw (not even hard) and the other guy decided to keep making fun of me...but he stopped pushing me.

TL;DR: I think some people have too high a standard for what qualifies as legitimate self-defense.


----------



## Steve (May 16, 2020)

Learning to fight is like the least useful thing to know if your goal is to be safe.  But if you want to learn to fight, you should train in a style where you fight.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Learning to fight is like the least useful thing to know if your goal is to be safe.


Learn to fight is fun. That's good enough reason for me. I get really excited when I block a punch with my arm, or to block a kick with my leg. When I dodge a punch with my head, I could smile in my dreams for the next 3 nights.

I don't care about how much I may know. I do care about how much I can do. My goal is not SD or health. My goal is fun.


----------



## drop bear (May 17, 2020)

If you wanted to train for self defense and actually be serious about it you would find challenges in as many areas of self defence as you could. 

So you would step in the ring Or do a bare knuckle or a dog brothers. Mabye you would go work doors or deal with domestics or whatever.

That way you would develop a multi facited approach to self defense that is grounded in practical experience.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Learn to fight is fun. That's good enough reason for me. I get really excited when I block a punch with my arm, or to block a kick with my leg. When I dodge a punch with my head, I could smile in my dreams for the next 3 nights.
> 
> I don't care about how much I may know. I do care about how much I can do. My goal is not SD or health. My goal is fun.


I think that's the honest answer for most of us. As @Steve mentioned, actual fighting ability is one of the least important skills in self-defense. Before that are situational awareness and conflict resolution/verbal deescalation. And even if fighting ability is involved-after 1 year of training with people that can actually fight, you're already better than 95% of the population. If you want proof of that, go up to a random friend, ask for a sparring match, and see how it goes. 

Despite that, we all still train. And I'm pretty confident in my assumption for the most of us it's simply that we enjoy training.


----------



## Headhunter (May 17, 2020)

My thought is....who cares. I don't give a damm about how good a fighter I am or what I can do against someone else. Majority of people are the same. They don't care about getting in fights and are just doing it for health or social reasons. You have your reasons for training and that your entitled to them just as everyone else is entitled to theirs


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 17, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> My thought is....who cares. I don't give a damm about how good a fighter I am or what I can do against someone else. Majority of people are the same. They don't care about getting in fights and are just doing it for health or social reasons. You have your reasons for training and that your entitled to them just as everyone else is entitled to theirs


I already answered above for myself..but what is your reason for training then? If you don't care how good a fighter you are, why do you continue learning how to be a better fighter?


----------



## Headhunter (May 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I already answered above for myself..but what is your reason for training then? If you don't care how good a fighter you are, why do you continue learning how to be a better fighter?


Because I haven't got anything better to do


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you teach your students, you tell them that they should train MA for self-defense and health. You don't encourage your students to test their MA skill against people from other MA systems.


This is an assumption I've seen elsewhere. While it would be accurate for some self-defense-oriented programs, it's certainly not a universal truth.


----------



## Headhunter (May 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This is an assumption I've seen elsewhere. While it would be accurate for some self-defense-oriented programs, it's certainly not a universal truth.


Agreed it's a silly stereotype that doesn't have much weight to it. Yes it probably does happen but isn't the normal thing just for traditional styles. I've seen boxing gyms that don't want their students going to bjj clubs or Muay Thai clubs


----------



## jobo (May 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> If you wanted to train for self defense and actually be serious about it you would find challenges in as many areas of self defence as you could.
> 
> So you would step in the ring Or do a bare knuckle or a dog brothers. Mabye you would go work doors or deal with domestics or whatever.
> 
> That way you would develop a multi facited approach to self defense that is grounded in practical experience.


are you really suggesting that people should take up a high risk and badly paid and in this country at least mostly wet and freezing cold ,second job in order to ground their sd skills ? that seems a bit above and beyond


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> This is an assumption I've seen elsewhere. While it would be accurate for some self-defense-oriented programs, it's certainly not a universal truth.



My experience has been that it's either taught for self defense, sport, or both. I think self defense is a common application schools will profess.


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> are you really suggesting that people should take up a high risk and badly paid and in this country at least mostly wet and freezing cold ,second job in order to ground their sd skills ? that seems a bit above and beyond


You have to realize: he's the epitome of the person I doscussed in my post: someone with such high goalposts only a professional could reach them.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 17, 2020)

Look at combative programes as the basics and easy to learn skills.   For self defence combatives, add in the non physical skills to that.   and then look at other martial arts as the more complex and niche skills and the skills that require you to actually think to perform rather than what you can pull off under adreline or absed around that.  

I have how ever seen soem more practical systems adopt more complex skills as a means of atribute devolopment and to give the higher ranked persons something to learn more and to devolope more.    Like if i am correct, krav maga has some complex kicks in it at the end that they dont endorse using as anything more than a niche situational skill and mainly exist for atrbute devolopment and a niche skill for when you need it. 


You should be well off if you train to beat the untrained person, but that depends on how popular MA is in your area, i think some people legit live in towns where its uncommon for somone to not know how to throw fistycuffs.     In that case, you probbly need to know how to fight to a semi proffesional standard and also have the fitness to back that up.       


A good anaology is police training.   Look at the diffrence in role and training to say a state trooper and the SWAT team/more specilised teams.    and also look at the diffrences in training from state to state/force to force.    If there is a big gang problem, more training is dumped into related skills and they may have a bigger more specilised SWAT team for that.      

Probbly a uneeded anaology, but it never hurts. 

Addendum: i forgot about aggression training, combative programs also exist to teach you to be aggresive enough to survive a violent encounter, i think that might be a big focus on SD physical defence, the mindset of fighting rather than specfic skills, most people need it drilled into them.


----------



## jobo (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> You have to realize: he's the epitome of the person I doscussed in my post: someone with such high goalposts only a professional could reach them.


 he is someone who derives such high self esteem from his fighting ability that you wonder if other areas of his life are a bit lacking on the self fulfilment category

it does seem he has all his eggs in one basket ! to the point of suggesting that others should get a dead end job to emulate him


----------



## Steve (May 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I think that's the honest answer for most of us. As @Steve mentioned, actual fighting ability is one of the least important skills in self-defense. Before that are situational awareness and conflict resolution/verbal deescalation. And even if fighting ability is involved-after 1 year of training with people that can actually fight, you're already better than 95% of the population. If you want proof of that, go up to a random friend, ask for a sparring match, and see how it goes.
> 
> Despite that, we all still train. And I'm pretty confident in my assumption for the most of us it's simply that we enjoy training.


I agree with the sentiment, but think you accept as a given several things which may not be the case.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Today in China, people train MA only for self-defense and health. Even if they may have trained MA to the highest level, since they don't have real combat experience, if you ask them to step into a ring, it will be a totally suicide.
> 
> You may be the best of the best in China, but when you test your skill in the global level, you will find out that you are nobody.
> 
> ...


Then your goals have changed and you are now interested in competition. So go train for competition.

There are plenty of physical skills you gain from self defense training that will translate well into competition fighting.  But you need to alter your training approach to enable you to understand and adapt to the competition environment.  Obviously this can be done.  But likely someone wishing to do this would need to get the appropriate coaching  to be successful.

But the bottom line is what I mentioned initially:  your goals have changed so your training also needs to change.


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> There are plenty of physical skills you gain from self defense training that will translate well into competition fighting.



I think this is true both ways.  And if I had a student of mine that wanted to compete in MMA, I'd make sure he's aware of that and would be prepared to take the training necessary before jumping into the cage.

And I wouldn't even try to tell him I could teach him those skills.  I would be confident that what I've taught him should give him a good jumping off point when he goes to classes more suited for MMA (that the training wouldn't be completely foreign to him).


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think this is true both ways.  And if I had a student of mine that wanted to compete in MMA, I'd make sure he's aware of that and would be prepared to take the training necessary before jumping into the cage.
> 
> And I wouldn't even try to tell him I could teach him those skills.  I would be confident that what I've taught him should give him a good jumping off point when he goes to classes more suited for MMA (that the training wouldn't be completely foreign to him).


Full agreement.  I personally have no interest in mma type competition.  I don’t watch I and I don’t train for it.  I would never claim to be a good coach for someone interested in that.  Before Covid-19 shut everything down I was putting out my feelers into the community to see if anyone was interested in learning White Crane.  I was very careful to be clear that I was not training people to fight in mma, and if anyone wanted that then they need to find someone else to be their coach.

But like you say, if I had a student who wanted to get into mma competition I would wish him well with a new coach, but help him/her understand that he already has good tools that can be redeployed in that new purpose.

I also always say that those skilled in mma can certainly use those skills in self defense.  I think it’s a silly argument that some people make that competitors can’t defend themselves on the street, that habits built on the rules of competition would leave them vulnerable in self defense.  There may be a nugget of truth in that on the theoretical level, but it is far from insurmountable and for most people it would barely even be noticed.  Those same skills can translate into self defense.  But I think it becomes an emotional argument where people kind of get blinded and want to claim exclusive ownership to some realm of combat training.  Mma people get competition, TMA people get self defense and street fighting, and the two shall not mix.  But that is a silly position to take.  These are skills that can overlap and translate and be applied in either direction.


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I also always say that those skilled in mma can certainly use those skills in self defense. I think it’s a silly argument that some people make that competitors can’t defend themselves on the street, that habits built on the rules of competition would leave them vulnerable in self defense. There may be a nugget of truth in that on the theoretical level, but it is far from insurmountable and for most people it would barely even be noticed. Those same skills can translate into self defense. But I think it becomes an emotional argument where people kind of get blinded and want to claim exclusive ownership to some realm of combat training. Mma people get competition, TMA people get self defense and street fighting, and the two shall not mix. But that is a silly position to take. These are skills that can overlap and translate and be applied in either direction.



I say the thing you say not to say, but with a caveat.  I just think that if an MMA fighter wants to practice for self-defense, they sometimes need to at least sit down and think (if not outright drill) scenarios that would make sense in self-defense.  For example, a lot of wrestling and BJJ fighters should be able to control the arm of a knife-wielding attacker.  However, if they haven't thought about how to apply their techniques in that situation before-hand, then they'll be figuring it out as they go.  I'd much rather make a silly mistake against a friend holding a rubber knife than against an actual mugger trying to stab me with a switchblade.  

Any situation that occurs outside of MMA, for example multiple attackers, fighting on hard surfaces like concrete, weapons, illegal techniques, etc. are all things that you won't be exposed to in most sport gyms.  Things like protecting your friends and family.  I don't think you need to devote a lot of training time to think about this stuff.  Just that if self-defense is a goal, then these should be on your mind at some point.  As should other things like de-escalation and awareness.

With all that said, if an MMA fighter determines that they'd rather focus 100% on competition, and then hope that those scenarios never play out (or that they can figure it out if they do), then more power to them.  Competition is their goal, I shouldn't distract them from that.  However, that's only if they're honest with themselves about making the decision for competition sake, instead of making fun of people who *do *train that other stuff.  It might be a waste of time *for them* and their goals, but it's not a waste of time for someone else.


----------



## jobo (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I say the thing you say not to say, but with a caveat.  I just think that if an MMA fighter wants to practice for self-defense, they sometimes need to at least sit down and think (if not outright drill) scenarios that would make sense in self-defense.  For example, a lot of wrestling and BJJ fighters should be able to control the arm of a knife-wielding attacker.  However, if they haven't thought about how to apply their techniques in that situation before-hand, then they'll be figuring it out as they go.  I'd much rather make a silly mistake against a friend holding a rubber knife than against an actual mugger trying to stab me with a switchblade.
> 
> Any situation that occurs outside of MMA, for example multiple attackers, fighting on hard surfaces like concrete, weapons, illegal techniques, etc. are all things that you won't be exposed to in most sport gyms.  Things like protecting your friends and family.  I don't think you need to devote a lot of training time to think about this stuff.  Just that if self-defense is a goal, then these should be on your mind at some point.  As should other things like de-escalation and awareness.
> 
> With all that said, if an MMA fighter determines that they'd rather focus 100% on competition, and then hope that those scenarios never play out (or that they can figure it out if they do), then more power to them.  Competition is their goal, I shouldn't distract them from that.  However, that's only if they're honest with themselves about making the decision for competition sake, instead of making fun of people who *do *train that other stuff.  It might be a waste of time *for them* and their goals, but it's not a waste of time for someone else.


ive said before, im not a great fan of scenario training, it tends to be a very distorted reality so much that its no more '' real'' than ring fighting commonly a lot less( fat suits anybody)

the only substantial difference is you may very well start from a disadvantage, as the other guy getting to pick the moment time and mode of the attack, someone coming at you head on shouting the odds, is fine ( are fairly common), theirs little defence if someone smashes your head into the wall whilst your having a wee, no amount training other than training your bladder will help with that one, 

multiple attackers are impossible to quantify or train for no matter what scenario you choose to run, there are only two defences, run faster than them or knock them over faster than they can reach you, you cant run scenarios for either as you dont know how fast they can run nor can you practice knocking them out/over, unless your actually going to knock them out, which means you run out of willing volunteers very quickly


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I say the thing you say not to say, but with a caveat.  I just think that if an MMA fighter wants to practice for self-defense, they sometimes need to at least sit down and think (if not outright drill) scenarios that would make sense in self-defense.  For example, a lot of wrestling and BJJ fighters should be able to control the arm of a knife-wielding attacker.  However, if they haven't thought about how to apply their techniques in that situation before-hand, then they'll be figuring it out as they go.  I'd much rather make a silly mistake against a friend holding a rubber knife than against an actual mugger trying to stab me with a switchblade.
> 
> Any situation that occurs outside of MMA, for example multiple attackers, fighting on hard surfaces like concrete, weapons, illegal techniques, etc. are all things that you won't be exposed to in most sport gyms.  Things like protecting your friends and family.  I don't think you need to devote a lot of training time to think about this stuff.  Just that if self-defense is a goal, then these should be on your mind at some point.  As should other things like de-escalation and awareness.
> 
> With all that said, if an MMA fighter determines that they'd rather focus 100% on competition, and then hope that those scenarios never play out (or that they can figure it out if they do), then more power to them.  Competition is their goal, I shouldn't distract them from that.  However, that's only if they're honest with themselves about making the decision for competition sake, instead of making fun of people who *do *train that other stuff.  It might be a waste of time *for them* and their goals, but it's not a waste of time for someone else.


I think any time someone is in an environment or venue in which they do not typically spend their energy and effort, they would do better if they had spent at least some time previously thinking about it and working on how to adapt the physical skills.

But let’s be honest about it, mma folks are training regularly to fight against other people, and they physically interact in working to land effective strikes on people who are trying to evade those strikes, and to grapple with people who are battling against them.  I think there is very little adaptation required to effectively use those skills in a self defense situation or a fight on the street.  Might they forget to poke the eyes?  Maybe, but they probably won’t need to do it anyways.  Might they get surrounded and stomped by their attacker's three buddies if they get too wrapped up in a ground grapple?  Sure, but It’s a safe bet that a TMA person training specifically for self defense would not survive being attacked by four determined assailants either.  Might a mma grappler get cut by broken glass on the street if he takes the fight to the ground?  Sure, but a TMA guy can also go down and get cut too.

I really believe that on average, an mma person would adapt to a self defense situation more readily and with fewer glitches than a TMA person would adapt to an mma competition, assuming neither of them worked extensively to adapt prior.


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I think any time someone is in an environment or venue in which they do not typically spend their energy and effort, they would do better if they had spent at least some time previously thinking about it and working on how to adapt the physical skills.
> ...
> I really believe that on average, an mma person would adapt to a self defense situation more readily and with fewer glitches than a TMA person would adapt to an mma competition, assuming neither of them worked extensively to adapt prior.



I agree with your opening and closing statements.  It's the middle part I don't 100% agree with..



> But let’s be honest about it, mma folks are training regularly to fight against other people, and they physically interact in working to land effective strikes on people who are trying to evade those strikes, and to grapple with people who are battling against them.  I think there is very little adaptation required to effectively use those skills in a self defense situation or a fight on the street.  Might they forget to poke the eyes?  Maybe, but they probably won’t need to do it anyways.



I'm not talking about using eye pokes and other illegal techniques, but defending against them.  I've heard a lot of MMA guys on here equate an eye poke to a punch.  But there's a lot more ways you can poke the eyes that don't have the same setup as a punch.  



> Might they get surrounded and stomped by their attacker's three buddies if they get too wrapped up in a ground grapple?  Sure, but It’s a safe bet that a TMA person training specifically for self defense would not survive being attacked by four determined assailants either.  Might a mma grappler get cut by broken glass on the street if he takes the fight to the ground?  Sure, but a TMA guy can also go down and get cut too.



In Hapkido, we train our throws, take-downs, and submissions mostly with the intent of remaining standing.  This is different from what a wrestler or a BJJ fighter would train, since they want to go down with their opponent and control them on the ground.  This solves both problems of being stuck on the ground when there's another fighter, and going to the ground and rolling around in glass.

Do the other attackers still have the advantage?  Yes.  Might you still get taken down onto that glass?  Yes.  But at least we're trying to stay standing and ready.  Instead of just saying "well, even if I trained that way, I'd probably fail anyway."


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I agree with your opening and closing statements.  It's the middle part I don't 100% agree with..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough, it’s a different point of view.  I think there are valid points each way.  I think one of the traps of this particular topic is in believing (even unintentionally) that all factors are present in all situations.  So yes, this or that factor could change the outcome in any situation.  But those factors are not always present and often don’t matter.  So no matter how true something is, there are examples against it, and vice-versa.

There is no ultimate correct answer for this.  Like most things in life, it depends.


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I think there are valid points each way.



This is my biggest point.  All martial arts have holes in their training.  There are three responses to the holes in your martial art:

Accept them and decide it's not worth *your *time to train
Recognize them and cross-train to fill them
Reject them, rationalize why those ideas are stupid and tell everyone who trains those how stupid they are
Two of those are healthy options.


----------



## jobo (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I agree with your opening and closing statements.  It's the middle part I don't 100% agree with..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ambush attacks are rare unless robbery is the motive or there has been some previous conflict and they have picked their moment, random strangers dont general walk up and poke you in the eye for no reason, some things escalate very quickly, but not that quickly you dont know that there is a bone of contention or at least some level of animosity nor is an eye poke the likely first choice of attackers who have first go, a head but is far more likely if you up close, i know from experience, that if someone taps you on the shoulder in a night club, dont turn round to see who it is, that was an ambush attack, i had no idea hat was his wife id just been kissing

the idea that fighters are so immersed in their style that they cant improvise if the situation demands is silly, boxer can kick bbj chaps can punch you a karate guys can bite your ear


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> the idea that fighters are so immersed in their style that they cant improvise if the situation demands is silly, boxer can kick bbj chaps can punch you a karate guys can bite your ear



It's not silly.  I see it time and time again on the forums.  Even from MMA guys who train different arts, they're locked into only training what works in the cage and ignore everything else.

It's an idea born of observation, most of it on this site.


----------



## jobo (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> It's not silly.  I see it time and time again on the forums.  Even from MMA guys who train different arts, they're locked into only training what works in the cage and ignore everything else.
> 
> It's an idea born of observation, most of it on this site.


 so if ive ever been kicked by a boxer that shows your talking rot ?

or is it some generalisation your intent on pushing that wrestlers cant punch people ??????


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Today in China, people train MA only for self-defense and health. Even if they may have trained MA to the highest level, since they don't have real combat experience, if you ask them to step into a ring, it will be a totally suicide.
> 
> You may be the best of the best in China, but when you test your skill in the global level, you will find out that you are nobody.
> 
> ...


My thoughts on this is that people are to narrow minded when they say "train for self-defense and health". Most people who say that probably only train the mental health of Martial arts and not the physical aspects of fighting.  Get into a ring and do some sparring against someone who spars often and person will know without a doubt just how bad or how good their cardio is. A person's weakness in balance, agility, reaction time, awareness, footwork, and strength will all be highlighted during sparring.  Engage in grappling and another set of weakness will be highlighted.

Many martial artists talk about "complete health" and often forget about the physical part of it.  My personal opinion is that ALL MARTIAL ARTS SHOULD BE TRAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF FIGHTING.  This is the best training for mind and body because it's a complete package. Training this way doesn't mean a person will be a thug.  A person can train this way and still be all about Zen or all about Performance Baton twirling.  What a person does after the training is up to the person.  But because of the training they will be healthier both mentally and physically.  

What I don't get about some Chinese Martial Arts is how a "martial arts Master" will abandon his kung fu and train MMA.  If he trains Kung Fu like he trains MMA then theoretically he should be able to pull off the techniques.  How many times have we seen MMA fighters pull off and knock people out with a Traditional Martial arts technique.  They still don't get it.  It's not the technique that's the problem it's the Training.

"Training for Health" is not separate from "Training for Fighting"  it's a part of it and a very good part of it.


----------



## Headhunter (May 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> My thoughts on this is that people are to narrow minded when they say "train for self-defense and health". Most people who say that probably only train the mental health of Martial arts and not the physical aspects of fighting.  Get into a ring and do some sparring against someone who spars often and person will know without a doubt just how bad or how good their cardio is. A person's weakness in balance, agility, reaction time, awareness, footwork, and strength will all be highlighted during sparring.  Engage in grappling and another set of weakness will be highlighted.
> 
> Many martial artists talk about "complete health" and often forget about the physical part of it.  My personal opinion is that ALL MARTIAL ARTS SHOULD BE TRAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF FIGHTING.  This is the best training for mind and body because it's a complete package. Training this way doesn't mean a person will be a thug.  A person can train this way and still be all about Zen or all about Performance Baton twirling.  What a person does after the training is up to the person.  But because of the training they will be healthier both mentally and physically.
> 
> ...


Why  should they have to step in a ring if that's not what they want to do? Some people can't risk going into work with black eyes and bruises. You don't need to step in a ring to get fit. You can do pad work, bag work, shadow boxing all of which builds fitness.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Learning to fight is like the least useful thing to know if your goal is to be safe.


This is the example of the mistake that many people make.  Learning to fight doesn't have to be separate from self defense or being safe.  You can do both and reap the benefits of both.  It doesn't have to be Either OR.

This is not 2 separate images.  It is one.  One color is training to fight and the other color is training that isn't about fighting but technique and mental wellness.  There's no rule in Martial Arts that doesn't say you can't include self-defense training as part of the aspect of fighting.  






An example,  run self-self defense scenario of avoiding being cornered.  Say on this day you screwed up made the wrong choice (because self-defense is not mistake free) and now you have to fight your way out of the corner or be more physical to prevent a bad situation from getting worse.    Both requires more physical effort than "just avoiding."

People make the assumption that Learning how to fight only teaches a person how to fight.  Learning to fight teaches more than just fighting.  It helps you learn how to read people's body movements which you really can't learn without sparring.  I find it strange that people who train self-defense only are always telling stories of how they had to fight their way out of a bad situation where people who actually train to fight rarely have those type of stories about fighting their way out of a bad situation.

Most people take that image above and separate it into 2 pieces and think that their training is complete.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> This is my biggest point.  All martial arts have holes in their training.  There are three responses to the holes in your martial art:
> 
> Accept them and decide it's not worth *your *time to train
> Recognize them and cross-train to fill them
> ...


I understand the point you are making but I’m going to suggest an alternate way of looking at it.

I believe that the notion of a martial art being “complete” (as opposed to having holes in it) is an artificial designation that really only means as much as an individual wants it to mean.  Furthermore, I feel that it is often used by people who want to claim that “what you do must include what I do, or it lacks value/merit/ “completeness” etc.” and perhaps even “what I do is worth _more_ than what you do so you definitely need to do what I do, or you’ve got nothing”.

To all of that I say nonsense.

I fundamentally disagree with that notion and with the notion of “completeness” in a martial art.  

A martial art includes a fundamental approach to combat and contains a body of techniques, principles, and ideas that support the development of skills consistent with that fundamental approach.  If that is what one is interested in, then that is what they study.  If they are interested in a different approach, then they study something else.  Some people study more than one method, with varying degrees of success. 

I see it as similar to someone choosing a direction in the college/university level of education.  If physics is what you are interested in, then that is what you study.  But for someone to claim that you are somehow “incomplete” as an educated person or as a scientist because you have not also earned a degree in geology, is a silly claim.  And I know, some people get multiple degrees and that gives them additional specialized knowledge, but that does not justify trying to label someone as “incomplete”.

So we study and we train in what we are interested in.  What we are interested in follows a methodology.  I don’t see a lot of benefit in dissecting it beyond that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Why should they have to step in a ring if that's not what they want to do?


Because stepping into the ring offers what "they want to do".  Just because you are in the ring doesn't mean you have to pound each other into pain. There's aspects to sparring that aren't about punching, kicking, and grappling.  For example, being able to ready body movement, using footwork, setting up a combination.  All of that aren't physical attacks.  But it helps people pull off the physical attacks.  Learning how to correctly read body movement in the ring can be applied to self-defense and mental health.  Being in the ring often provides a way for a person to learn how to manage their fears and adrenaline.  

Most people think that sparring only offers bruises and pain and that's just not true.  I had a student who used to tell me that he only trains Martial arts for health.  He said this for 5 years whenever asked if he wanted to spar.  On the 6th year he tried it.  He was shocked and told me that he thought we would beat him up and hit him really hard.  I simply asked him.  "why would I do that?  that's not what you want from sparring"  That day he learned how to cover himself.  He got a chance to deal with someone resisting his attempts to attack, and he got a change to defend himself against someone who was trying to hit him.  He experienced that all without me blasting punching and trying hurt him. 

The other thing he mentioned was that it took more cardio and physical effort than the thought, and that it was a good exercise.  As a teacher, I didn't change my focus of sparring which is to teach students how to fight.  What changed was his perception of sparring and doing that type of training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 17, 2020)

What's the definition of a "good fighter"?

You have strong

1. defense skill - you can block, dodge punches and kicks.
2. offense skill - you have knock/take down skill.

In order to test both 1 and 2, you have to get in the ring and step on the mat. IMO, only partner drill is not enough here.

I truly don't know how to develop fighting skill without going through the sport path. I have not seen any MA person who can handle himself in the ring or on the mat without going through the sport path.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> You don't need to step in a ring to get fit.


You don't need to, but you can.  And you can do it without getting a black eye and without having tons of bruises. 



Headhunter said:


> Some people can't risk going into work with black eyes and bruises.


Again. This this is an assumption that this is guaranteed to happen and it isn't.  Sparring doesn't automatically mean you are going to get a black eye.   People think. Oh my god it's sparring, I better not do that because I'll get a black eye.  Out of all the years that I've been in martial arts, sparring, and in fights.  I only had one black eye and that was during a non sparring application drill where I was trying to figure out how to use a technique and I ran into my training partners fist.  

While some people bruise really bad, most people do not break out in the purple and blue abuse bruises.  I have been bruised and students were bruised and very few of us had severe discoloration.  We all had tender spots that were painful when touched, but it wasn't an unbearable pain.  It was the type of pain that one get when they realize that their body isn't as fragile and that the pain isn't as bad as they imagined.  It wasn't to the point that you didn't want to experience the pain ever again. 

If you spar against someone that can't control their punches well or against a jerk, then yes you are going to get pounded really good.  But that doesn't ways have to be the case and in my classes, that was rarely the case.  There were only 3 or 4 students who wanted to fight at that intensity and I was always trying to calm them down and lower the intensity so they could actually learn how to use kung fu.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because stepping into the ring offers what "they want to do".  Just because you are in the ring doesn't mean you have to pound each other into pain. There's aspects to sparring that aren't about punching, kicking, and grappling.  For example, being able to ready body movement, using footwork, setting up a combination.  All of that aren't physical attacks.  But it helps people pull off the physical attacks.  Learning how to correctly read body movement in the ring can be applied to self-defense and mental health.  Being in the ring often provides a way for a person to learn how to manage their fears and adrenaline.
> 
> Most people think that sparring only offers bruises and pain and that's just not true.  I had a student who used to tell me that he only trains Martial arts for health.  He said this for 5 years whenever asked if he wanted to spar.  On the 6th year he tried it.  He was shocked and told me that he thought we would beat him up and hit him really hard.  I simply asked him.  "why would I do that?  that's not what you want from sparring"  That day he learned how to cover himself.  He got a chance to deal with someone resisting his attempts to attack, and he got a change to defend himself against someone who was trying to hit him.  He experienced that all without me blasting punching and trying hurt him.
> 
> The other thing he mentioned was that it took more cardio and physical effort than the thought, and that it was a good exercise.  As a teacher, I didn't change my focus of sparring which is to teach students how to fight.  What changed was his perception of sparring and doing that type of training.


What you describe here in my opinion is not “stepping into the ring”. Rather, it is interactive contact training within a teaching environment.  Stepping into the ring suggests competition, and often that is further described a “full-contact”.  Often that description goes hand-in-hand with the notion that people either need to enter competitions or they need to make an effort to visit other schools and try out their skills against everyone out there.  In that context, @Headhunter is correct, not everyone wants that, and doesn’t need to do that in order to have value in their training. 

But in a more structured instructional context that is aimed at helping someone learn and is not concerned with winning the match, then you are correct.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 17, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> not everyone wants that, ...


Agree! You can only get a small group of people who are willing to take that path.


----------



## drop bear (May 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> are you really suggesting that people should take up a high risk and badly paid and in this country at least mostly wet and freezing cold ,second job in order to ground their sd skills ? that seems a bit above and beyond



Yes.

Look up nietzsche


----------



## drop bear (May 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Learning to fight is like the least useful thing to know if your goal is to be safe.  But if you want to learn to fight, you should train in a style where you fight.



Yeah. Learn to be rich and then move. But being able to fight still empowers people.

But there are also circumstances that are not my circumstances. School is an interesting one. Where you are potentially locked in with your attackers. And trying to be affluent first world adult about these things isn't the best response.


----------



## drop bear (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> You have to realize: he's the epitome of the person I doscussed in my post: someone with such high goalposts only a professional could reach them.



Keep striving for mediocrity.


----------



## drop bear (May 17, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> My thought is....who cares. I don't give a damm about how good a fighter I am or what I can do against someone else. Majority of people are the same. They don't care about getting in fights and are just doing it for health or social reasons. You have your reasons for training and that your entitled to them just as everyone else is entitled to theirs



Then why jump on a self defense thread to tell people you don't train self defense?

Go start a pursuit of happiness thread.


----------



## Headhunter (May 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Then why jump on a self defense thread to tell people you don't train self defense?
> 
> Go start a pursuit of happiness thread.


Because I wanted to


----------



## drop bear (May 17, 2020)

Headhunter said:


> Because I wanted to



So like those guys who always turn up to a self defense thread with their buy a gun commentary.


----------



## Headhunter (May 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So like those guys who always turn up to a self defense thread with their buy a gun commentary.


Sure whatever you say


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I think that's the honest answer for most of us. As @Steve mentioned, actual fighting ability is one of the least important skills in self-defense. Before that are situational awareness and conflict resolution/verbal deescalation.


 I see this in a different light. One of things I say often about fighting is "*The more I learn about fighting and how to fight, the less it's about fighting.*"

I guess what I'm saying is that Fighting Skills is not 1 or 2 things you learn to do like a punch or kicks.  There's a lot more to it than that.  There's a combination of things that actually make up Fighting Skills.  Many of the things that help build fighting skills is also useful in other parts of your life and not just fighting.  Just knowing how to punch and kick is not enough as we have seen many times in videos. 

We could teach situational awareness for driving all day long without ever driving.  However, that student who drives and practices his situation awareness in a car (similar to sparring), will be better at situational awareness than the student who is only getting lip via lecture and reading.   Fighting, self-defense, and everything else in the world is just like this.  Sparring is practice for fighting and self-defense.  It utilizes more than just physical violence to produce an outcome.

I can't learn how to swim unless I get in the water and try to use what I'm being taught.
I can't learn how to use situational awareness while driving in a car unless I get in the car to drive.
I can't learn how to fight using the skills I'm being taught unless I spar.  Granted I can wildly swing my arms and kick in a mad fury and that would be considering fighting,  But it wouldn't be considered best practices for self-defense or for effective fighting.
I can't learn how to use  self-defense situational awareness unless I practice and train it in a real environment.  Before I had my conflict with the school that I taught at, I had a program develop where the class will go out to the mall and practice being aware of things that we covered in class, again similar to sparring but practicing a different skill set. 

If I had to give training a "percentage of things," I would say 10% of the skill sets are dedicated to either fighting or self-defense.  It's like switching out a 10% cartridge.  I would say 90% of fighting and self--defense training have nothing to do with actually fighting.  But it's that 90% of things that that you do that really allow a person to get the most out of the the 10% of the actual action that you have to take.   I also believe that the 90% stuff works nearly equally across the board regardless of what system a person trains.  Get in that as much of the 90% as possible the better the 10% will be


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So like those guys who always turn up to a self defense thread with their buy a gun commentary.


Recently saw a horrible video 2 weeks ago of a person fighting over a shotgun.  A staff technique and drill instantly came to mind.   Part of my staff training was to fight over the staff and that's when I learned that the staff techniques can be used for close range to.  Had the victim known this, then it may have been a solution to his situation and it may have kept him from being shot 3 times with a shot gun.  This would have definitely been better than the option that he took which was to hold onto the shot gun with one hand while punching with the other.  Not sure why he thought his punches were strong enough to make the other guy drop the shotgun.  

I guess the punching thing goes back to the idea that some people think they have deadly punches or that the human body is so fragile that a punch will do the job.  The situation didn't end well for the victim.  Lots of  things I would have done differently in his situation long before fighting over a gun becomes a scenario.  But maybe that's just my experience from my youth and doing things I wasn't supposed to be doing back then, having influence on options that I see vs options that other's don't see.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Fighting Skills is not 1 or 2 things you learn to do like a punch or kicks.  There's a lot more to it than that.


Agree! 

How to:

- knock on your opponent's door.
- open his door.
- take advantage on his response.
- linear attack -> circular attack.
- circular attack -> linear attack.
- move from wrist gate to elbow gate, then to shoulder gate.
- ...


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree!
> 
> How to:
> 
> ...


I was thinking more along the lines of observational awareness like knowing if the person is standing out of my punching range or standing within his punching range.  If move back does he follow or does he stand his ground. lol, but what you stated is also true.  If a person doesn't understand circular attack vs linear attack then he or she will have trouble defending against it.  I've seen professional MMA fighters get knocked out by a basic circular attack. When the attack came, their brain didn't register it as something dangerous because their brain was used to seeing linear.  Like this guy here. While not the best structural circular punch, it shows how it's like his brain doesn't know what to do with the punch so he's just like a deer in a headlights.  I spent a lot of "non-fighting and non-sparring" moments just trying to understand what I'm doing in the form and how the punch actually works and why it works.  Lucky for the guy in the red shorts this guy didn't know how to connect his power to the punch. Structurally when someone throws this punch with full intent and understanding, that punch would have already been on the other side of his face by the time the body twists like that.  But even in this picture we can see the bow stance forming similar to like the video of me punching the tennis ball.







But back to what you stated.  Yep  100% correct all of those are correct especially this one, - move from wrist gate to elbow gate, then to shoulder gate.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! You can only get a small group of people who are willing to take that path.


Even if those guys didn't want to fight competitively, then the worst thing that they will get out of their training is knowing how to use what they train and be in great shape.


----------



## skribs (May 17, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Because stepping into the ring offers what "they want to do".  Just because you are in the ring doesn't mean you have to pound each other into pain. There's aspects to sparring that aren't about punching, kicking, and grappling.  For example, being able to ready body movement, using footwork, setting up a combination.  All of that aren't physical attacks.  But it helps people pull off the physical attacks.  Learning how to correctly read body movement in the ring can be applied to self-defense and mental health.  Being in the ring often provides a way for a person to learn how to manage their fears and adrenaline.
> 
> Most people think that sparring only offers bruises and pain and that's just not true.  I had a student who used to tell me that he only trains Martial arts for health.  He said this for 5 years whenever asked if he wanted to spar.  On the 6th year he tried it.  He was shocked and told me that he thought we would beat him up and hit him really hard.  I simply asked him.  "why would I do that?  that's not what you want from sparring"  That day he learned how to cover himself.  He got a chance to deal with someone resisting his attempts to attack, and he got a change to defend himself against someone who was trying to hit him.  He experienced that all without me blasting punching and trying hurt him.
> 
> The other thing he mentioned was that it took more cardio and physical effort than the thought, and that it was a good exercise.  As a teacher, I didn't change my focus of sparring which is to teach students how to fight.  What changed was his perception of sparring and doing that type of training.



When I hear the phrase "step into the ring", I'm not thinking of a sparring session.  I'm thinking of a bout.  If someone says "let's step in the ring" to me, I'm thinking they got a beef with me and want to hash it out.  Or maybe they don't think I'm a good fighter and want to show me they're a better fighter.  I wouldn't think of it as "let's go into a friendly light contact sparring match".



JowGaWolf said:


> You don't need to, but you can.



Just because you can, doesn't mean people want to.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> When I hear the phrase "step into the ring", I'm not thinking of a sparring session. I'm thinking of a bout. If someone says "let's step in the ring" to me, I'm thinking they got a beef with me and want to hash it out.


I guess that's where the confusion lies.  Thanks for sharing for me "Step into the ring" is simply a challenging but serious test of skills.  It's not a beat down.  But it's where the games and excuses like "I can't" or I'm not good enough" stop.

Sparring for me has always been friendly regardless of how intense I go.  With sparring, there is a level of trust that has to be there.  i don't spar with enemy or people I can't trust.  It's not something that everyone gets to do with me.  Sparring is training and there has to be a level of safety entrusted. 

I would never spar with someone who has beef with me.  That makes no sense to me and I know I get that perspective as a teen and adult dealing with the streets.  I would never give the same care to someone who I had beef with or who has beef with me.  The last time I officially had beef with someone, I was 14 and I almost walked out of the house with a knife with the expectation that I would need it in the fight that I thought I would be in.  But I put my big boy pants on and talked to the guy who was looking for me and we both discovered someone lied on me.  So when someone says they have beef with me, just know at that point I'm going to abandon all concern with the person I'm about to fight or think I will fight.

Oh correction, the last time someone officially had beef with me, was in my 30's when a street thug tried to gather some people to jump me at night after work.  I had something for him too and it wasn't a left or right hook either. That's what beef means to me. I wouldn't spar with that dude either.

 I guess it's like weapon training, would you really want to do weapon training with someone who has beef with you.  For me fighting or talking is for hashing out beef.  Sparring is for training.  With sparring there has to some form of respect. Or you can will always wonder if sparring session will end up like this.








skribs said:


> Or maybe they don't think I'm a good fighter and want to show me they're a better fighter.


 This can go either way.  There are many ways to show you are a better fighter than someone else that doesn't result in knocking someone's head off.  This also doesn't mean that  person has beef or mal intent.  Sometimes when you get stuff like this, the person just wants to test there skills against someone who they think they are on the same skill level with.  This is different than the Challenge fights from off the streets.



skribs said:


> Just because you can, doesn't mean people want to.


It also doesn't mean that they won't like once they try it.  You will be surprised what people like once they get over their incorrect perspective of what's involved.  People hear boxing and MMA and think that it's all about punching and getting punched everyday.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> My experience has been that it's either taught for self defense, sport, or both. I think self defense is a common application schools will profess.


I was talking about the last sentence, about not encouraging students to test their skills beyond the school.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> Look at combative programes as the basics and easy to learn skills. For self defence combatives, add in the non physical skills to that. and then look at other martial arts as the more complex and niche skills and the skills that require you to actually think to perform rather than what you can pull off under adreline or absed around that.


That sounds like you've bought into the marketing behind those "combatives" courses. From what I've seen, their movements are not any simpler than most other martial arts' approach. They may have fewer, and may lack the traditional drills (which are also not present in some other systems), but they're not inherently simpler. And any MA trained extensively actually moves beyond conscious thought for most folks.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 17, 2020)

skribs said:


> I think this is true both ways.  And if I had a student of mine that wanted to compete in MMA, I'd make sure he's aware of that and would be prepared to take the training necessary before jumping into the cage.
> 
> And I wouldn't even try to tell him I could teach him those skills.  I would be confident that what I've taught him should give him a good jumping off point when he goes to classes more suited for MMA (that the training wouldn't be completely foreign to him).


Agreed. I've taught wrestlers, but they were already wrestlers, just looking for a different approach to the concepts. I would never suggest to someone that my training would be sufficient preparation for any specific competition, if they're looking to win. Folks who train specifically for that competition should always have an advantage there, training specifically for the context.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 17, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> I also always say that those skilled in mma can certainly use those skills in self defense. I think it’s a silly argument that some people make that competitors can’t defend themselves on the street, that habits built on the rules of competition would leave them vulnerable in self defense. There may be a nugget of truth in that on the theoretical level, but it is far from insurmountable and for most people it would barely even be noticed. Those same skills can translate into self defense. But I think it becomes an emotional argument where people kind of get blinded and want to claim exclusive ownership to some realm of combat training. Mma people get competition, TMA people get self defense and street fighting, and the two shall not mix. But that is a silly position to take. These are skills that can overlap and translate and be applied in either direction.


Yeah, it's a common trope in the self-defense groups. Instructors often talk down about competition as if somehow the rules make basic fightings skills not work in another context. I see it sometimes when I go back to my old school, and it still boggles my mind.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> ive said before, im not a great fan of scenario training, it tends to be a very distorted reality so much that its no more '' real'' than ring fighting commonly a lot less( fat suits anybody)
> 
> the only substantial difference is you may very well start from a disadvantage, as the other guy getting to pick the moment time and mode of the attack, someone coming at you head on shouting the odds, is fine ( are fairly common), theirs little defence if someone smashes your head into the wall whilst your having a wee, no amount training other than training your bladder will help with that one,
> 
> multiple attackers are impossible to quantify or train for no matter what scenario you choose to run, there are only two defences, run faster than them or knock them over faster than they can reach you, you cant run scenarios for either as you dont know how fast they can run nor can you practice knocking them out/over, unless your actually going to knock them out, which means you run out of willing volunteers very quickly


Scenario training is just a chance to try some stuff out, really. If I think I can use my fantastic jab to keep a knife away if their arms are shorter, then that's a scenario I ought to play with. It's really just a way to introduce more variation, so skills can be generalized with more information (rather than by pure assumption). I don't like to spend a lot of time on them, except when I just want a new "game" to play - scenarios are just new rulesets to fight under.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

Forgive me if this video breaks the rules.  I'm hoping that this one would be an exception since its more like a informative video about what it is and what it's like.  Which is probably out of business now thanks to Covid.-19

Listen to what this persons says about her first experience and what they taught with the fitness boxing.  With the exception of freaking lights on and off, They did bag work, cardio, and weights. 






The kung fu school that I used to go to had a kung fu fitness class in the beginner years.  It was popular.  People thought it was actually just a fitness class, but it wasn't.  They were actually being taught basic kung fu techniques and the class had more cardio and a better workout than the actual kung fu classes.  Other than that, the only big difference is that they learned less kung fu and the instructor wasn't hard on them with perfection.  2 of the women who used to do that classes actually transition into kung fu classes and then sparring.  These two were totally against kung fu. They didn't care about it and they didn't like all of the form practice.  But none of that matter as long as they were getting a good work out doing the forms.   The same 2 people also participated in my Thursday sparring class and they loved it.  One talked a bunch of junk too.  Not sure where she got that from but she had fun punching other people, doing the drills, shadow boxing. working of foot work.  I have yet to have anyone try my sparring class and walk away saying that they didn't like it.  Beginner, intermediate, Advanced level.  they all enjoyed and felt good that they didn't die when they took punches.  Part of training was conditioning where we would punch and kick each other and we had to take it.  The only rule was to only give what the other person could take.  After a few months they were excited that their bodies harden which made it possible to take harder strikes.

I never had anyone complain and say that it was abusive and I never had anyone say they didn't like the hitting.  On the other hand I have had people leave because we didn't do enough sparring.  Point is I think you would be pleasantly surprised once people get of the idea that their body is somehow going to explode or that they are going to walk away with black eyes every time they spar.  That's like the worst selling point to be telling people about sparring.

Both of the women made the statement that they should have tried earlier but were afraid that they were going to get knocked out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> If I think I can use my fantastic jab to keep a knife away if their arms are shorter, then that's a scenario I ought to play with.


I don't like to play with any particular scenario. I let my guys to use plastic dagger to fight. Any body cut will end that round. Test for 15 rounds, and get the final result.

You either let your students to know the reality, or let them to believe that their MA skill is good enough to handle a knife without proper testing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 17, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like to play with any particular scenario. I let my guys to use plastic dagger to fight. Any body cut will end that round. Test for 15 rounds, and get the final result.
> 
> You either let your students to know the reality, or let them to believe that their MA skill is good enough to handle a knife without proper testing.


That's a scenario, in my book. They can get more specific ("What if the guy is holding the knife backhand?"), but they don't have to ("What if there's a knife?").


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That sounds like you've bought into the marketing behind those "combatives" courses. From what I've seen, their movements are not any simpler than most other martial arts' approach.


  That's what it sounds like to me too.  I don't know any skill set that didn't require someone to practice in order to be good at it, or to pull it off during intense situations.   If something was so natural that you can pull it off while panicking, then you probably already do it and there is no need to take a class in it.   But if there's a class for it then it will probably take a lot of practice to learn it and to be proficient in it.

And the "think"  part usually follows the general benefit of practice which is,, "The more you train  it, the least you have to manually think about how to do it."  Much  of the stuff that we do is like that.  If a person spars enough at a higher intensity, then that adrenaline also becomes easier to manage, but it's only because the person had practice with managing it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 17, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> What if the guy is holding the knife backhand?


Most of the CMA dagger skill is used backhand. My favor move is the backhand hold S cut. You first use a horizontal cut across your opponent's waist. When he dodges, you then cut his throat.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 18, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the CMA dagger skill is used backhand. My favor move is the backhand hold S cut. You first use a horizontal cut across your opponent's waist. When he dodges, you then cut his throat.


  I would like to see some take some soft Nerf blades and actually fight with Chinese daggers.  I think the training knives would still be too hard.  I've been stabbed with a rubber training knife before and it still hurts to be poked with it.

Oddly enough shock knives look fun to me lol


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Scenario training is just a chance to try some stuff out, really. If I think I can use my fantastic jab to keep a knife away if their arms are shorter, then that's a scenario I ought to play with. It's really just a way to introduce more variation, so skills can be generalized with more information (rather than by pure assumption). I don't like to spend a lot of time on them, except when I just want a new "game" to play - scenarios are just new rulesets to fight under.


 i did find a knife scenario useful, in that against my partner who was athletic, i was never fast enough to not get stabbed,but that then ended the lesson, if im ever faced with an athletic attacker with a knife im in serious trouble, there is no workable solution to it


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 18, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the CMA dagger skill is used backhand. My favor move is the backhand hold S cut. You first use a horizontal cut across your opponent's waist. When he dodges, you then cut his throat.


That wasn't a question for discussion; I was just showing an example of how scenario training might be more or less specific, depending upon the question being asked.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to see some take some soft Nerf blades and actually fight with Chinese daggers.  I think the training knives would still be too hard.  I've been stabbed with a rubber training knife before and it still hurts to be poked with it.
> 
> Oddly enough shock knives look fun to me lol


I've worked with a range of training weapons, including soft knives and thick-edged (unsharpenable) metal blades. There's some benefit to each. The pain from a hard training weapon is good for getting used to not wanting to let it in. Drills with the soft knife can go much harder, but too much of that tends to get students being too okay with the knife getting through, so they take more chances.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> i did find a knife scenario useful, in that against my partner who was athletic, i was never fast enough to not get stabbed,but that then ended the lesson, if im ever faced with an athletic attacker with a knife im in serious trouble, there is no workable solution to it


One important lesson from actual knife attacks is that in many cases you're not actually down with the first cut or stab. When someone gets through, you keep fighting until you get the weapon. The hope (some psychological evidence supports this, but no way to get direct data to be sure it generalizes this way) is that you develop the habit of not stopping just because you got stabbed, so it increases the chance you manage to fight this off and get a trip to a surgeon, rather than a morgue.


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> One important lesson from actual knife attacks is that in many cases you're not actually down with the first cut or stab. When someone gets through, you keep fighting until you get the weapon. The hope (some psychological evidence supports this, but no way to get direct data to be sure it generalizes this way) is that you develop the habit of not stopping just because you got stabbed, so it increases the chance you manage to fight this off and get a trip to a surgeon, rather than a morgue.


there not going to keep stabbing you, unless you've wondered on to the set of phyco, once or twice maybe, then they will look to leave, people who have just '' murdered you'' ( potentially ) dont tend to hang around for long,  but any way if your not fast enough to stop the first one or two then your not fast enough to stop subsequent attempts either, you can be stabbed 8 or 10 times in 2 or 3 seconds or so if they go full Hitchcock on you


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> there not going to keep stabbing you, unless you've wondered on to the set of physio, once or twice maybe, then they will look to leave, people who have just '' murdered you'' ( potentially ) dont tend to hang around for long,  but any way if your not fast enough to stop the first one or two then your not fast enough to stop subsequent attempts either, you can be stabbed 8 or 10 times in 3 seconds or so if they go full Hitchcock on you


The basic idea is that if you quit, they get to do whatever they want. That might mean leaving, but it might not. If someone does the sewing-machine stab without warning (pretty rare, so not something to train around a lot), there's not much you can do but try to trap that arm before they perforate too many times. Stabs are survivable, depending upon what gets cut.

Mostly, it's about developing the mentality of not stopping, like with getting punched (lots of folks seem startled the first time they take a good punch, and just stop in their tracks). Some of the folks I've talked to and read about who survived knife attacks said that at the time they just thought they'd been punched really hard. It wasn't until the fight was over that they realized they'd been stabbed. If all that changed was someone knowing there was a knife and realizing they'd been stabbed, they shouldn't just stop because of the stabbing.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> That sounds like you've bought into the marketing behind those "combatives" courses. From what I've seen, their movements are not any simpler than most other martial arts' approach. They may have fewer, and may lack the traditional drills (which are also not present in some other systems), but they're not inherently simpler. And any MA trained extensively actually moves beyond conscious thought for most folks.



I dont mean literally easier to learn, i mean its not like a 540 kick.     Compared to things like that.          The point and role of combatives is to basically give you the bare bones to fight against a untrained person though.    That doesnt require you learning 540 kicks.      And i just rememebred the word to decribe it, it focuses pretty much on the highest percentage moves for the most situations that you can do and retain the easiest and use the easiest when on adreniline.


Tradtional martial arts training/comabt sports would do what i wrote above, give you more complex and niche skills for situations and basically be the add on to it.


----------



## Headhunter (May 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont mean literally easier to learn, i mean its not like a 540 kick.     Compared to things like that.          The point and role of combatives is to basically give you the bare bones to fight against a untrained person though.    That doesnt require you learning 540 kicks.      And i just rememebred the word to decribe it, it focuses pretty much on the highest percentage moves for the most situations that you can do and retain the easiest and use the easiest when on adreniline.
> 
> 
> Tradtional martial arts training/comabt sports would do what i wrote above, give you more complex and niche skills for situations and basically be the add on to it.


How do you know what traditional martial arts or combat sports teach? You started training yet?


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like to play with any particular scenario. I let my guys to use plastic dagger to fight. Any body cut will end that round. Test for 15 rounds, and get the final result.
> 
> You either let your students to know the reality, or let them to believe that their MA skill is good enough to handle a knife without proper testing.



Have to agree with @gpseymour that that IS a scenario.

Aren't you also the guy who's suggested isolating techniques to use?  Or do I have you confused with someone else?


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont mean literally easier to learn, i mean its not like a 540 kick.     Compared to things like that.          The point and role of combatives is to basically give you the bare bones to fight against a untrained person though.    That doesnt require you learning 540 kicks.      And i just rememebred the word to decribe it, it focuses pretty much on the highest percentage moves for the most situations that you can do and retain the easiest and use the easiest when on adreniline.
> 
> 
> Tradtional martial arts training/comabt sports would do what i wrote above, give you more complex and niche skills for situations and basically be the add on to it.



540 kicks are only required in performance-based arts, if you do performances.  They're not even required of my demonstration team at my Taekwondo school.  Did you learn 540 kicks during the couple of months you did Taekwondo?  Or have you just seen guides online and assume that's all TMAs learn?


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont mean literally easier to learn, i mean its not like a 540 kick.     Compared to things like that.          The point and role of combatives is to basically give you the bare bones to fight against a untrained person though.    That doesnt require you learning 540 kicks.      And i just rememebred the word to decribe it, it focuses pretty much on the highest percentage moves for the most situations that you can do and retain the easiest and use the easiest when on adreniline.
> 
> 
> Tradtional martial arts training/comabt sports would do what i wrote above, give you more complex and niche skills for situations and basically be the add on to it.


 they very much seem to market themselves by pointing problems with tma, which their system of course doesn't have and wear combatty things and have a mean looking guy with big arms as the face of the product.

. they are of course being deceptive to the main part, their system are no better or worse than tma systems, infact they have far more similarities than differences, there are only so many variations on how to fight someone

tma does perhaps become over concerned with multiple variations and needless complexity, but only after you have learnt the basics, which are the very same basics the combat system will teach you, in 6 months you will be in much the same place no matter which you choose


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> The basic idea is that if you quit, they get to do whatever they want. That might mean leaving, but it might not. If someone does the sewing-machine stab without warning (pretty rare, so not something to train around a lot), there's not much you can do but try to trap that arm before they perforate too many times. Stabs are survivable, depending upon what gets cut.
> 
> Mostly, it's about developing the mentality of not stopping, like with getting punched (lots of folks seem startled the first time they take a good punch, and just stop in their tracks). Some of the folks I've talked to and read about who survived knife attacks said that at the time they just thought they'd been punched really hard. It wasn't until the fight was over that they realized they'd been stabbed. If all that changed was someone knowing there was a knife and realizing they'd been stabbed, they shouldn't just stop because of the stabbing.


i cant argue with ''dont stop'' as a learning point, unless your stopping them from leaving which may not be the best idea.

but knife training that doesnt establish that knife fighting/disarm is a game of speed and reactions is failing in its most basic requirement


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> they very much seem to market themselves by pointing problems with tma, which their system of course doesn't have and wear combatty things and have a mean looking guy with big arms as the face of the product.
> 
> . they are of course being deceptive to the main part, their system are no better or worse than tma systems, infact they have far more similarities than differences, there are only so many variations on how to fight someone
> 
> tma does perhaps become over concerned with multiple variations, but only after you have learnt the basics, which are the very same basics the combat system will teach you



Well the issue with said generalisations is they are generalisations.    people who teach combatives vary and obviously ability and skill varies and circculem varies based on what system they follow and what their infleunces are.    it has the same problems any fighting system can have.

Second point, thats simply broken down to they have a diffrent job.   Its made for a diffrent purpose to say comabt sports or some TMA.     There are a varity of sub types in it though like there are in the other catergories.     I thought i relayed that is basically the fundemental diffrence, they cover a diffrent priority list.     Like my first post i mentioned combatives then SD combatives to differentiate somone just teaching fighting as opposed to somone teaching the non physical skills for SD alongside the physical ones. 


this isnt a exact science and there are many words to call many things and its ultimately prefrence.   Like the exact meaning of RBSD is a good thing, its marketing why some lesser skilled persons have adopted calling their system that to basically ride off the populairty of who ever made the term.  (which were indeed quite compotent in the subject if i got the orginator(s) correct)   that appears in many things.

Edit:  I personally prefer calling things that say give you a small set of needed skills to cover the most situations as quickly as possible combatives.      For example military combative programes, krav maga, UC etc.   thats just my prefrence in terminology and to differentiate them from other types of training.


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> Well the issue with said generalisations is they are generalisations.    people who teach combatives vary and obviously ability and skill varies and circculem varies based on what system they follow and what their infleunces are.    it has the same problems any fighting system can have.
> 
> Second point, thats simply broken down to they have a diffrent job.   Its made for a diffrent purpose to say comabt sports or some TMA.     There are a varity of sub types in it though like there are in the other catergories.     I thought i relayed that is basically the fundemental diffrence, they cover a diffrent priority list.     Like my first post i mentioned combatives then SD combatives to differentiate somone just teaching fighting as opposed to somone teaching the non physical skills for SD alongside the physical ones.
> 
> ...


 how have you arrived at the conclusion that tma dont teach a small number of basics that you learn as quickly as possible ? kick, punch block throw etal

how do you feel that the basics in say KM differ from these ?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> how have you arrived at the conclusion that tma dont teach a small number of basics that you learn as quickly as possible ? kick, punch block throw etal
> 
> how do you feel that the basics in say KM differ from these ?



They do.     But what i mean is more, they may have fluff in some areas where as combatives in principle doesnt or be holding to some rules.    And they usually arent hybrids, in the sense you do striking and grappling and cover all aspects of fighting in the system or at least early on.

I have managed to find a apparant P1 KMG curriculum, and to highlight my point, they cover at least the basics in all aspects of fighting.   You get some hand strikes, some kicks, some knees, some elbows, breakfall, 360 defence and how that applies to some situations.    where as if we look at say boxing, for obvious reasons they only cover the 4 strikes you do in boxing.          Its more down to the scope of the system and context of it.  Krav maga obviously doesnt exist to put people in a boxing ring to fight in the sport of boxing, boxing doesnt exist to teach you self defence.  so fourth.      I honestly would deem it mute  to compare a system that exists to quickly give somone skills to effectively fight against a untrained attacker to somone who is competing proffesionally in a combat sport.  


thats basically my fundemental point, the scope of combatives is diffrent to martial arts.


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> They do.     But what i mean is more, they may have fluff in some areas where as combatives in principle doesnt or be holding to some rules.    And they usually arent hybrids, in the sense you do striking and grappling and cover all aspects of fighting in thr system or at least early on.
> 
> I have managed to find a apparant P1 KMG curriculum, and to highlight my point, they cover at least the basics in all aspects of fighting.   You get some hand strikes, some kicks, some knees, some elbows, breakfall, 360 defence and how that applies to some situations.    where as if we look at say boxing, for obvious reasons they only cover the 4 strikes you do in boxing.          Its more down to the scope of the system and context of it.  Krav maga obviously doesnt exist to put people in a boxing ring to fight in the sport of boxing, boxing doesnt exist to teach you self defence.  so fourth.      I honestly would deem it mute  to compare a system that exists to quickly give somone skills to effectively fight against a untrained attacker to somone who is competing proffesionally in a combat sport.
> 
> ...


 but youve picked out boxing that isnt tma,at least not by most defintions.

ive done multiple ma some briefly to get what i needed some for far longer.

i did judo, which was excellent for self defence, they generally cant hurt you if they are on the floor. i did jujitsu, that involved blocking throwing and punching and ive done kung fu and karate that does blocking then punching and then throwing.

they were all excellent at teaching basic and effective self defence skills, i met up with a lad last year that i had a fight with 35 years ago, he is still complaining that i knocked his front teeth out with an elbow when he grabbed me from behind

so i ask again, though as youve done neither tma or combative im not sure why im bothering, what skills would you learn in coms that you couldn't also get from tma in the same time frame

nb its MOOT not mute


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> They do.     But what i mean is more, they may have fluff in some areas where as combatives in principle doesnt or be holding to some rules.    And they usually arent hybrids, in the sense you do striking and grappling and cover all aspects of fighting in the system or at least early on.
> 
> I have managed to find a apparant P1 KMG curriculum, and to highlight my point, they cover at least the basics in all aspects of fighting.   You get some hand strikes, some kicks, some knees, some elbows, breakfall, 360 defence and how that applies to some situations.    where as if we look at say boxing, for obvious reasons they only cover the 4 strikes you do in boxing.          Its more down to the scope of the system and context of it.  Krav maga obviously doesnt exist to put people in a boxing ring to fight in the sport of boxing, boxing doesnt exist to teach you self defence.  so fourth.      I honestly would deem it mute  to compare a system that exists to quickly give somone skills to effectively fight against a untrained attacker to somone who is competing proffesionally in a combat sport.
> 
> ...



Have you trained that curriculum?  Or just found it?  Because what's on paper or on video of a curriculum is often not what you actually learn in class.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> so i ask again, though as youve done neither tma or combative im not sure why im bothering, what skills would you learn in coms that you couldn't also get from tma in the same time frame



Under revisement i am only reply to this point and it only needs this reply.  



Rat said:


> thats basically my fundemental point, the scope of combatives is diffrent to martial arts.



If you question if you should as the same question again, i question if i should repeat myself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Aren't you also the guy who's suggested isolating techniques to use?  Or do I have you confused with someone else?


Yes!

I'm the guy to suggest to test any MA skill (such as dagger S cut) for 15 rounds and record the result. If you have 6 months daily sport testing record, you will know exactly where your MA skill stand. When you do that, you are using the "sport" approach.


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> Under revisement i am only reply to this point and it only needs this reply.
> 
> 
> 
> If you question if you should as the same question again, i question if i should repeat myself.



Can someone translate this post into English, please?


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> Can someone translate this post into English, please?


if your going to point out his lack of ma knowledge/experiences he is going to take his bat and ball home, is a reasonably accurate translation


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> if your going to point out his lack of ma knowledge/experiences he is going to take his bat and ball home, is a reasonably accurate translation



That's more understandable, but I don't understand the metaphor.


----------



## jobo (May 18, 2020)

skribs said:


> That's more understandable, but I don't understand the metaphor.


what bat and ball ?

its a kid you cant win at cricket ( substitute base ball) who takes his bat and ball home, so its a metaphor for going off in a sulk and spoiling the game for others


----------



## skribs (May 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> what bat and ball ?
> 
> its a kid you cant win at cricket ( substitute base ball) who takes his bat and ball home, so its a metaphor for going off in a sulk and spoiling the game for others



Maybe when schools re-open, he could seek training instead of sulking.

Solve 2 birds with one stone.  We'll stop giving him a hard time, and he'd actually learn something.


----------



## drop bear (May 19, 2020)

jobo said:


> i did find a knife scenario useful, in that against my partner who was athletic, i was never fast enough to not get stabbed,but that then ended the lesson, if im ever faced with an athletic attacker with a knife im in serious trouble, there is no workable solution to it



I think there is a small chance that you can basically ambush them with striking and just continue to use that momentum. Before they can get their wits about them enough to stab you.


----------



## Martial D (May 19, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Today in China, people train MA only for self-defense and health. Even if they may have trained MA to the highest level, since they don't have real combat experience, if you ask them to step into a ring, it will be a totally suicide.
> 
> You may be the best of the best in China, but when you test your skill in the global level, you will find out that you are nobody.
> 
> ...


If you want to learn to fight, get a coach

If you want to learn self defense, get a lawyer.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 19, 2020)

Martial D said:


> If you want to learn to fight, get a coach.


What's the difference between a coach and a teacher?

A: What should I ...?
B: You should ask your Sifu.
C: You should ask your Sensei.
D: You should ask your coach.
E: You should ask your teacher.
F: ...


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think there is a small chance that you can basically ambush them with striking and just continue to use that momentum. Before they can get their wits about them enough to stab you.


He had a good read on that guy from the beginning, when he watched the guy put his hand in his pocket.  He kept the range close, which makes it difficult to for the other person to use the weapon.  After that it's all about not screwing up "the plan."   Things would have been different if the attacker created some distance and then pull out a knife.  The video is a good example of the reality of self-defense.

It went through the different phases of self-defense.  And it shows just how important the physical aspect is.  It clearly shows that being able to fight makes a difference in having good self-defense.  Sometimes talking and trying to deescalated the conflict will only go so far.   After that guy had is clock clean the situation wend down from 10 - 1 really quick and the conflict ended just as quick


----------



## Buka (May 19, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think there is a small chance that you can basically ambush them with striking and just continue to use that momentum. Before they can get their wits about them enough to stab you.



That was a nice combination.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2020)

Buka said:


> That was a nice combination.



Yeah. That was neat.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont mean literally easier to learn, i mean its not like a 540 kick.     Compared to things like that.          The point and role of combatives is to basically give you the bare bones to fight against a untrained person though.    That doesnt require you learning 540 kicks.      And i just rememebred the word to decribe it, it focuses pretty much on the highest percentage moves for the most situations that you can do and retain the easiest and use the easiest when on adreniline.
> 
> 
> Tradtional martial arts training/comabt sports would do what i wrote above, give you more complex and niche skills for situations and basically be the add on to it.


540 kicks aren't all that common in martial arts. Some systems have them, and they tend to serve one of two purposes from what I've seen: gymnastic performance (for schools that do performance martial arts demos) and physical challenge (something for folks to play with and enjoy after they've gotten the basics down, to keep it interesting and challenging). They are anomolies, and don't define the non-"combatives" systems. "Combatives" is mostly a marketing term used to say, "see, we're not doing martial arts with all that complexity that steals times". From what I've seen, there's not a huge difference once they've been around a while.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2020)

jobo said:


> i cant argue with ''dont stop'' as a learning point, unless your stopping them from leaving which may not be the best idea.
> 
> but knife training that doesnt establish that knife fighting/disarm is a game of speed and reactions is failing in its most basic requirement


Yeah, that last sentence is the thing. If it gives folks the idea that they'll be able to defend against a knife as well as they can a punch, they're being deceived by the training. In knife-defense training, you should get cut/stabbed (with a dull training knife, so not really) kind of a lot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> They do.     But what i mean is more, they may have fluff in some areas where as combatives in principle doesnt or be holding to some rules.    And they usually arent hybrids, in the sense you do striking and grappling and cover all aspects of fighting in the system or at least early on.
> 
> I have managed to find a apparant P1 KMG curriculum, and to highlight my point, they cover at least the basics in all aspects of fighting.   You get some hand strikes, some kicks, some knees, some elbows, breakfall, 360 defence and how that applies to some situations.    where as if we look at say boxing, for obvious reasons they only cover the 4 strikes you do in boxing.          Its more down to the scope of the system and context of it.  Krav maga obviously doesnt exist to put people in a boxing ring to fight in the sport of boxing, boxing doesnt exist to teach you self defence.  so fourth.      I honestly would deem it mute  to compare a system that exists to quickly give somone skills to effectively fight against a untrained attacker to somone who is competing proffesionally in a combat sport.
> 
> ...


That description ("You get some hand strikes, some kicks, some knees, some elbows, breakfall, 360 defence and how that applies to some situations.") can be applied to a lot of martial arts. So, what's the difference between those MA and "combatives"? What's the "fluff" you speak of?

(_Hint: I know what it is. I also know why it's there. And why it shows up in the long-term combatives programs, too. Do you? The marketing doesn't cover this._)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> Under revisement i am only reply to this point and it only needs this reply.
> 
> 
> 
> If you question if you should as the same question again, i question if i should repeat myself.


All you really said in that quote is "they're not covering the same stuff". But you haven't said what it is. Pretty much everything you said comes from the marketing used by the combatives programs. It's good marketing, and I think the folks who wrote it believe what they said. I also know it's not quite as true as they thought.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 20, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think there is a small chance that you can basically ambush them with striking and just continue to use that momentum. Before they can get their wits about them enough to stab you.


Good soft control of the knife hand before the striking, too.


----------



## drop bear (May 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> I dont mean literally easier to learn, i mean its not like a 540 kick.     Compared to things like that.          The point and role of combatives is to basically give you the bare bones to fight against a untrained person though.    That doesnt require you learning 540 kicks.      And i just rememebred the word to decribe it, it focuses pretty much on the highest percentage moves for the most situations that you can do and retain the easiest and use the easiest when on adreniline.
> 
> 
> Tradtional martial arts training/comabt sports would do what i wrote above, give you more complex and niche skills for situations and basically be the add on to it.



We take people off the street and put them in the ring in 12 weeks. 

This is achieved by training people in high percentage basic skills. 

The difference is we can watch the fights and review the systems we use to know what are high percentage basic skills. So that our method is more refined and more likely to work.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> All you really said in that quote is "they're not covering the same stuff". But you haven't said what it is. Pretty much everything you said comes from the marketing used by the combatives programs. It's good marketing, and I think the folks who wrote it believe what they said. I also know it's not quite as true as they thought.



Its more of a neuance.  Let me run off some comparisions.  if we comapre a comabtives programe to TMA, it covers diffrent things on merit it doest do kata.   If we comapre it to a striking or grappling only system, it covers diffrent things as its a hybrid.    the scope is meant to be for real life fighting in what ever context so its not comparible with combat sports 1:1 as thats where the nuance should change, but it has more in common with combat sports.


I dont mean something like, the punch is diffrent, but more like there isnt as much fluff around the punch as is the case in some systems and application is more based on what you should do in real life not in a ring.    This is the literal interpritation of combatives, as stated earlier RBSD has been coined by people as a marketing ploy and they dont teach good ssytems yet the orgininators of the term (to differentiate themselves from others) did/do good things. 

I am also not relaying one is defacto better than the other, just that the term combative should be applied to things more focusing on fighting in reality that the term MA or combat sports or TMA etc doesnt cover, with that there is some blurred lines.    And as with everythign there are those terrible systems that coin the term.  I am in general not citing the "win every fight with these 4 simple moves" system/advertimseent, but the good ones.

If we look at the start i basically stated comabtives is the basics and as applied to real life and usually only covers the basics.  (granted with exeptions and i belive several have added in more complex things for longevity)  That doesnt seem like im misselling it or over grandising it.   The model for learning in combatives tends to be inebtween showing up for classes and courses, you can get both or either done in the segment.


As for neuances,situational awareness, enviromental awareness, muiltiple attackers, weapons of oppertunity, carried weapons and adreline are the things that come to mind that these things would differ (if only slightly) in dealing with.   I think i have explained my viewpoint on sport and how you dont need half of that to be good in a sport as its a sterile enviroment. 


Is that a decent enough explination?

@drop bear   Not a direct response to yours, but it at least a partial reply or one that seems relivent to your post.

Addendum: In my posts and ramblings about military hand to hand systems (comabtives systems).  I have relayed some of the issues and how the scope of each changes.  They generally are either for aggression or last ditch situations, usually a mixture of the two.  In many places it just starts and ends at a bayonet course and sufficent training to run the course correctly.


----------



## skribs (May 20, 2020)

Rat said:


> Its more of a neuance.  Let me run off some comparisions.  if we comapre a comabtives programe to TMA, it covers diffrent things on merit it doest do kata.   If we comapre it to a striking or grappling only system, it covers diffrent things as its a hybrid.    the scope is meant to be for real life fighting in what ever context so its not comparible with combat sports 1:1 as thats where the nuance should change, but it has more in common with combat sports.
> 
> 
> I dont mean something like, the punch is diffrent, but more like there isnt as much fluff around the punch as is the case in some systems and application is more based on what you should do in real life not in a ring.    This is the literal interpritation of combatives, as stated earlier RBSD has been coined by people as a marketing ploy and they dont teach good ssytems yet the orgininators of the term (to differentiate themselves from others) did/do good things.
> ...



How the hell do you expect to know the nuance if you don't even train them?

Most people at least train one art before looking down on the others.  And those people make a lot of wrong assumptions.


----------



## skribs (May 20, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> All you really said in that quote is "they're not covering the same stuff". But you haven't said what it is. Pretty much everything you said comes from the marketing used by the combatives programs. It's good marketing, and I think the folks who wrote it believe what they said. I also know it's not quite as true as they thought.



You have to remember, he's read the pamphlet, so he's basically the equivalent of a Grand Master in those arts.

I have a coworker that's like this.  He'll read an article on the internet, and then he'll start talking about the subject as if he has a PHD level understanding of it.  He spews so much hot air he probably doesn't even have a heating bill during the winter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> Its more of a neuance.  Let me run off some comparisions.  if we comapre a comabtives programe to TMA, it covers diffrent things on merit it doest do kata.   If we comapre it to a striking or grappling only system, it covers diffrent things as its a hybrid.    the scope is meant to be for real life fighting in what ever context so its not comparible with combat sports 1:1 as thats where the nuance should change, but it has more in common with combat sports.


You're comparing a vague category to specific sub-parts of another category. There are many TMA that include both striking and grappling, to various extents. There are TMA that don't do forms (kata). There are some that do forms of such a type that we recognize some of what's in some combatives systems as "forms" (a "form" is just a drill with closely prescribed motions). Combat sports can include all of the most common bits of real-life fighting (MMA is a good example).



> I dont mean something like, the punch is diffrent, but more like there isnt as much fluff around the punch as is the case in some systems and application is more based on what you should do in real life not in a ring.    This is the literal interpritation of combatives, as stated earlier RBSD has been coined by people as a marketing ploy and they dont teach good ssytems yet the orgininators of the term (to differentiate themselves from others) did/do good things.


Yeah, there are TMA that have more fluff. There are also TMA that have no fluff. And there are "combatives" systems that have plenty of fluff in them, and make things too complex. Again, you're cherry-picking. Or, rather, you've been reading marketing that does this, and have bought into it. I could say Cheverolet makes better cars than Ford, because the Silverado is much better at towing than all those sedans Ford makes, but that would ignore that Chevy also makes sedans, and Ford also makes vehicles with utility.



> I am also not relaying one is defacto better than the other, just that the term combative should be applied to things more focusing on fighting in reality that the term MA or combat sports or TMA etc doesnt cover, with that there is some blurred lines.    And as with everythign there are those terrible systems that coin the term.  I am in general not citing the "win every fight with these 4 simple moves" system/advertimseent, but the good ones.


There are a lot of terms used for systems that purport to be more focused on real-life fighting. It's my experience that they are and aren't. How it's taught matters much more than the base system (assuming the system contains the fundamental components). I don't think you have a good grasp of what's in combatives, and what isn't.



> If we look at the start i basically stated comabtives is the basics and as applied to real life and usually only covers the basics.  (granted with exeptions and i belive several have added in more complex things for longevity)  That doesnt seem like im misselling it or over grandising it.   The model for learning in combatives tends to be inebtween showing up for classes and courses, you can get both or either done in the segment.


Unless you are defining the term to be used (in which case, "combatives" could apply to some rather more traditional arts, using your definition), I don't think you're making an accurate statement. You can't throw out the exceptions on one side and just use parts of the other that match your preconceived notion.



> As for neuances,situational awareness, enviromental awareness, muiltiple attackers, weapons of oppertunity, carried weapons and adreline are the things that come to mind that these things would differ (if only slightly) in dealing with.   I think i have explained my viewpoint on sport and how you dont need half of that to be good in a sport as its a sterile enviroment.
> 
> Is that a decent enough explination?


All of those things in your first sentence exist in a lot of TMA-based programs. As for the sport comment, that would assume folks are training only for sport. It's entirely possible to have a self-defense orientation and participate in sport, as well. Any MMA gym could do this pretty simply by starting to set up situational drills. And they'd likely have less fluff than most combatives.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 21, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You're comparing a vague category to specific sub-parts of another category. There are many TMA that include both striking and grappling, to various extents. There are TMA that don't do forms (kata). There are some that do forms of such a type that we recognize some of what's in some combatives systems as "forms" (a "form" is just a drill with closely prescribed motions). Combat sports can include all of the most common bits of real-life fighting (MMA is a good example).



There are indeed hybrid TMA and TMA that dont do kata or fluff, there are however plenty that do.     I didnt think i needed to be so explicit that there are hybrids in the TMA catorgory and not all of them do the same things 1:1.





gpseymour said:


> Yeah, there are TMA that have more fluff. There are also TMA that have no fluff. And there are "combatives" systems that have plenty of fluff in them, and make things too complex. Again, you're cherry-picking. Or, rather, you've been reading marketing that does this, and have bought into it. I could say Cheverolet makes better cars than Ford, because the Silverado is much better at towing than all those sedans Ford makes, but that would ignore that Chevy also makes sedans, and Ford also makes vehicles with utility.



As stated, in principle the meaning of combatives doesnt have fluff, that covers the ones that deviate from what combatives should be. (which i dont recognise as combatives anyway, but argument another day, this is the same as somone not doing your style right but uses its name or calls itself it)   I have not been cherry picking, if i was doing that i wouldnt have acknolwdged that the term comabtives has been adopted as a advertismeent ploy by some and that it also doesnt exist to teach you the basics and pretty much only them.            I have stated before a generalised argument and in principles exist.

the fun thing about cars is, if it does enough better than the comparision it is objectively better than the one you are comparing it to.  So, Ford can indeed be superior to any other company if it consistently turns out a superior product to its competion. Well estblished companies tend to base their marketing in some degree of truth. 



gpseymour said:


> There are a lot of terms used for systems that purport to be more focused on real-life fighting. It's my experience that they are and aren't. How it's taught matters much more than the base system (assuming the system contains the fundamental components). I don't think you have a good grasp of what's in combatives, and what isn't.



That there are, there are a ungodly amount of terms in this section and most exist to differentiate it from something else.   The RBSD point is good here, somone coined that term after dumping time into training realstically for self defence, they used that term to differentiate themselves from other SD, MA etc.    Then as that caught on, some people grabbed it for marketing which have blurred the point of its existance as its not a trademarked term and is free to use.   This has happened to pretty much everything, and in my view anything that is a martial skill is a martial art, that differs from other peoples view. 

That it does, and i have as much of a grasp of a made up word than you can that has no fixed definition.    By merit of it not being formal it can have diffrent meanings to everyone. (hell formal words can have that)      I do belive i have been clear and stated the term "comabtives" has been adopted by inferior systems and has been used as a marketing ploy.      Kind of like Karate was used as a marketing ploy in the U.S or so i hear by styles that wernt karate during its popularity boom.



gpseymour said:


> Unless you are defining the term to be used (in which case, "combatives" could apply to some rather more traditional arts, using your definition), I don't think you're making an accurate statement. You can't throw out the exceptions on one side and just use parts of the other that match your preconceived notion.



I was going through the thought process that some old martial arts could be accurately termed combatives, but there is a time stamp you need to consider here and sicne they are old or can be quite old you may want to term them something diffrent than contemporary systems.      For example i persoanlly belive HEMA stops in WW1-2, from that point on its contemporary systems or should be called something else and thats when the modern idea of combatives cropped up anyway with fairbairn and all that.          The old Koryu styles of basically learning a couple of cuts and a couple of blocks and doing that day in and day out seems indictive of being apt for the term comabtives if you dont place a date stamp on it or other criteria.    I would how ever, rather call them Koryu or what ever their style is as i prefer keeping comabtives to be a contemporary term, that begins in circa WW1-2.   

Tieing in to the previous statement of no fixed definion, pretty much everyone who does combatives has their own meaning of it.   I will have to think of a good defining term as i generally think the Urban Comabtives definition is a good one if i recall it correctly.   But i am adament that combatives can only refer to contemporary systems, not like Karate revisted for modernity.  (you could how ever use karate as a base for some of it if you wanted to)



gpseymour said:


> All of those things in your first sentence exist in a lot of TMA-based programs. As for the sport comment, that would assume folks are training only for sport. It's entirely possible to have a self-defense orientation and participate in sport, as well. Any MMA gym could do this pretty simply by starting to set up situational drills. And they'd likely have less fluff than most combatives.



They probbly do, but i have expressed a time relivent definition as well.  Karate is Karate and dates back a fair bit, it doesnt seem apt to call that Comabtives unless they fundmeentally change it from being karate so its no longer karate.

My sport comment would presume they soley do that, or they would fall under a another bracket or several brackets including sport, but not restricted to it.     and milage of that may vary, Comabtives is by its nature a hybrid and thus MMA anyway.   (the U.S armies programe has switched to a more MMA based training anyway, if you can call it that)



I think we can agree, this subject is a clusterfuck of terms and piggybacking off other systems sucess that pioneered terms and gave them popularty etc.


----------



## jobo (May 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> We take people off the street and put them in the ring in 12 weeks.
> 
> This is achieved by training people in high percentage basic skills.
> 
> The difference is we can watch the fights and review the systems we use to know what are high percentage basic skills. So that our method is more refined and more likely to work.


well no, you dont take people off the street, those are weasel words that give the wrong impression.

what you do is take people who have walked through the door of an mma gym, so its already a self selecting population, that is likely to remove all those hard cases from your sample size


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> well no, you dont take people off the street, those are weasel words that give the wrong impression.
> 
> what you do is take people who have walked through the door of an mma gym, so its already a self selecting population, that is likely to remove all those hard cases from your sample size



I dont think you comprehend the superior buisness model of press gangs.


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> This is the example of the mistake that many people make.  Learning to fight doesn't have to be separate from self defense or being safe.  You can do both and reap the benefits of both.  It doesn't have to be Either OR.
> 
> This is not 2 separate images.  It is one.  One color is training to fight and the other color is training that isn't about fighting but technique and mental wellness.  There's no rule in Martial Arts that doesn't say you can't include self-defense training as part of the aspect of fighting.
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I think being able to fight is a fine set of skills to have, because why not?  I don't need to know how to make my own beer or soap... plenty of great beer and soap around.  But it's great to know how to do those things.   

Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low.  And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way.  Simply put, people are assaulted who know martial arts and who do not.  People are killed who know martial arts and who do not.  People survive assaults who know martial arts and who do not.

I've actually gone to the trouble in past threads of pulling the latest statistics from the FBI website, and also from various states.  I don't have time to do that again, but I think if you do, it's pretty informative.  What data suggests is that there are pockets of violence.  The example I use often are coeds on college campuses.  The rate of sexual assault is downright alarming.  But even here, we're not talking about muggings, fights, and murders.  We're talking about date rape, sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and things of that nature.  Even here, where the likelihood of sexual assault is alarming, learning to fight is like the lowest priority.  What I mean is, a young female who can fight, who also has low self esteem, is naive, and prone to self destructive behavior in order to feel accepted, who also goes to parties alone, drinks too much or doesn't guard her drink from being tampered with...  yeah, for her, being able to fight might be the difference.  But if you address all of that other stuff, the mentals (as Marshawn Lynch would say) and the behaviors... the fighting skills become irrelevant.

And that situation above is a particularly high risk situation.  

To sum up, fighting skills are great to have.  If you want them, you need to find a school where you will develop actual fighting skills, which means you'll be fighting.  Learning to fight is not easy or comfortable.

But learning to fight isn't likely the thing that is going to make you more safe. Rather, it will be the last thing that helps you get out of an unsafe situation... very likely one you could have avoided at several decision points.

Which is good news, because it means that impractical martial art one is taking is just for funsies, and you'll probably never need to find out whether you learned useful skills.


----------



## jobo (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think being able to fight is a fine set of skills to have, because why not?  I don't need to know how to make my own beer or soap... plenty of great beer and soap around.  But it's great to know how to do those things.
> 
> Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low.  And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way.  Simply put, people are assaulted who know martial arts and who do not.  People are killed who know martial arts and who do not.  People survive assaults who know martial arts and who do not.
> 
> ...


 this is bizarre steve, you want to use probabilities to support your argument whilst ignoring those against, it is no doubt true that you can cut your likely exposure to violence by behaviour change, there are then quality of life issues if your so paranoid you avoid places that you would other wise like to attend.

but being paranoid enough to live your life round this issue is healthy but being parotid enough to take SD classes is unhealthy ?

but conversely although the chance of violent assault may be low, its also very unlikely if it does occur that it will be perpetrated by someone with any notable fighting skills, because those are significantly rare in society, so there is no reason to assume any attacker will be more skilled then you have managed through you class


----------



## skribs (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> There are indeed hybrid TMA and TMA that dont do kata or fluff, there are however plenty that do.     I didnt think i needed to be so explicit that there are hybrids in the TMA catorgory and not all of them do the same things 1:1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you put half the effort into a class as you put into these posts, you'd probably be quite the martial artist by now.


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> this is bizarre steve, you want to use probabilities to support your argument whilst ignoring those against, it is no doubt true that you can cut your likely exposure to violence by behaviour change, there are then quality of life issues if your so paranoid you avoid places that you would other wise like to attend.
> 
> but being paranoid enough to live your life round this issue is healthy but being parotid enough to take SD classes is unhealthy ?
> 
> but conversely although the chance of violent assault may be low, its also very unlikely if it does occur that it will be perpetrated by someone with any notable fighting skills, because those are significantly rare in society, so there is no reason to assume any attacker will be more skilled then you have managed through you class


I don't think I ignore probabilities at all.  If I do, it's not intentional.  There is a lot of data on assault rates, mortality rates, etc.  I've also seen at least one well constructed study on a self defense program that had a significant positive effect where physical skills were not prioritized.  But like we don't have good data on how many people who are assaulted have studied martial arts, I don't think we have good data on how many criminals have training, either. 

Regarding paranoia, if you're just talking about a consumer wanting something, I say go for it.  But as I said, if you want to learn to fight, and are being taught "self defense oriented" something or other, chances are you're being sold a bill of goods.  So, wanting to learn to fight is great, if that's what you want.  Go for it.  If you want to learn to use spirit crystals to channel your inner chi and whatever else, have fun.   I just think you're being taken advantage of, and that the self defense training thing is mostly a racket, like GOOP wellness.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> There are indeed hybrid TMA and TMA that dont do kata or fluff, there are however plenty that do.


Describe what you mean by “fluff” and give me examples of that fluff, in specific TMA systems.  I want to know to what you are referring, before I comment further.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 21, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Describe what you mean by “fluff” and give me examples of that fluff, in specific TMA systems.  I want to know to what you are referring, before I comment further.



For context, we are just going to go with combat.   In other words if its not directly related and 100% accurate to devoloping skill to fight in a realstic setting.     That meaning, not in a ring, but in the real world.

For the above, i would put any kata (not paired as i think that would be fair to consider it synonomous with drill) as fluff, any spirtual action as fluff and anything not related to either fitness or fighting in a direct role as fluff.                 That seems like a fair definition/statement for the criteria of fluff?


For a specfic TMA, TKD, anything to do with kata would be fluff in my eyes, and anything to do with the sport of TKD would be fluff in my eyes, that doesnt pertain  to IRL fighting.   ie a straight punch isnt fluff, but teaching somone not to punch the face because WTF rules would be.   (yes i am going to call it the WTF, it will always be the WTF to me)

If you need further eleboration just ask.


----------



## jobo (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> I don't think I ignore probabilities at all.  If I do, it's not intentional.  There is a lot of data on assault rates, mortality rates, etc.  I've also seen at least one well constructed study on a self defense program that had a significant positive effect where physical skills were not prioritized.  But like we don't have good data on how many people who are assaulted have studied martial arts, I don't think we have good data on how many criminals have training, either.
> 
> Regarding paranoia, if you're just talking about a consumer wanting something, I say go for it.  But as I said, if you want to learn to fight, and are being taught "self defense oriented" something or other, chances are you're being sold a bill of goods.  So, wanting to learn to fight is great, if that's what you want.  Go for it.  If you want to learn to use spirit crystals to channel your inner chi and whatever else, have fun.   I just think you're being taken advantage of, and that the self defense training thing is mostly a racket, like GOOP wellness.



youve thrown that in to a tiz by using the word criminal, whilst attacking you may indeed be a criminal act, its totally wrong to suggest the most likely perps are career criminals, rather than balloons with to must beer or testosterone or just straight out nut jobs.

 how much training do criminals have, well not much generally, it takes discipline which is not a common trait in street villains, if they had that amount of motivation they would find a better line of work, even if it was a more sophisticated type of villainy, protection rackets pays much better than hanging about looking to deprive passersby of their wallet in order to buy their drugs. the idea that mugger are putting two hours in at the MMA gym before prowling the streets nickling and dimming, is frankly laughably


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> youve thrown that in to a tiz by using the word criminal, whilst attacking you may indeed be a criminal act, its totally wrong to suggest the most likely perps are career criminals, rather than balloons with to must beer or testosterone or just straight out nut jobs.


Jobo.  Hey, I've read this sentence three times, and I don't think it's English.  Can you help me out by telling me what you think I said?  That might be the rosetta stone to decoding your message above.  I know you get worked up when you think you're being ignored.  But dude, I honestly can't make heads or tails of this. 


> how much training do criminals have, well not much generally, it takes discipline which is not a common trait in street villains, if they had that amount of motivation they would find a better line of work, even if it was a more sophisticated type of villainy, protection rackets pays much better than hanging about looking to deprive passersby of their wallet in order to buy their drugs. the idea that mugger are putting two hours in at the MMA gym before prowling the streets nickling and dimming, is frankly laughably


I can't be sure, but if you're saying most street villains will have little or no fighting skills, I don't know.  Maybe that's true.  Whether true or not, I think it's much more likely that a woman is sexually assaulted than mugged. Statistically, we can see that this is true.  Whether the "perp" is trained or not seems like a red herring, in that we can't know because the data isn't available.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low. And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way.


To be honest I don't think anyone has recorded that data, where they ask  that questions. For example, no one who gets into an argument is asked, did your ability to fight help you get out of that situation.  Because that's the question along with others tht would need to be asked.  Questions like, how did your fighting skills help you in non-physical assaults? would need to be asked.  I know with negotiations, it's usually the person with the physical , mental, or financial might that benefits from the talking.



Steve said:


> Statistically, however, your chances of being randomly assaulted are extremely low. And in those encounters, there is nothing to suggest that knowing how to fight impacts your chances of survival in any way.


  It doesn't matter if you are randomly assaulted or not.  There's enough people out there who either know you or know of you that will assault you.  Randomly assaulted is for stuff that comes out of the blue, even school shootings aren't "random".  That person didn't "randomly" pick a target.  He made everyone in building a target.  Random to me is a bullet coming through the window or someone punching me by accident.  Winning the lotto is random.   So the way I see it is, that the reason random assaults are low, is because most assaults are targeted.



Steve said:


> What I mean is, a young female who can fight, who also has low self esteem, is naive, and prone to self destructive behavior in order to feel accepted, who also goes to parties alone, drinks too much or doesn't guard her drink from being tampered with... yeah, for her, being able to fight might be the difference.


From my experience, usually it's the people who know how to fight who have a strong self-esteem.  There's a lot of character building when it comes to learning how to fight.  The training that one goes through will force you to come to terms with the realities of your weaknesses, your egos, your insecurities, and self-doubt. 

[/QUOTE]Again there's more to learning how to fight than just physically hitting the other person.  There are other high quality life lessons, self-improvements, and reality checks that come with the training that is done.  If a person learns how to fight and all he got out of it was how to punch and kick someone , then he probably wasn't training, he was just learning how to be hit and hit back.  His training was probably the exception of the norm and not a representation of the norm. 



Steve said:


> But learning to fight isn't likely the thing that is going to make you more safe. Rather, it will be the last thing that helps you get out of an unsafe situation... very likely one you could have avoided at several decision points.


  Not sure why everyone thinks they can always get out of unsafe situations by talking or that physical assaults can always be avoided, or that the "several decision points' won't quickly fly by you.  All it takes is for 1 decision to void the 6 other options that you think you'll have to get out of an unsafe situation.  Do some hard sparring and you'll learn this really quick.  1 bad move can screw up all of that other stuff you originally thought you would have the opportunity to do before the fight.


----------



## jobo (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Jobo.  Hey, I've read this sentence three times, and I don't think it's English.  Can you help me out by telling me what you think I said?  That might be the rosetta stone to decoding your message above.  I know you get worked up when you think you're being ignored.  But dude, I honestly can't make heads or tails of this.
> I can't be sure, but if you're saying most street villains will have little or no fighting skills, I don't know.  Maybe that's true.  Whether true or not, I think it's much more likely that a woman is sexually assaulted than mugged. Statistically, we can see that this is true.  Whether the "perp" is trained or not seems like a red herring, in that we can't know because the data isn't available.


 a'' tiz'' is a state of confusion, a ''nut job'' is a psychopath, the rest you can grasp if you try. ive put the time in to learn ''american idioms''

no i didn't say they will have no fighting skills, i said its extremely unlikely that they have received any experts instruction on their fighting skills,

which means the skills they may or may not have will be basic at best, quite probably the same ones they left primary school with. (thats elementary school for you)

and no, women are substantially more likely to have their bag snatched or other wise deprived of their possessions, than be sexually assaulted , there are dozen of '' bag snatches'' in this conurbation every day, the number of sexual assaults is thankfully some magnitudes lower, it may of course be different in your neck of the woods, though i doubt it

women tend not to get '' mugged'' as every thing of value tends to be in a bag they can easily be deprived of , when trans-versing a dodgy area a man bag  is a good idea as they will grab and run only to find its full of old news papers


----------



## skribs (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> For context, we are just going to go with combat. In other words if its not directly related and 100% accurate to devoloping skill to fight in a realstic setting. That meaning, not in a ring, but in the real world.



The majority of the skills you learn in the ring can be used in the real world as well.  Plenty of people have effectively used pretty much every sport art I can think of in self defense.  Off the top of my head, I can think of videos I've seen of guys using Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, Karate, and Taekwondo to successfully win a street fight or fend off an attacker.  

And as much as I argue with people like @Martial D and @drop bear as to the efficacy of non-sport arts, it's impossible to deny the benefits you get from sparring and competition.  The people who spar the best are usually those in sport arts, where they test their skills in pursuit of a tangible goal (victory in the sport) instead of a nebulous goal (preparedness for a street fight).  

Even if you don't compete, sparring against competent opponents is important to learn how to manage distance and timing, how to set up your opponents, and how to use your techniques effectively.  The biggest criticism of a lot of the "no-fluff" combatives styles that you're proposing are that they don't spar, or they only spar with people trained in the combatives school, where bad habits might fester (because nobody in the school knows how to take advantage of them).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2020)

skribs said:


> they only spar with people trained in the combatives school, where bad habits might fester (because nobody in the school knows how to take advantage of them).


Agree! In this clip, many successful clinch can be established that can change a striking game into a wrestling game. Since both are strikers, they don't have intention to change it into a wrestling game.

But if your opponent is a wrestler, when he changes it into a wrestling game, do you have enough experience to change it back into a striking game again (such as to break apart the clinch)?

For example, at 0.34, 0.42, a head lock has been established.


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> To be honest I don't think anyone has recorded that data, where they ask  that questions. For example, no one who gets into an argument is asked, did your ability to fight help you get out of that situation.  Because that's the question along with others tht would need to be asked.  Questions like, how did your fighting skills help you in non-physical assaults? would need to be asked.  I know with negotiations, it's usually the person with the physical , mental, or financial might that benefits from the talking.


Agreed.  It's just not something we know.  Though we do know anecdotally that of the folks who survive violent encounters, some are fit and some are not fit, some train martial arts (because they credit that training with their safety) and some don't.  How much of one vs another is impossible to guess.





> It doesn't matter if you are randomly assaulted or not.  There's enough people out there who either know you or know of you that will assault you.  Randomly assaulted is for stuff that comes out of the blue, even school shootings aren't "random".  That person didn't "randomly" pick a target.  He made everyone in building a target.  Random to me is a bullet coming through the window or someone punching me by accident.  Winning the lotto is random.   So the way I see it is, that the reason random assaults are low, is because most assaults are targeted.


I think that's true, too, but I'm not sure you and I have the same things in mind.  I think of people who would benefit from actual, practical self defense, and I think of people who are in some specific, high risk situations. 





> From my experience, usually it's the people who know how to fight who have a strong self-esteem.  There's a lot of character building when it comes to learning how to fight.  The training that one goes through will force you to come to terms with the realities of your weaknesses, your egos, your insecurities, and self-doubt.


I know a lot of people.  Most of them have high self esteem, but very few of them are trained fighters.  Conversely, I know some very insecure people who are skilled fighters.  The two CAN be related, but aren't intrinsically related.  Correlation vs causation.  Simply stated, learning to actually fight can be good for a person's self esteem, but learning to be good at anything is good for a person's self esteem.  Not just fighting. 

Learning to be good at anything is often great self defense, too.  Because people who are learning things are generally spending time constructively and as part of a larger community of like minded people.  That's a great way to avoid destructive and potentially high risk behaviors. 


> Again there's more to learning how to fight than just physically hitting the other person.  There are other high quality life lessons, self-improvements, and reality checks that come with the training that is done.  If a person learns how to fight and all he got out of it was how to punch and kick someone , then he probably wasn't training, he was just learning how to be hit and hit back.  His training was probably the exception of the norm and not a representation of the norm.


Completely agree, but this is also a correlation vs causation issue.  I think learning how to do anything well checks many of the same boxes.  





> Not sure why everyone thinks they can always get out of unsafe situations by talking or that physical assaults can always be avoided, or that the "several decision points' won't quickly fly by you.  All it takes is for 1 decision to void the 6 other options that you think you'll have to get out of an unsafe situation.  Do some hard sparring and you'll learn this really quick.  1 bad move can screw up all of that other stuff you originally thought you would have the opportunity to do before the fight.


I'm not suggesting that folks can just talk their way out of a bad situation.  I'm saying that the real world odds of an average person finding him or herself in that situation are exceedingly low. And if you find yourself needing to fight your way out of a situation, it's very likely you made a series of poor decisions to get you to that point.


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2020)

skribs said:


> You have to remember, he's read the pamphlet, so he's basically the equivalent of a Grand Master in those arts.
> 
> I have a coworker that's like this.  He'll read an article on the internet, and then he'll start talking about the subject as if he has a PHD level understanding of it.  He spews so much hot air he probably doesn't even have a heating bill during the winter.



What qualifies you on the subject of self defence fighting?


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> a'' tiz'' is a state of confusion, a ''nut job'' is a psychopath, the rest you can grasp if you try. ive put the time in to learn ''american idioms''
> 
> no i didn't say they will have no fighting skills, i said its extremely unlikely that they have received any experts instruction on their fighting skills,
> 
> ...


Question for you and anyone else.  Is a bag snatch a self defense situation?  Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime.  But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger?  Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.

Another question that comes to mind.  Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> well no, you dont take people off the street, those are weasel words that give the wrong impression.
> 
> what you do is take people who have walked through the door of an mma gym, so its already a self selecting population, that is likely to remove all those hard cases from your sample size



No we take people before they walk though the door of a mma gym because the process is often done via the internet.

To clarify. We don't kidnap random people and force them to fight. They all have chosen to be there. Sorry if you had the wrong impression.

And my point is that the sample size is much more diverse than I would have expected. And is much less self selecting.


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Question for you and anyone else.  Is a bag snatch a self defense situation?  Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime.  But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger?  Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.
> 
> Another question that comes to mind.  Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?



Yes it is and yes it is dangerous.

I wonder how many people have dealt with one? Because I have responded to a few.


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> Its more of a neuance.  Let me run off some comparisions.  if we comapre a comabtives programe to TMA, it covers diffrent things on merit it doest do kata.   If we comapre it to a striking or grappling only system, it covers diffrent things as its a hybrid.    the scope is meant to be for real life fighting in what ever context so its not comparible with combat sports 1:1 as thats where the nuance should change, but it has more in common with combat sports.
> 
> 
> I dont mean something like, the punch is diffrent, but more like there isnt as much fluff around the punch as is the case in some systems and application is more based on what you should do in real life not in a ring.    This is the literal interpritation of combatives, as stated earlier RBSD has been coined by people as a marketing ploy and they dont teach good ssytems yet the orgininators of the term (to differentiate themselves from others) did/do good things.
> ...



You impression of intent is kind of correct. But with martial arts intent does not always equal application. 

So combatives as you describe it is kind of true. But the training tools used to achieve that mission statement may start to branch out.

So for example one of our fundamental elements to put a person in a ring is fitness. Which while it doesn't need to contain any fighting technique. It directly effects fighting. 

Now one interesting thing I have learned from martial arts is if I just train technique it takes a very long time to be able to apply that in a fight. 

Even though intuitively I would think if I focused on that one thing I would get better at doing that thing. Than if I split my focus on other things. It is not always practically true. 

It is also why krav maga is generally pretty terrible even though intuitively it should be a faster way to learn basic skills.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm saying that the real world odds of an average person finding him or herself in that situation are exceedingly low.


Many of the skill sets that you learn when training to fight (non professionally) can actually be used to avoid fights.  In my opinion I think it works better and I'm just speaking from my own personal experience from the numerous confrontations that I've been that didn't result in me being in a fight.  But I know for a fake that I used some of the same skill sets from fighting to stop the confrontation without violence.


----------



## jobo (May 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> No we take people before they walk though the door of a mma gym because the process is often done via the internet.
> 
> To clarify. We don't kidnap random people and force them to fight. They all have chosen to be there. Sorry if you had the wrong impression.
> And my point is that the sample size is much more diverse than I would have expected. And is much less self selecting.



they still choose to walk through the door at some point, dont they?,

how can you possibly say its a representative sample of the general population ?because it clearly can not be


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2020)

jobo said:


> they still choose to walk through the door at some point, dont they?,
> 
> how can you possibly say its a representative sample of the general population ?because it clearly can not be



Because people walk through a door?

If I was to do a real scientific study with a random sample. People may have to walk through a door. 

It isn't a deal breaker.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Question for you and anyone else. Is a bag snatch a self defense situation? Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime. But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger? Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.


While I haven't personally had to deal with this  "thank god"  I have seen video of some really bad ones.  People getting dragged down steps, ran over by cars. etc.  It's an aggressive act and criminals get charge for that aggression.  The big thing where I live is snatching bags off car seats while people are getting gas.   This is more common than the traditional bag snatches.






As for the man bag.  I don't know what that is.  I know what it was 50 something years ago, but I don't know what they consider a "man bag" today.


----------



## Steve (May 21, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> While I haven't personally had to deal with this  "thank god"  I have seen video of some really bad ones.  People getting dragged down steps, ran over by cars. etc.  It's an aggressive act and criminals get charge for that aggression.  The big thing where I live is snatching bags off car seats while people are getting gas.   This is more common than the traditional bag snatches.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I used the term "man bag" because Jobo did.  I presume it's just a bag being carried by a man. 

The car thing is common here, too.  Another one is guys stealing the purse while the woman puts groceries in the back of the car.  That sort of thing.  

So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go.  In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> For context, we are just going to go with combat.   In other words if its not directly related and 100% accurate to devoloping skill to fight in a realstic setting.     That meaning, not in a ring, but in the real world.
> 
> For the above, i would put any kata (not paired as i think that would be fair to consider it synonomous with drill) as fluff, any spirtual action as fluff and anything not related to either fitness or fighting in a direct role as fluff.                 That seems like a fair definition/statement for the criteria of fluff?
> 
> ...


Alright, I appreciate the clarification. 

I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.  You've been here long enough to have been through this debate before.  If you want to base your opinion on your own ignorance in spite of the education that others here have given you on this topic, that's fine with me.  It's unfortunate you don't even know what it is you are missing out on, you can't recognize the richness in training methodologies even to acknowledge that which you don't personally have an interest in, yet is still effective for those who practice it.

so, good for you.


----------



## drop bear (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> I used the term "man bag" because Jobo did.  I presume it's just a bag being carried by a man.
> 
> The car thing is common here, too.  Another one is guys stealing the purse while the woman puts groceries in the back of the car.  That sort of thing.
> 
> So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go.  In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?



No because you are placing the entirety of your safety on the ethics of a criminal.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 21, 2020)

If you don't test your skill in the ring daily, what kind of chance do you have when you step in the ring the 1st time?


----------



## jobo (May 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Because people walk through a door?
> 
> If I was to do a real scientific study with a random sample. People may have to walk through a door.
> 
> It isn't a deal breaker.


 because they make a decision to go to an mma, gym, 99.999999999999991% of people dont make that decision ! they are therefore not a typical cross section of the population, in fact the extreme polar opposite of being a Representative sample you cant therefore project what they achieve on to what the rest of the population could achieve, if they were to go to an mma gym. which they never will as they are not that type of person

lets explain, there a pub half a mile from me, two hit men walked in to execute someone they had a contract on, this plan came unstuck when they pulled out their guns, as then half the people in the pub pulled out their own gun and shot the hit men dead.

that doesn't mean everyone in this town has a gun, or every pub has guns in it, it was a self selecting population, no one in their right mind who wasn't an armed gangster would go in that pub, as it was full of armed gangsters, a fact not appreciated by the hitmen as they were out of towners


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> There are indeed hybrid TMA and TMA that dont do kata or fluff, there are however plenty that do.     I didnt think i needed to be so explicit that there are hybrids in the TMA catorgory and not all of them do the same things 1:1.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems, then, that your position is that "combatives" is a specific subset with a specific definition, but shouldn't  be used where another term can be applied, instead. So, there are some you'd consider possibly "combatives", but won't because they're not new. Most of those are, in fact, TMA, which is the problem with your earlier assertion. You're pretty much, in this post, saying what I am saying about this: there's a lot of overlap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2020)

Rat said:


> For context, we are just going to go with combat.   In other words if its not directly related and 100% accurate to devoloping skill to fight in a realstic setting.     That meaning, not in a ring, but in the real world.
> 
> For the above, i would put any kata (not paired as i think that would be fair to consider it synonomous with drill) as fluff, any spirtual action as fluff and anything not related to either fitness or fighting in a direct role as fluff.                 That seems like a fair definition/statement for the criteria of fluff?
> 
> ...


So, what about things like general agility drills? Those aren't directly applicable to combat - they are one level (at least) removed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Question for you and anyone else.  Is a bag snatch a self defense situation?  Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime.  But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger?  Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.


Good question. That'd depend how folks look at it. I wouldn't say it's a self-defense situation, though the non-physical skills you talk about (what I classify as "self-protection") would apply to helping prevent that. And some of the physical fighting skills might be useful if only to keep from getting injured as they yank the bag away, but also if you decided you wanted to keep that fantastic bag.



> Another question that comes to mind.  Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?


Wasn't there a SNL skit with that theme, using dressing in a kids' sailor costume or something similar? Or did I just imagine that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> They all have chosen to be there.


 
and



> And is much less self selecting.



are conflicting statements, it seems to me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go. In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?


That's where I was going with my response. Of course, if the snatch is only partly successful (bag doesn't come free), the situation changes pretty quickly and could turn into what I'd consider a self-defense situation.


----------



## jobo (May 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> Question for you and anyone else.  Is a bag snatch a self defense situation?  Clearly, no one wants their bag snatched, and obviously, it's a crime.  But if a guy takes your bag and runs away, are you in any danger?  Seems to me like you wouldn't be, unless you tried to keep your bag.
> 
> Another question that comes to mind.  Is carrying a "man bag" a self defense technique?


well of course it is, people do hold on to them and get hurt, and the loss of the bag, money, car keys train ticket, CC  phone etc can in its self put you in a bad situation, if it leaves you stranded

 the '' advice is to put them over your head so they cant be taken easily, where better advice to protect yourself is to have no valuables in it and let it go, just as not walking about waving a thousand quid I phone about is a self defence technique.  just as dressing the '' right way'' is SD, if carrying a manbag is a good idea depends on context, it could make you a target where you otherwise wouldn't be, but if the way you are dressed would make you a target anyway, its better to give them a low value target, lap tops bags however are always a bad idea

if im out of town i carry a nearly empty wallet, no cc, no DL, and a cheapo phone just enough to make them go away pleased with their haul, every thing else is in my sock or back in the hotel


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 22, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It is also why krav maga is generally pretty terrible even though intuitively it should be a faster way to learn basic skills.



Technically, the issue with Krav Maga is, people are appling it to things it doesnt exist to do, and also the thousands of break away schools claiming they do krav etc.    Its basically the karate of the self defence/combatives world, even places that dont do it call themselves it.

Krav Maga in its correct role, is meant to give you the basics of fighting and thats it basically, they have since added upper level things (as is the trend) for people who want to treat it like a martial art and to give a longer learning peroid etc for the people who want to keep doing Krav, plus the realities of teaching in the civilian world that some people cant dedicate a month off of work to pay for a course and to tailor to a class by class model as opposed to a bloc of learning one.   

That and i think the statement that "krav maga in the U.S is based on fear mongering" is apt.   



Granted the above is apt for pretty much apt for all martial arts.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, what about things like general agility drills? Those aren't directly applicable to combat - they are one level (at least) removed.



They are related, as they are attribute building for combat.   You dont know when you need to vault a wall, crawl under soemthing, dive for cover etc.    Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.

(the definition isnt exactly rock solid, but neither are some others in this subject)


----------



## skribs (May 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Good question. That'd depend how folks look at it. I wouldn't say it's a self-defense situation, though the non-physical skills you talk about (what I classify as "self-protection") would apply to helping prevent that. And some of the physical fighting skills might be useful if only to keep from getting injured as they yank the bag away, but also if you decided you wanted to keep that fantastic bag.
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a SNL skit with that theme, using dressing in a kids' sailor costume or something similar? Or did I just imagine that?



I don't know about SNL, but there is this scene from Malcolm in the Middle:







Rat said:


> They are related, as they are attribute building for combat.   You dont know when you need to vault a wall, crawl under soemthing, dive for cover etc.    Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.
> 
> (the definition isnt exactly rock solid, but neither are some others in this subject)



So indirect training only works if *you* can understand why it relates to the training.  If you don't understand it, then you consider it fluff.  This is why your perspective is so narrow.  You've already decided what works and what doesn't, with barely any training and even less experience.  You don't even understand what you consider "fluff" to know whether or not it's relevant.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> They are related, as they are attribute building for combat.   You dont know when you need to vault a wall, crawl under soemthing, dive for cover etc.    Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.
> 
> (the definition isnt exactly rock solid, but neither are some others in this subject)


My point is that they are movement exercises. Which is one role things like kata can serve (depending how they are used). If fight training doesn't include some sort of auxiliary fitness training and agility/balance work, it can still be decent fight training, but will be lacking compared to something more complete.

Sometimes "fluff" is either a misunderstanding of a drill's purpose, or just an example of someone misusing the drill. And sometimes it's just something for a non-fight purpose (which "-do" martial arts do usually have, on purpose).


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> My point is that they are movement exercises. Which is one role things like kata can serve (depending how they are used). If fight training doesn't include some sort of auxiliary fitness training and agility/balance work, it can still be decent fight training, but will be lacking compared to something more complete.
> 
> Sometimes "fluff" is either a misunderstanding of a drill's purpose, or just an example of someone misusing the drill. And sometimes it's just something for a non-fight purpose (which "-do" martial arts do usually have, on purpose).



My definition, basically didnt make any kata that can actually be applied fluff.   I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight.     Attribute building is not fluff under my definition.    Kata can be divided into 3 groups, attribute building, spirtuality or direct application to fighting. (they can for sake of argument be put in more than one)      The 2nd group is fluff in the definition, the third group is fluff if not taught or used in any actual live fighting drill.  (paired is excluded as it is a "drill" for sake of argument)    

I can agree with the last point in part, but if a kata has effectively lost its meaning, its fluff.    It could be based in a valid point and situation but if everyones forgotten it or how to apply it in context, it is no longer effective and is fluff.   Spirtuality for sake of argument is fluff, as above explains.


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> My point is that they are movement exercises. Which is one role things like kata can serve (depending how they are used). If fight training doesn't include some sort of auxiliary fitness training and agility/balance work, it can still be decent fight training, but will be lacking compared to something more complete.
> 
> Sometimes "fluff" is either a misunderstanding of a drill's purpose, or just an example of someone misusing the drill. And sometimes it's just something for a non-fight purpose (which "-do" martial arts do usually have, on purpose).


More doesn't necessarily equal more complete.  It just equals more.  

Training is a bit of a results oriented thing.  If you're training folks and they can do what you're teaching them, the training works.   A central problem with "self defense" training is that the training is also the result.  Which leads to, among other things, undue focus on the training.


----------



## skribs (May 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> My definition, basically didnt make any kata that can actually be applied fluff.   I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight.     Attribute building is not fluff under my definition.    Kata can be divided into 3 groups, attribute building, spirtuality or direct application to fighting. (they can for sake of argument be put in more than one)      The 2nd group is fluff in the definition, the third group is fluff if not taught or used in any actual live fighting drill.  (paired is excluded as it is a "drill" for sake of argument)
> 
> I can agree with the last point in part, but if a kata has effectively lost its meaning, its fluff.    It could be based in a valid point and situation but if everyones forgotten it or how to apply it in context, it is no longer effective and is fluff.   Spirtuality for sake of argument is fluff, as above explains.



I'm glad you are so well trained in the kata that you know which ones can or can't be applied.  Kudos to you for all of that hard work training the kata and learning them and their meaning.  Kudos to you for all of your research into the techniques in the kata to test their practical application.

Oh...wait...


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2020)

skribs said:


> I'm glad you are so well trained in the kata that you know which ones can or can't be applied.  Kudos to you for all of that hard work training the kata and learning them and their meaning.  Kudos to you for all of your research into the techniques in the kata to test their practical application.
> 
> Oh...wait...


Hey man, if people here can be experts on self defense without ever self defensing, why can't someone be an expert on kata without kata'ing?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> Hey man, if people here can be experts on self defense without ever self defensing, why can't someone be an expert on kata without kata'ing?



Despite my repeated statements of me doing TKD.  (and also not claiming to be a expert in anyway)     Bemusingly, i have actually "self defenced" several times in my life if i recall situations correctly.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> My definition, basically didnt make any kata that can actually be applied fluff.   I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight.     Attribute building is not fluff under my definition.    Kata can be divided into 3 groups, attribute building, spirtuality or direct application to fighting. (they can for sake of argument be put in more than one)      The 2nd group is fluff in the definition, the third group is fluff if not taught or used in any actual live fighting drill.  (paired is excluded as it is a "drill" for sake of argument)
> 
> I can agree with the last point in part, but if a kata has effectively lost its meaning, its fluff.    It could be based in a valid point and situation but if everyones forgotten it or how to apply it in context, it is no longer effective and is fluff.   Spirtuality for sake of argument is fluff, as above explains.


And what exactly is your vast experience and education to know that this is an accurate description of kata?


----------



## Flying Crane (May 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Despite my repeated statements of me doing TKD.  (and also not claiming to be a expert in anyway)     Bemusingly, i have actually "self defenced" several times in my life if i recall situations correctly.


Oh I get it now.  The kata you were taught was fluff.  I suppose  because you had a lousy instructor.

Well, that makes sense then that you would perpetuate an opinion based on ignorance.


----------



## skribs (May 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Despite my repeated statements of me doing TKD.  (and also not claiming to be a expert in anyway)     Bemusingly, i have actually "self defenced" several times in my life if i recall situations correctly.



And statements that you never even learned a Pattern, because you quit before you got that far.  You're claiming to know what works and what doesn't, when you've never stayed long enough anywhere to do so.

As far as we're aware, you've done a couple months of TKD, some very bad self-teaching on a heavy bag, and then just read a bunch of articles and goofed off with your friends in the back yard.  You make a lot of bold claims, but we've got 5-year-olds in my school with more martial arts experience than you.  (As well as more humility and respect).


----------



## drop bear (May 22, 2020)

Rat said:


> Technically, the issue with Krav Maga is, people are appling it to things it doesnt exist to do, and also the thousands of break away schools claiming they do krav etc.    Its basically the karate of the self defence/combatives world, even places that dont do it call themselves it.
> 
> Krav Maga in its correct role, is meant to give you the basics of fighting and thats it basically, they have since added upper level things (as is the trend) for people who want to treat it like a martial art and to give a longer learning peroid etc for the people who want to keep doing Krav, plus the realities of teaching in the civilian world that some people cant dedicate a month off of work to pay for a course and to tailor to a class by class model as opposed to a bloc of learning one.
> 
> ...



I don't think it ever really worked.


----------



## drop bear (May 22, 2020)

Double post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> More doesn't necessarily equal more complete.  It just equals more.


Are you arguing that adding fitness training to fight skill training isn't going to improve fight capability?



> Training is a bit of a results oriented thing.  If you're training folks and they can do what you're teaching them, the training works.   A central problem with "self defense" training is that the training is also the result.  Which leads to, among other things, undue focus on the training.


Same song, same tune.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> So, just to be clear, central to my question is the presumption that the "defense" for a bag snatch is to simply let it go. In other words, is the danger to oneself in a bag snatch entirely a function of trying to hold onto the bag?


I guess it all depends if the person gets tangled up in the straps and what's actually inside the bag.  If there is nothing of value in the bag then I can see someone not making a big deal of it.  But if there is something valuable in the bag then I can see someone hanging on or trying to fight the person off.   For example.  ID with address + house keys = try to fight for the bag.  I can see how someone would want to prevent the person from going to the address on the ID and then using the key to get in and steal more stuff.  I can see how the person may be thinking about preventing that future danger by fighting against the present danger. 

But like I said.  I don't carry a bag, so all if the bag snatching stuff is "foreign to me."  To this day I have never taught how to deal with that scenario in any of my self-defense classes.

When my wife carries hers, I tend to position myself strategically around her so as to prevent someone trying to take an angle.  Traditionally speaking in many cultures the man leads the way when walking.  For the men in my family and with one of my friends.  We walk behind the women of our family and guard the back.  So none of the above applies to me.  I always lock my car and that's just habit from living in or nearby rough areas.  Living around rough areas changes a lot of behaviors in terms of personal safety.  My wife has been stalked before by someone tailing her in the car while she was walking.  I teach this method in self-defense classes but never, the bag snatch scenario.

My entire perspective on self-defense is to  "become a hard target".  People who do things like that, want easy targets that they can ambush or creep up on.  If your behavior addresses that then those same criminals are more likely to pick someone that looks like an easier target.  I can sum up my self-defense in one phrase.  "Don't be the easy target."


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you don't test your skill in the ring daily, what kind of chance do you have when you step in the ring the 1st time?


  Had they stepped into the ring for training then they would have understood the strengths and weaknesses enough to know when they are out skilled.  There's actually a Sun Tzu quote.


“Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy, but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.”

or
" if you know the enemy and know yourself, the victory is not at risk. If you know the Heaven and you know the Ground, the victory is complete."

I think I'm going to train really hard for 2 probably 3 years due to corona lol.. Buy some silk tai chi clothes, become a self-proclaim master of some unknown made up system and then pretend that I can't fight lol.   What would be the headlines then if I win?


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> Or contort yourself to hide in a cupboard while a masked serial killer is chasing you.


lol.. If that's who is chasing me, then I don't want to hide.  I want to know where that guys is at every moment.  I want reduce my visibility while maintaining my visibility on where the threat is.  If I couldn't do it visually then I would need to use sound to help keep track of where the danger is.

I definitely wouldn't hide in a cupboard.  There's no escape once you do that. lol


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> I mean the things you learn via kata that you will never use or learn how to use in a actual fight.


lol don't make me break out my sparring videos.   I've been doing kung fu for so long now that I don't remember how I used to fight before kung fu.  With the exception of the karate stuff.  Both Karate and Kung fu uses Kata / forms.  I can actually use the things that are in my kung fu form.  Not all of it but a lot of it.  The stuff I'm not able to use is because I don't understand it in the correct context of application.

There are lots of things that I see in kata that are actually used in fighting.  My opinion on using Kata or Form in fighting, is that you have to spar against a system that is different than what you train, and  you have to get into the ring to spar so that you can understand the technique better.  When it comes to using Kata and forms when fighting, you have to understand the timing that's required and the only way to do that is to spar.





Here's a Jow Ga instructor explaining the form.





You will find it really difficult to fight using the techniques found in kata or forms if this is the the limits of your training.  You can't learn it without sparring and you'll learn it faster if you try to use it against someone outside of your system.


----------



## Martial D (May 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> The majority of the skills you learn in the ring can be used in the real world as well.  Plenty of people have effectively used pretty much every sport art I can think of in self defense.  Off the top of my head, I can think of videos I've seen of guys using Boxing, Wrestling, BJJ, Karate, and Taekwondo to successfully win a street fight or fend off an attacker.
> 
> And as much as I argue with people like @Martial D and @drop bear as to the efficacy of non-sport arts, it's impossible to deny the benefits you get from sparring and competition.  The people who spar the best are usually those in sport arts, where they test their skills in pursuit of a tangible goal (victory in the sport) instead of a nebulous goal (preparedness for a street fight).
> 
> Even if you don't compete, sparring against competent opponents is important to learn how to manage distance and timing, how to set up your opponents, and how to use your techniques effectively.  The biggest criticism of a lot of the "no-fluff" combatives styles that you're proposing are that they don't spar, or they only spar with people trained in the combatives school, where bad habits might fester (because nobody in the school knows how to take advantage of them).



The only difference between a 'sport' art and a 'non sport' art is one of them is actually doing it.

Besides, TKD is also a 'sport' art, with the key difference that sport tkd no longer in any way resembles fighting, where as mma is the closest possible approximation.


----------



## jobo (May 23, 2020)

Martial D said:


> The only difference between a 'sport' art and a 'non sport' art is one of them is actually doing it.
> 
> Besides, TKD is also a 'sport' art, with the key difference that sport tkd no longer in any way resembles fighting, where as mma is the closest possible approximation.


 i was tkd kicked so hard that despite the pad i was holding i had seriously bruised ribs, it looked like a perfectly good fighting technique to me ?


----------



## dvcochran (May 23, 2020)

Martial D said:


> The only difference between a 'sport' art and a 'non sport' art is one of them is actually doing it.
> 
> Besides, TKD is also a 'sport' art, with the key difference that sport tkd no longer in any way resembles fighting, where as mma is the closest possible approximation.


Read my posts. I have been knocked out twice and broken ribs from my Olympic run. It is a fighting style, just like boxing, wrestling, Muay Thai, and yes MMA. 
Until you know through experience what you are talking about you will come off sounding much smarter by saying nothing at all.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 23, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol.. If that's who is chasing me, then I don't want to hide.  I want to know where that guys is at every moment.  I want reduce my visibility while maintaining my visibility on where the threat is.  If I couldn't do it visually then I would need to use sound to help keep track of where the danger is.
> 
> I definitely wouldn't hide in a cupboard.  There's no escape once you do that. lol



that was more of a joke than a serious point.




JowGaWolf said:


> lol don't make me break out my sparring videos.   I've been doing kung fu for so long now that I don't remember how I used to fight before kung fu.  With the exception of the karate stuff.  Both Karate and Kung fu uses Kata / forms.  I can actually use the things that are in my kung fu form.  Not all of it but a lot of it.  The stuff I'm not able to use is because I don't understand it in the correct context of application.
> 
> There are lots of things that I see in kata that are actually used in fighting.  My opinion on using Kata or Form in fighting, is that you have to spar against a system that is different than what you train, and  you have to get into the ring to spar so that you can understand the technique better.  When it comes to using Kata and forms when fighting, you have to understand the timing that's required and the only way to do that is to spar.
> 
> ...



See  now, this is a argument i can get behind.    I dont dispute you can use varying amounts of it (pending style and how its taught).    Its just unless you learn how it applies to actual fighting its useless to learn it.     Spirtual forms without you beliving in the relgion or spirtual system being done is just a inferior form of exercise if compared to tradtional means of doing it. (running, pushups, squats etc) and some condtioning ones can be inferior to just having somone run 5km every week.      That would caterorise it as fluff for this argument in my viewpoint as its usleess to learn by either inferiorty or has no relation to the goal of figthing or not enough of a direct impact of your ability to fight. 

And as you can probbly bring up several whcih do kata or fluff and make good fighters, you ca bring up some that dont and do the same thing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> that was more of a joke than a serious point.


I know. The joke wasn't lost on me.  I just know that some people would actually hide where there is no escape or do things like fight with there back against the wall thinking that it's a good choice, so that comment was more for their benefit than anything else.  I try to keep in mind that other people read our comments and some may not understand certain risks that come with hiding.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

Rat said:


> that was more of a joke than a serious point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess for me, fluff is anything that doesn't serve or contribute to a fighting function. Standing in horse stance contributes to a fighting function so that wouldn't be fluff to me even though you don't actually fight in horse the same way that one would stand in horse with fist chambered


----------



## John Codero (May 23, 2020)

I train Five Animal Kung Fu in Cantonese Ng Ying Kung Fu. Our teacher sifu Patrick van Steen is teaching the art as follows:

- warming up, body conditioning, flexibility
- Shadow Boxing: Kicks and Punches
- Five Animal Kung Fu Forms and Weapons
- Five Animal Qin Na: Selfdefense techniques with a resisting partner
- Five Animal Kung Fu Sanda sparring

Students of our Ng Ying Kung Fu school participate in Form as Sparring Championships and some do kickboxing matches as well.

So i think it is really also the way a teacher is teaching the art.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Are you arguing that adding fitness training to fight skill training isn't going to improve fight capability?


I'm saying that tacking things onto something doesn't necessarily add value to that thing.  A Honda Civic with a big fin has more, but is it a more complete race car?   Fitness is a good thing whether or not you can fight. If you're learning to fight, sure it will help.  If you're not learning to fight but think you are, fitness won't magically make the difference. 





> Same song, same tune.


you say this like it's a bad thing.  Simple, reasonable, common sense points don't tend to shift much over time.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Martial D said:


> The only difference between a 'sport' art and a 'non sport' art is one of them is actually doing it.
> 
> Besides, TKD is also a 'sport' art, with the key difference that sport tkd no longer in any way resembles fighting, where as mma is the closest possible approximation.


The issue isn't that it's a sport.  TKD is developing actual proficiency, just maybe not the skills you would prefer.   if there is a problem with the ruleset, the answer isn't to abandon application.


----------



## jobo (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm saying that tacking things onto something doesn't necessarily add value to that thing.  A Honda Civic with a big fin has more, but is it a more complete race car?   Fitness is a good thing whether or not you can fight. If you're learning to fight, sure it will help.  If you're not learning to fight but think you are, fitness won't magically make the difference. you say this like it's a bad thing.  Simple, reasonable, common sense points don't tend to shift much over time.



but thats completely wrong, fitness will make a much more of a difference than any fighting skill you develop, at least in the short term

you can go from basket case to extremely fit ( and strong) in 6 months, your fighting skills wont develop faster than that to the point you can deal with someone extremely fit and strong, if they are not fit and strong you dont need fighting skill anyway

much of this discussion is people ignoring the importance of physical conditioning to self defence or fighting in general.

if some out of condition guy or girl asked me about learning self defence i would direct them to the nearest gym and say come back in 6 months and we can talk.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm saying that tacking things onto something doesn't necessarily add value to that thing.  A Honda Civic with a big fin has more, but is it a more complete race car?   Fitness is a good thing whether or not you can fight. If you're learning to fight, sure it will help.  If you're not learning to fight but think you are, fitness won't magically make the difference. you say this like it's a bad thing.  Simple, reasonable, common sense points don't tend to shift much over time.


So, you're talking about something other than what you quoted. Got it.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> So, you're talking about something other than what you quoted. Got it.


You're very snarky today.  Drink some coffee and post when you're in a better mood.


----------



## Martial D (May 23, 2020)

jobo said:


> i was tkd kicked so hard that despite the pad i was holding i had seriously bruised ribs, it looked like a perfectly good fighting technique to me ?



Sure. TKD kicking technique is amazing.

But modern sport tkd is a whole different animal. It's a lot of tip tapping with no punching defence..as it's really not needed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're very snarky today.  Drink some coffee and post when you're in a better mood.


You jumped in to make a point about non-fight training when I mentioned that fight training with fitness would be superior to fight training without it. Not sure what's snarky about pointing that out.

Basically, you appear to be taking every opportunity to try to point out that you think what _someone_ around here teaches doesn't include fight training, even when that's not relevant to the point at hand.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 23, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Sure. TKD kicking technique is amazing.
> 
> But modern sport tkd is a whole different animal. It's a lot of tip tapping with no punching defence..as it's really not needed.


Yeah, rulesets matter. What works in that type of TKD competition might (or might not) fail in other circumstances.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You jumped in to make a point about non-fight training when I mentioned that fight training with fitness would be superior to fight training without it. Not sure what's snarky about pointing that out.
> 
> Basically, you appear to be taking every opportunity to try to point out that you think what _someone_ around here teaches doesn't include fight training, even when that's not relevant to the point at hand.


My point is universal to all training.  It isn't specific to fighting.  Just the opposite.  Point remains that adding more to something doesn't necessarily make it more complete.  As I said before, sometimes more is just more.  You took a general comment very personally.

And when you take every general comment personally, I'm not surprised you think it's personal.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You jumped in to make a point about non-fight training when I mentioned that fight training with fitness would be superior to fight training without it. Not sure what's snarky about pointing that out.
> 
> Basically, you appear to be taking every opportunity to try to point out that you think what _someone_ around here teaches doesn't include fight training, even when that's not relevant to the point at hand.


Here's the thing I really don't think you understand.  This is an academic discussion that you continue to personalize and then you take personally.  This may shock you, but I really don't give to squats about your training.  Sure, I don't think you're qualified to teach self defense, but I don't expect to change your mind and have said at least a couple times in this thread that we can just agree to disagree.  But, you seem compelled to convince me not about self defense training in general, but that you specifically are qualified to teach self defense.  And then you get butt hurt when I, miraculously, still don't agree.  You say snarky things about how I'm singing the same song.  Well, of course, man.  

You're like a flat earther complaining that I'm just not coming around to agreeing that the earth is flat.  Of course not.  Why would a reasonable person come around to an unreasonable position?  And yes, I think your position is unreasonable.  You're trying to convince me that a person can not just learn something, but become qualified to teach something that they have no real experience doing. It's as simple as that.  

In the end, this isn't about you.  It's an academic discussion in which you keep using yourself, for some reason, as proof of something that isn't so.  Which invites response, which you then take personally.

So, I would still suggest you get a nice cup of coffee, pet your cat, do something fun and return to the thread with just a little bit of perspective.  It's not about you, unless you make it about you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> to teach something that they have no real experience doing.


This issue bother me big time.

A: Today I'll teach you how to take/knock your opponent down.
B: Dear master! Have you ever taken/knock down your opponent?
A: Yes! I have taken/knocked down many opponents.

A: Today I'll teach you how to defend yourself.
B: Dear master! Have you ever defend yourself on the street?
A: No! I haven't.
B: What make you think that you are qualified to teach me the self-defense?

A: Today I'll teach you how to use a sword.
B: Dear master! Have you ever used your sword to hurt someone?
A: No! I haven't.
B: What make you think that you are qualified to teach me the sword fighting?


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Sure. TKD kicking technique is amazing.
> 
> But modern sport tkd is a whole different animal. It's a lot of tip tapping with no punching defence..as it's really not needed.


I'd be very interested in an experiment where sport TKD guys and non-sport TKD guys get in a ring and with some reasonable rules just see what's what.  By reasonable, I mean, safe, but full contact and favoring the TKD skill set.  Try to keep the level of experience, size, etc as fair as possible.  I think that would be very interesting.  

My money is that, by a large margin, in a competition that tests TKD skills (kicking, punching, maybe take downs) the sport folks will adapt to full contact much faster than the non-sport guys.   That's my theory.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> My money is that, by a large margin, in a competition that tests TKD skills (kicking, punching, maybe take downs) the sport folks will adapt to full contact much faster than the non-sport guys.   That's my theory.



You apparently assume that TKD schools that are not sport oriented do not do full contact sparring. Do you have a basis for that assumption? Because it certainly doesn't match my own experience.


----------



## Martial D (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'd be very interested in an experiment where sport TKD guys and non-sport TKD guys get in a ring and with some reasonable rules just see what's what.  By reasonable, I mean, safe, but full contact and favoring the TKD skill set.  Try to keep the level of experience, size, etc as fair as possible.  I think that would be very interesting.
> 
> My money is that, by a large margin, in a competition that tests TKD skills (kicking, punching, maybe take downs) the sport folks will adapt to full contact much faster than the non-sport guys.   That's my theory.


Well sure. All else being equal, one group will understand distance and timing, and the other will not.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> You apparently assume that TKD schools that are not sport oriented do not do full contact sparring. Do you have a basis for that assumption? Because it certainly doesn't match my own experience.


Not assuming anything.  I'm proposing what I think would be an interesting experiment and sharing my hypothesis.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> You apparently assume that TKD schools that are not sport oriented do not do full contact sparring.


If a TKD school does any kind of sparring, by definition, that school is using the sport approach.

When people said, "I spar, I don't compete." I truly don't understand what that person is trying to say.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Well sure. All else being equal, one group will understand distance and timing, and the other will not.


I totally agree.  That would be my expectation.  And to be clear, I'm talking about two large groups of roughly equivalent TKD practitioners with no advance warning, roughly the same age, size, experience level, fitness level etc.    In fact, for control, let's add in a group of untrained people.  Then in some way (random or round robin), just see how they do.  In my mind, I would think we'd need at least 50 in each group.

Edit:  to reiterate, I think the sport guys would perform very well overall, because they would have more opportunity to develop the timing, etc.  What I am very curious to see how well the non-sport guys do again the sport guys, and also how well the untrained guys do against the non-sport guys.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> how well the untrained guys do against the non-sport guys.


Many years ago, a school brought 15 students to a Chinese wrestling tournament. Each and every student of that school all lose in the 1st round. That school only trained forms and they don't wrestle on the mat.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Not assuming anything.  I'm proposing what I think would be an interesting experiment and sharing my hypothesis.



Seems like you are, since you say they must "adapt" to full contact. What you're describing sounds to me like what we call "sparring" so there really wouldn't be any adaptation needed.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a TKD school does any kind of sparring, by definition, that school is using the sport approach.
> 
> When people said, "I spar, I don't compete." I truly don't understand what that person is trying to say.



I would say that sport oriented schools spend the majority of their time training specifically for tournaments.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Seems like you are, since you say they must "adapt" to full contact. What you're describing sounds to me like what we call "sparring" so there really wouldn't be any adaptation needed.


yeah, well, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not inclined to take your word for it.  I think it would be very informative.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I would say that sport oriented schools spend the majority of their time training specifically for tournaments.


You're stating the obvious.  The question isn't what they train. The question is which training model is building proficiency that is more adaptible to a different context.  Why are you getting defensive about this? 

My theory is it would go very much the way grappling would go between sport grapplers (wrestlers, judoka, sambo, bjj etc)  and non sport grapplers (eg, aikidoka, ninja, etc), and untrained grapplers as a control.  Similar to the tkd, I would guess the competitors would do very well, but I would be very interested in how well the untrained guys do against the non competitive guys.

edit, The point of the exercise is to isolate the trained skills, not highlight what isn’t trained.   So for tkd, grappling might be off limits.  But for grappler, I think striking would be fine provided everyone had minimal formal training in striking.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2020)

The reason that "sport" format is needed because some combat skill that you just can't train on your partner.

In combat, you will crack open your opponent's skull.







In sport, your round will end like this.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This issue bother me big time.
> 
> A: Today I'll teach you how to take/knock your opponent down.
> B: Dear master! Have you ever taken/knock down your opponent?
> ...


With exceptions there's.  I can teach someone how to hit another person in the head with a brick and the results will be similar across the board regardless if I have done it myself.  This would be like saying  Technique A produces Result A.   You don't have to actually shoot someone to know the outcome.   I think there's a lot of that when it comes to self-defense, but not as much when it comes to fighting.   Because at that point the technique isn't as big of the issue as correctly deploying that technique.  Get the deployment wrong then you risk having no delivery.


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The reason that "sport" format is needed because some combat skill that you just can't train on your partner.
> 
> In combat, you will crack open your opponent's skull.
> 
> ...


  Perfect example of my previous post.  Without ever having done this, (hopefully) It's safe to say that this results would be accurate.  At minimal it's going hurt, maximum someone is going to have a broken neck.  There would be no need to pressure test this.  The only thing that would need to be pressure tested is the technique used to get someone into this position.  Thanks to wrestling there's videos of accidents where people have broken their necks from landing like this.  Even if video didn't exist, there would be stories of how someone got dropped on their head and broke their neck.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> My point is universal to all training.  It isn't specific to fighting.  Just the opposite.  Point remains that adding more to something doesn't necessarily make it more complete.  As I said before, sometimes more is just more.  You took a general comment very personally.
> 
> And when you take every general comment personally, I'm not surprised you think it's personal.


Well, since you quoted my post about specifically fight training without fitness lacking something compared to fight training with fitness, it's difficullt to see how that remark would NOT be a response to the quoted item.

As for "taking it personally", if by that you mean I thought you were replying to me, personally, yeah. Because you quoted my post. If by that you mean I think you're personally persuing this topic with me, yeah. Because you're pretty clearly still trying to make the same point you've been making across multiple threads, and which was originally (and continues to be) directed at me. You know it and I know it. To try to dodge by saying I'm taking it out of context and implying I'm getting all emotional is pretty petty.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Here's the thing I really don't think you understand.  This is an academic discussion that you continue to personalize and then you take personally.  This may shock you, but I really don't give to squats about your training.  Sure, I don't think you're qualified to teach self defense, but I don't expect to change your mind and have said at least a couple times in this thread that we can just agree to disagree.  But, you seem compelled to convince me not about self defense training in general, but that you specifically are qualified to teach self defense.  And then you get butt hurt when I, miraculously, still don't agree.  You say snarky things about how I'm singing the same song.  Well, of course, man.


Show me where in this thread I've talked about my qualification to teach with a self-defense orientation.



> You're like a flat earther complaining that I'm just not coming around to agreeing that the earth is flat.  Of course not.  Why would a reasonable person come around to an unreasonable position?  And yes, I think your position is unreasonable.  You're trying to convince me that a person can not just learn something, but become qualified to teach something that they have no real experience doing. It's as simple as that.


Again, not sure where you're getting that I'm making assertions about myself. You seem to be reading that into discussions of analogies.



> In the end, this isn't about you.  It's an academic discussion in which you keep using yourself, for some reason, as proof of something that isn't so.  Which invites response, which you then take personally.
> 
> So, I would still suggest you get a nice cup of coffee, pet your cat, do something fun and return to the thread with just a little bit of perspective.  It's not about you, unless you make it about you.


Yep, that's why I haven't really been tallking about myself so much. But you've managed to read them as being about me, anyway. Then you try to stick in your little jabs, in an attempt to actually make it about me, rather than the academic discussion.

I think we're done here. You used to be able to have discussions without getting lost in your own points, and gave me damned good stuff to think about, especially when we disagreed. I miss that Steve.


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If a TKD school does any kind of sparring, by definition, that school is using the sport approach.
> 
> When people said, "I spar, I don't compete." I truly don't understand what that person is trying to say.



I completely disagree.  Sparring can be training for sport or training to fight.  Or a mix of both.

If I spar you with the intent of practicing my techniques for self-defense, I don't think there's much sport involved.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> yeah, well, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not inclined to take your word for it.  I think it would be very informative.



Wait. You're not inclined to take my word for my own experience? Are you saying I'm lying about how we spar?


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Wait. You're not inclined to take my word for my own experience? Are you saying I'm lying about how we spar?



Reminds me on another forum, someone told me that he knows all about how we spar in Hapkido because of this one Aikido class he took.  

Because that one class is indicative of all classes...and because Hapkido and Aikido are the same thing (according to him).


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Wait. You're not inclined to take my word for my own experience? Are you saying I'm lying about how we spar?


Nope.  I'm saying you're trolling, which as a moderator is a bad look. 

When I say I don't trust you on the subject, what that means to people who aren't trolling (i.e., everyone but you) is that, regardless of what you believe or assert, the idea is to actually find out.  That's kind of the entire point.  I've shared my hypothesis, which is that the non-sport guys would not do as well.  You seem to be suggesting that the non-sport guys would do just as well or better.  Great.  I think it would be very interesting to find out.  I think the outcome is very predictable.  The only thing I really think is in question is how the non-sport guys would do against folks with no training.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> Reminds me on another forum, someone told me that he knows all about how we spar in Hapkido because of this one Aikido class he took.
> 
> Because that one class is indicative of all classes...and because Hapkido and Aikido are the same thing (according to him).


Hey, just to be clear, I have no idea how you guys spar or not.  It's completely irrelevant to me.  If it makes you feel better, I'm sure you guys spar very well.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Nope.  I'm saying you're trolling, which as a moderator is a bad look.



How is saying "that's how we spar" trolling?



> When I say I don't trust you on the subject, what that means to people who aren't trolling (i.e., everyone but you) is that, regardless of what you believe or assert, the idea is to actually find out.  That's kind of the entire point.  I've shared my hypothesis, which is that the non-sport guys would not do as well.  You seem to be suggesting that the non-sport guys would do just as well or better.  Great.  I think it would be very interesting to find out.  I think the outcome is very predictable.  The only thing I really think is in question is how the non-sport guys would do against folks with no training.



I have no opinion on how they would do. That's why I didn't voice one. I merely stated that your hypothesis appears to be flawed, in that it includes the built in assumption that non-sport schools don't spar with contact. You seem awfully touchy about that.


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> When I say I don't trust you on the subject, what that means to people who aren't trolling (i.e., everyone but you) is that, regardless of what you believe or assert, the idea is to actually find out. That's kind of the entire point. I've shared my hypothesis, which is that the non-sport guys would not do as well. You seem to be suggesting that the non-sport guys would do just as well or better. Great. I think it would be very interesting to find out. I think the outcome is very predictable. The only thing I really think is in question is how the non-sport guys would do against folks with no training.



Your hypothesis was on their ability to adapt to full-contact.  If they're already doing full-contact, there's no adaption needed.  That would be like having a hypothesis on whether sport or self-defense TKD guys would adapt better to living on land.  We already do.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Show me where in this thread I've talked about my qualification to teach with a self-defense orientation.
> 
> 
> Again, not sure where you're getting that I'm making assertions about myself. You seem to be reading that into discussions of analogies.
> ...


Now you're making it about me.  It's very simple.  Stick to the topic of the thread.  But for what it's worth, as topics recur on the site, I like to go back and re-read past threads on the same topic.  I enjoy reading the discussions, which often include many of my own posts.  Unfortunately for you (or maybe for me), I'm very consistent.  My posting style hasn't changed much, if at all.  I dislike blowhards, whiners, and hypocrites, and always have.  I'm always on someone's **** list.  It's okay, even if it's arbitrary.  

At some point, when you get back to addressing the post and not making everything about you, it will amaze you how fast your blood pressure drops.


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I dislike blowhards, whiners, and hypocrites, and always have.



You should probably talk to someone about that.  Self-hate can be incredibly bad for your physical and mental health.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

I say: 





Steve said:


> I'd be very interested in an experiment where sport TKD guys and non-sport TKD guys get in a ring and with some reasonable rules just see what's what.  By reasonable, I mean, safe, but full contact and favoring the TKD skill set.  Try to keep the level of experience, size, etc as fair as possible.  I think that would be very interesting.
> 
> My money is that, by a large margin, in a competition that tests TKD skills (kicking, punching, maybe take downs) the sport folks will adapt to full contact much faster than the non-sport guys.   That's my theory.


Then you try to start some **** by putting words in my mouth (btw, starting **** is code for trolling):


Dirty Dog said:


> You apparently assume that TKD schools that are not sport oriented do not do full contact sparring. Do you have a basis for that assumption? Because it certainly doesn't match my own experience.


I said: 


Steve said:


> Not assuming anything.  I'm proposing what I think would be an interesting experiment and sharing my hypothesis.


Note that, to this point, I've not mentioned sparring at all.  It's just not relevant.  But you're still trying to start some ****, so you double down on what you want me to have said: 


Dirty Dog said:


> Seems like you are, since you say they must "adapt" to full contact. What you're describing sounds to me like what we call "sparring" so there really wouldn't be any adaptation needed.


How you train is literally not the point.  The point is to cut through the BS and try to get at some objective data.  I said:





Steve said:


> yeah, well, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not inclined to take your word for it.  I think it would be very informative.


And then I thought, you know...  he'll twist this around, so I'll try to add a little more context, whcih is below:


Steve said:


> You're stating the obvious.  The question isn't what they train. The question is which training model is building proficiency that is more adaptible to a different context.  Why are you getting defensive about this?
> 
> My theory is it would go very much the way grappling would go between sport grapplers (wrestlers, judoka, sambo, bjj etc)  and non sport grapplers (eg, aikidoka, ninja, etc), and untrained grapplers as a control.  Similar to the tkd, I would guess the competitors would do very well, but I would be very interested in how well the untrained guys do against the non competitive guys.
> 
> edit, The point of the exercise is to isolate the trained skills, not highlight what isn’t trained.   So for tkd, grappling might be off limits.  But for grappler, I think striking would be fine provided everyone had minimal formal training in striking.


You're not interested in the discussion.  Just getting your troll on, so you say, "Are you calling me a liar?" Which is hilarious, because that's what the drunks in B-movies like Roadhouse say when they're trying to start a fight. Classic:


Dirty Dog said:


> Wait. You're not inclined to take my word for my own experience? Are you saying I'm lying about how we spar?


So, then I just called you on your blatant trolling.  And then I addressed the point, just pretending that you're posting in good faith.  Which, come on.  We all know you're not.  


Steve said:


> Nope.  I'm saying you're trolling, which as a moderator is a bad look.
> 
> When I say I don't trust you on the subject, what that means to people who aren't trolling (i.e., everyone but you) is that, regardless of what you believe or assert, the idea is to actually find out.  That's kind of the entire point.  I've shared my hypothesis, which is that the non-sport guys would not do as well.  You seem to be suggesting that the non-sport guys would do just as well or better.  Great.  I think it would be very interesting to find out.  I think the outcome is very predictable.  The only thing I really think is in question is how the non-sport guys would do against folks with no training.


Which leads to this:


Dirty Dog said:


> How is saying "that's how we spar" trolling?


I know from your posts that you are a very linear thinker who is uncomfortable with nuance and ambiguity.  So, hopefully, the dots are very clear to you.  





> I have no opinion on how they would do. That's why I didn't voice one. I merely stated that your hypothesis appears to be flawed, in that it includes the built in assumption that non-sport schools don't spar with contact. You seem awfully touchy about that.


Well, I think it's clear from the words actually printed above that this is quite literally not what you wrote.  Frankly, I think you're just bored and figured you'd stir the pot a little.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> You should probably talk to someone about that.  Self-hate can be incredibly bad for your physical and mental health.


Good one.  I'd better get some burn cream!


----------



## dvcochran (May 23, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Sure. TKD kicking technique is amazing.
> 
> But modern sport tkd is a whole different animal. It's a lot of tip tapping with no punching defence..as it's really not needed.


Most TKD competition is kick heavy this is the emphasis. But this narrative that there is no punching is just not true. There is a ton of punching strategy used to keep an opponent off balance. And competitive TKD sparring is anything but tip tapping. 
Most likely what you saw was an unsanctioned points tournament. Most every style out there has these kinds of tournaments at certain levels. Not a bad thing.


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2020)

@Steve 

"adapt to full contact much faster than the non-sport guys. That's my theory."

Full-contact sparring is full contact.  @Dirty Dog saying he does full contact sparring is a direct response to what you said.  He didn't put any words in your mouth.  He responded to the words you said.

You didn't say the word "sparring".  But you did say full contact.  And he is talking of the training that includes full contact.

You're accusing him of trolling, when at worst it's a miscommunication.  You're accusing a lot of people of a lot of things in this thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> Now you're making it about me.  It's very simple.  Stick to the topic of the thread.  But for what it's worth, as topics recur on the site, I like to go back and re-read past threads on the same topic.  I enjoy reading the discussions, which often include many of my own posts.  Unfortunately for you (or maybe for me), I'm very consistent.  My posting style hasn't changed much, if at all.  I dislike blowhards, whiners, and hypocrites, and always have.  I'm always on someone's **** list.  It's okay, even if it's arbitrary.
> 
> At some point, when you get back to addressing the post and not making everything about you, it will amaze you how fast your blood pressure drops.


Maybe take your own advice sometime, Steve.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> I completely disagree.  Sparring can be training for sport or training to fight.  Or a mix of both.
> 
> If I spar you with the intent of practicing my techniques for self-defense, I don't think there's much sport involved.


Do you have any clip to show that a SD sparring suppose to look like?


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> @Steve
> 
> "adapt to full contact much faster than the non-sport guys. That's my theory."
> 
> ...


Hey. I'm sure your sparring is great.  It's just not relevant.  I have no reason to doubt you.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> My money is that, by a large margin, in a competition that tests TKD skills (kicking, punching, maybe take downs) the sport folks will adapt to full contact much faster than the non-sport guys.   That's my theory.



Here's what you said, @Steve. And I commented on only this part. That statement includes the built in assumption that they're not already doing full contact. Because who needs to adapt to what they're already doing?


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Maybe take your own advice sometime, Steve.


ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" Gambit.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Here's what you said, @Steve. And I commented on only this part. That statement includes the built in assumption that they're not already doing full contact. Because who needs to adapt to what they're already doing?


yup, that's my hypothesis.   And, as I said, I don't think your assurance would be nearly as informative as actually seeing how it plays out.  My hypothesis is that you're incorrect.  Maybe I'm right,; maybe I'm wrong.  That's why doing the actual excercise would be so interesting.


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Do you have any clip to show that a SD sparring suppose to look like?



No.  We don't play with cameras during class.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> No.  We don't play with cameras during class.


Can you describe it by words?


----------



## JowGaWolf (May 23, 2020)

skribs said:


> No.  We don't play with cameras during class.


Hopefully that will change.  Cameras are great tools.  just get a tripod and put the camera in the corner and let it run.  That way corrections can be made on things that couldn't be seen at the time.  The camera catches a great deal and is brutally honest.


----------



## drop bear (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I totally agree.  That would be my expectation.  And to be clear, I'm talking about two large groups of roughly equivalent TKD practitioners with no advance warning, roughly the same age, size, experience level, fitness level etc.    In fact, for control, let's add in a group of untrained people.  Then in some way (random or round robin), just see how they do.  In my mind, I would think we'd need at least 50 in each group.
> 
> Edit:  to reiterate, I think the sport guys would perform very well overall, because they would have more opportunity to develop the timing, etc.  What I am very curious to see how well the non-sport guys do again the sport guys, and also how well the untrained guys do against the non-sport guys.



I think the issue you will face with sports tkd is this idea that the sport no longer reflects fighting. 

If you got TKDers who also do kickboxing. (And I know a few) the dynamics are going to change a bit.


----------



## drop bear (May 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> edit, The point of the exercise is to isolate the trained skills, not highlight what isn’t trained. So for tkd, grappling might be off limits. But for grappler, I think striking would be fine provided everyone had minimal formal training in striking.



Shoot boxing with 16 ounce gloves is a pretty good tool to play around with this.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think the issue you will face with sports tkd is this idea that the sport no longer reflects fighting.
> 
> If you got TKDers who also do kickboxing. (And I know a few) the dynamics are going to change a bit.


Maybe so.  I think it's am interesting situation because they would both be stretching.  Who's more adaptible?  I genuinely wish we could make this happen.


----------



## skribs (May 23, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can you describe it by words?



Sometimes it's just squaring off against your partner and using your skills.  Sometimes it's scenario based (i.e. one partner plays the aggressor, and the other responds to that aggression, and then the sparring starts).


----------



## Martial D (May 23, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Most TKD competition is kick heavy this is the emphasis. But this narrative that there is no punching is just not true. There is a ton of punching strategy used to keep an opponent off balance. And competitive TKD sparring is anything but tip tapping.
> Most likely what you saw was an unsanctioned points tournament. Most every style out there has these kinds of tournaments at certain levels. Not a bad thing.


Not buying it man. I know there is what approximates punching in tkd, but number one there are no strikes to the head in tkd competition or sparring(the primary target of good punching technique), so most that train like that would have no clue what to do about someone that punches well, and number two there is so little emphasis on the rather antiquated hand techniques that are there that even if they were near par with something like boxing technique wise( they patently are not), the lack of focus on them would leave ones that train in such a minimal way unprepared to deal with incoming hand strikes to the head.

TKD contains good kicking technique, but let's keep the discussion honest here.


----------



## skribs (May 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> TKD contains good kicking technique, but let's keep the discussion honest here.



Should we start now?  Or should we wait for you to finish giving us your incredibly narrow-minded opinion before the honesty starts?


----------



## skribs (May 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Not buying it man. I know there is what approximates punching in tkd, but number one there are no strikes to the head in tkd competition or sparring(the primary target of good punching technique), so most that train like that would have no clue what to do about someone that punches well, and number two there is so little emphasis on the rather antiquated hand techniques that are there that even if they were near par with something like boxing technique wise( they patently are not), the lack of focus on them would leave ones that train in such a minimal way unprepared to deal with incoming hand strikes to the head.
> 
> TKD contains good kicking technique, but let's keep the discussion honest here.



Let me see if I can give a more serious reply...

No *hand *strikes to the head in *Olympic-style rules*.  Some strikes (kicks) are allowed to the head.  Not that I'd normally nitpick that, but just thought I'd point it out with everything else you got wrong.  However, ITF TKD has punches to the head, and WT schools may do punches to the head in their sparring sessions (even if it's not allowed in competition).
The head is a good target.  So is the solarplexus, which is definitely an available target in WT sparring.  There's this thing in boxing called a body blow.  Guess what that doesn't hit?  The head.
The "rather antiquated hand techniques" that you describe...I'm guessing you're talking about the chambered punches or the lunge punches used in the forms.  Those are merely a training tool to teach the mechanics of a punch.  If you think that's how a TKD guy would actually punch, you're woefully mistaken.
I'll give you that the the "lack of focus on them" would leave a TKD person less capable at defending a punch than a boxer.  But...that would apply to every other martial art as well.


----------



## Martial D (May 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> Should we start now?  Or should we wait for you to finish giving us your incredibly narrow-minded opinion before the honesty starts?



That you believe in woo has long been noted. Carry on.


----------



## jobo (May 24, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'm saying that tacking things onto something doesn't necessarily add value to that thing.  A Honda Civic with a big fin has more, but is it a more complete race car?   Fitness is a good thing whether or not you can fight. If you're learning to fight, sure it will help.  If you're not learning to fight but think you are, fitness won't magically make the difference. you say this like it's a bad thing.  Simple, reasonable, common sense points don't tend to shift much over time.



here is a honda civic type r with a big wing

it big wing definitely adds more, as it would have a hard job staying on the road with out it at the sort off silly speeds these things will do, so yes a more complete ''race car''


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 24, 2020)

All honestly, you can probbly find as many people who have success with TKD (what ever org there are many) and find a equal amount who have found it to be useless.     Worth noting its usually coloured belts that find it useless and red belts+ that dont.    That brings its usual training model into question and can be used as a point for it.  

and that is largely anecdotal but, the people who scream its sucess usually sit on a ivory tower of actually knowing all of it and the people who dont find it sucessful usually sit in the colour belts  under the ivory tower.  Exceptions exist but that seems like a fair rule for my experience in the matter.  

You cant really compare the effectiveness of a system by the people who sit at the top of it, at least not in all regards.     anyway, this seems off topic to the actual point of the thread.


----------



## jobo (May 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> All honestly, you can probbly find as many people who have success with TKD (what ever org there are many) and find a equal amount who have found it to be useless.     Worth noting its usually coloured belts that find it useless and red belts+ that dont.    That brings its usual training model into question and can be used as a point for it.
> 
> and that is largely anecdotal but, the people who scream its sucess usually sit on a ivory tower of actually knowing all of it and the people who dont find it sucessful usually sit in the colour belts  under the ivory tower.  Exceptions exist but that seems like a fair rule for my experience in the matter.
> 
> You cant really compare the effectiveness of a system by the people who sit at the top of it, at least not in all regards.     anyway, this seems off topic to the actual point of the thread.


thats probably the truest thing you've ever said, quite possibly the only true thing you've ever said.

you cant measure the effectiveness of a system by the success/ abilities of the very best in that system

but that then is true of combat systems you seem to have developed an admiration for recently

the head instructor can undoubtedly kick ***, if anyone else who studies the system will is some what debatable


----------



## dvcochran (May 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> Not buying it man. I know there is what approximates punching in tkd, but number one there are no strikes to the head in tkd competition or sparring(the primary target of good punching technique), so most that train like that would have no clue what to do about someone that punches well, and number two there is so little emphasis on the rather antiquated hand techniques that are there that even if they were near par with something like boxing technique wise( they patently are not), the lack of focus on them would leave ones that train in such a minimal way unprepared to deal with incoming hand strikes to the head.
> 
> TKD contains good kicking technique, but let's keep the discussion honest here.



It is your comments that have had zero to do with the topic of the thread thus sidetracking it. You saw a chance to bash something you dislike and jumped on it. 
Do you even understand concepts like 'out fighting'? There have been countless matches ended with the hands in WT competition at all levels. I have a standing knockout recorded at the regionals in Indianapolis after a body punch to the ribs. Granted he was beat to hell otherwise but the rib shot is what ended the match. And that is with a hogu on. You may not know that there is barely any hand protection worn in WT, much different from a closed fingered padded glove. Like I said, it is a different ruleset and definitely Not tippy-tap.

As far as training; are you referring to a general TKD program or for specific upper level competition? Two very different things that only slightly overlap. In a comprehensive TKD (any style) program there will be training for striking all body areas. You seem to be blurring a subset of some schools with the overall training of the school itself. 
Do you hang out with Dropbear and watch youtube videos? Let me guess, your favorite search is for 'martial art fails' right?

Antiquated? Apparently you do not even know what the word means. They are not on 'par' because the competition uses a different rule set. To imply they are ineffective just shows your ignorance of this style of competition. 
You will not pull me into bashing others styles/systems of competition, which seems to be the norm for you and a few others on this forum these days. C'mon man.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats probably the truest thing you've ever said, quite possibly the only true thing you've ever said.
> 
> you cant measure the effectiveness of a system by the success/ abilities of the very best in that system
> 
> ...



The only thing looking at the people who have done it for 30 years proves, is what people on average who have done it for 30 years can do.  

And this is indeed inherent in all systems, but some inherently take less time to get good at.   That can be for a variety of reasons, usually down to their training model.    

the only other thing i have found for TMA in general, the ideology of most is, you should start ASAP, like the saying "kung fu is for life", that generally carries with it, as soon as you can actually practise it, you are doing it.    So that by extension means, most people would get a black belt say at 18-20, so they have the foudnation as soon as they hit adulthood and spend their 20's-40's perfecting it and being able to actually use it for defence, as opposed to now where  plenty of people start in theit 20's and the like, or older than tradtionally expected.    And also cant persue it as often as tradtionally might be expected.  (or schools might not provide it enough to persue it like that even if you wanted to, plenty dont have it as a full time persuit)


Thats the issue with tradtion, it sometimes becomes obsolete and should change, or cannot be relaibly practiced in the present times.


----------



## jobo (May 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> The only thing looking at the people who have done it for 30 years proves, is what people on average who have done it for 30 years can do.
> 
> And this is indeed inherent in all systems, but some inherently take less time to get good at.   That can be for a variety of reasons, usually down to their training model.
> 
> ...


 the problem with some traditional arts (or manifestation of) isnt that they haven't changed, its that they have, greatly, just not always for  for the better

there're two fundamental requirements for getting really really good at something, leaving out natural talent, one) be obsessive 2) start young and be obsessive for a long time


----------



## dvcochran (May 24, 2020)

QUOTE="Rat, post: 1999814, member: 39746"]All honestly, you can probbly find as many people who have success with TKD (what ever org there are many) and find a equal amount who have found it to be useless.     Worth noting its usually coloured belts that find it useless and red belts+ that dont.    That brings its usual training model into question and can be used as a point for it.

and that is largely anecdotal but, the people who scream its sucess usually sit on a ivory tower of actually knowing all of it and the people who dont find it sucessful usually sit in the colour belts  under the ivory tower.  Exceptions exist but that seems like a fair rule for my experience in the matter.

You cant really compare the effectiveness of a system by the people who sit at the top of it, at least not in all regards.     anyway, this seems off topic to the actual point of the thread.[/QUOTE]
What???
What style that progresses in typical fashion has Every color belt polished in Everything to the highest level? That is irrational on an epic level. If you are trying to say people get better when they get higher in rank, just say that.
Your 'success vs. useless' reference is not style specific although it is a poor inference. People starting and not finishing is common in every style.
I would argue this IS on topic. Becoming a good fighter and good at self defense are not mutually exclusive. It is apparent this is becoming lost on some folks. In a good comprehensive school/program both are taught concurrently. But it takes time and commitment.
I don't remember anyone saying you could do it in a short course of special program.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 24, 2020)

> What???
> What style that progresses in typical fashion has Every color belt polished in Everything to the highest level? That is irrational on an epic level. If you are trying to say people get better when they get higher in rank, just say that.
> Your 'success vs. useless' reference is not style specific although it is a poor inference. People starting and not finishing is common in every style.
> I would argue this IS on topic. Becoming a good fighter and good at self defense are not mutually exclusive. It is apparent this is becoming lost on some folks. In a good comprehensive school/program both are taught concurrently. But it takes time and commitment.
> I don't remember anyone saying you could do it in a short course of special program.



I think the point was missed.   I cannot reword it for it to have the same point, but just take this disclaimer:    It is seperate from all previous points in this thread.   As it seems like you are conflating two seperate points together.

There is a further eleboration in the reply to jobo under it though.    If that doesnt work, just let me know and i will try and reword it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 24, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Hopefully that will change.  Cameras are great tools.  just get a tripod and put the camera in the corner and let it run.  That way corrections can be made on things that couldn't be seen at the time.  The camera catches a great deal and is brutally honest.


I've tried that approach. I've only ever managed to get a few marketing stills out of them - never anything useful on video from the corner of the room.


----------



## Headhunter (May 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> The only thing looking at the people who have done it for 30 years proves, is what people on average who have done it for 30 years can do.
> 
> And this is indeed inherent in all systems, but some inherently take less time to get good at.   That can be for a variety of reasons, usually down to their training model.
> 
> ...


Lol you talking about people who train 30 years....you haven't trained 30 days....why do you keep talking like you're some expert..


----------



## dvcochran (May 24, 2020)

Steve said:


> I say: Then you try to start some **** by putting words in my mouth (btw, starting **** is code for trolling):
> I said:
> Note that, to this point, I've not mentioned sparring at all.  It's just not relevant.  But you're still trying to start some ****, so you double down on what you want me to have said:
> How you train is literally not the point.  The point is to cut through the BS and try to get at some objective data.  I said:And then I thought, you know...  he'll twist this around, so I'll try to add a little more context, whcih is below:
> ...



You are one Huge contradiction it terms. Even when using your own comments. All you do is stir the pot. To the extent that you have to use your own comments to support your ever moving agenda. It's just silly. And that is being nice.
Like I have said before, semantics are at play. You claim to have never mentioned sparring (which is not true) yet you mention being 'in the ring' (which I doubt). Semantics. You claim you arguments are not black and white (again not true) yet you have clearly made up your mind that traditional formats are crap even though you have little to no exposure to the broad format they offer. Something other than semantics (BS).
All you do is jump on a thread and pop shots with no substance or support. What is your evidence to back up your claims? What is your background and experience? Why would anyone summarily take your ever changing word?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 24, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> I've tried that approach. I've only ever managed to get a few marketing stills out of them - never anything useful on video from the corner of the room.



Sounds like a issue in deployment and use than the concept itself.     Granted i dont think it would work for groups anyway, as you need to set up at least 2-3 to cover the angles required and that would require individual recording.     Unless you are analysising the bigger picture, say you place a camera up to record a self defence drill to see how a group reacts and more the overall picture rather than specfic techniques or technical perfection.    ie did person X scan or stay fixed on the target.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> Sounds like a issue in deployment and use than the concept itself.     Granted i dont think it would work for groups anyway, as you need to set up at least 2-3 to cover the angles required and that would require individual recording.     Unless you are analysising the bigger picture, say you place a camera up to record a self defence drill to see how a group reacts and more the overall picture rather than specfic techniques or technical perfection.    ie did person X scan or stay fixed on the target.


It's a problem with the format for moving classes that occupy a large space. If the camera covers the whole area, it's too far away to see much, and gets backs about 50% of the time. At my current dojo, it's quite literally impossible to capture the two major training areas I use (mats at one end, heavy bag at the other) in a single shot.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> You are one Huge contradiction it terms. Even when using your own comments. All you do is stir the pot. To the extent that you have to use your own comments to support your ever moving agenda. It's just silly. And that is being nice.
> Like I have said before, semantics are at play. You claim to have never mentioned sparring (which is not true) yet you mention being 'in the ring' (which I doubt). Semantics. You claim you arguments are not black and white (again not true) yet you have clearly made up your mind that traditional formats are crap even though you have little to no exposure to the broad format they offer. Something other than semantics (BS).
> All you do is jump on a thread and pop shots with no substance or support. What is your evidence to back up your claims? What is your background and experience? Why would anyone summarily take your ever changing word?


Now it's contradictory?  You guys really can't keep your stories straight.   

I don't claim a whole lot.  I provide evidence where needed.  And my opinions on self defense have been consistent for longer than you've been a member of the forum.  There was a guy, Chris Parker, who used to post.   I think you'd get along very well with him. He was another guy who considered himself a self defense expert.  Same discussions.

What I see is a lot of guys who can't discuss the points so they attack the poster.  You make it personal, and because a couple of the poor actors are mods, it just escalates. 

I have an idea.  Instead if offering me advice and commentary on my rhetorical failings, why not respond to the points in making?  Or not respond?   

Regarding my qualifications, I think the ideas I discuss are commkn sense and speak for themselves.  But I have been involved in training and instructional design for over 2 decades.  I've designed and delivered training for new technicians, but most of my time has been spent working with new supervisors and new managers.  I train them, and coach them. I've been at it long enough to see folks who I trained as new hires actually move into senior Management.  I've designed and managed  leadership development programs.  I've developed a ton of face to face training, and have also developed online training, and live virtual training using programs like adobe connect.   I  manage a team of folks responsible for all training and development for 10 states.  A big part of the last 15 years had also been training trainers and instructional designers.   I don't know everything, but I do know how people learn to do things.  

It's funny when you're in the stage of your cycle where I'm saying things that are obvious.  That's something I tell my guys from time to time.  Training isn't complicated.  Tell them what they need to know.  Show them what they need to do, and then coach them while they do it. 

So, to sum up, I read more than I post around here.  The only threads I really post in are off topic threads about fun stuff and threads on the topic of training philosophy like this one.  You may disagree, but I think I'm well qualified for both.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> the only other thing i have found for TMA in general, the ideology of most is, you should start ASAP, like the saying "kung fu is for life", that generally carries with it, as soon as you can actually practise it, you are doing it.    So that by extension means, most people would get a black belt say at 18-20, so they have the foudnation as soon as they hit adulthood and spend their 20's-40's perfecting it and being able to actually use it for defence, as opposed to now where  plenty of people start in theit 20's and the like, or older than tradtionally expected.    And also cant persue it as often as tradtionally might be expected.  (or schools might not provide it enough to persue it like that even if you wanted to, plenty dont have it as a full time persuit)


Gotta be honest, I’m not certain what exactly you are getting at here.

I will say this:  I train a traditional Chinese system and it is my honest opinion that the method I train can become functional and useful in as little as three months.  

It takes much longer than that to learn the complete system.  But nobody actually needs to learn the complete system.  It is much larger than strictly necessary if functionality is all you want.  

How quickly one becomes functional does depend on the individual, how much natural ability they have and how hard they work at it.  There are certainly some people who will never become functional because they simply lack any aptitude for it and/or they never commit to the training at a level that can lead to functionality.  But those folks exist in any endeavor and are not the yardstick against which the method ought to be judged.

When someone says “Kung fu is for life” what that means to me is that the methodology is compatible with people at all stages of life.  Meaning:  this isn’t something that one would typically grow “too old” to do.  It does not depend on youthful athleticism that we will all eventually lose.  Rather, it is something that can be practiced well into old age, however I will concede that one’s success in old age is more likely if one begins in youth and remains consistent in their training throughout their life and into old age.  If one is a couch potato all their life and then decides to begin kung fu training at the age of 78, then it is unlikely they will have much success in the endeavor.  They have fallen behind the eight ball  at that point and there isn’t much room anymore for catch-up. But this ought to be obvious to anyone with some common sense and a little reflection. 

But to return to my original comments:  my system does not require thirty years of training before one becomes effective.  Someone who is dedicated to the training and has reasonable natural ability and athleticism should have some useful functionality somewhere between three months and two years.  And then they already have something they can practice for a lifetime, getting better and better at the functional and useful skills and having the health benefits of rigorous exercise, even with what they have learned in that brief period of time, even if they don’t learn more of the system.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> here is a honda civic type r with a big wing
> 
> it big wing definitely adds more, as it would have a hard job staying on the road with out it at the sort off silly speeds these things will do, so yes a more complete ''race car''


Missed this.  The point is that more isn’t always more complete.   Not the inverse.   For example, here is a car with a fin.  I didn’t take the time to find a Honda Civic, though I guess I can if you really need me to.


----------



## jobo (May 24, 2020)

Steve said:


> Missed this.  The point is that more isn’t always more complete.   Not the inverse.   For example, here is a car with a fin.  I didn’t take the time to find a Honda Civic, though I guess I can if you really need me to.


 after an unfortunate brush with a  very deep puddle( more of a modest lake to be honest) and fence post, my mates brother lent me a car, whilst he knocked mine straight with a lump hammer 

that was very much in that sort of condition, however it had a substantially tuned grass track engine in it. it was scarily fast,  i mean really really scary, it broadsided everything, all the time., not helped at all by the stock tyres and the complete lack of a big wing on the back to keep it on the road.

so it seems you are judging that car by its looks and mocking him with out taking the time to enquire as to what it is and if its needed, it was certainly much needed on the car i borrowed


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> after an unfortunate brush with a  very deep puddle( more of a modest lake to be honest) and fence post, my mates brother lent me a car, whilst he knocked mine straight with a lump hammer
> 
> that was very much in that sort of condition, however it had a substantially tuned grass track engine in it. it was scarily fast,  i mean really really scary, it broadsided everything, all the time., not helped at all by the stock tyres and the complete lack of a big wing on the back to keep it on the road.
> 
> so it seems you are judging that car by its looks and mocking him with out taking the time to enquire as to what it is and if its needed, it was certainly much needed on the car i borrowed


You're in the UK. You might be unfamiliar with a trend in the states with"tuning" cars by dropping the suspension, adding a giant spoiler and a bunch of cool stickers.  Some put a louder muffler in them.  Man, if you don't get the analogy, the answer is just a Google search away.


----------



## drop bear (May 24, 2020)

Rat said:


> All honestly, you can probbly find as many people who have success with TKD (what ever org there are many) and find a equal amount who have found it to be useless.     Worth noting its usually coloured belts that find it useless and red belts+ that dont.    That brings its usual training model into question and can be used as a point for it.
> 
> and that is largely anecdotal but, the people who scream its sucess usually sit on a ivory tower of actually knowing all of it and the people who dont find it sucessful usually sit in the colour belts  under the ivory tower.  Exceptions exist but that seems like a fair rule for my experience in the matter.
> 
> You cant really compare the effectiveness of a system by the people who sit at the top of it, at least not in all regards.     anyway, this seems off topic to the actual point of the thread.



The people at the top is how you would discern without spending time in the system if the system produces results.

Otherwise you get a very mixed up biased method to determine worth.

I keep showing this Richard Dawkins water divining experiment. Where he shows through blind trials that it doesn't work.

Where people who do it, intuitively believe it does work. They literally cannot be convinced with evidence.

Now this is the accusation falsely aimed at you. That if you are not a water diviner how can you say it doesn't work?

But if it works you should be able to see it by some sort of external method.






And the difference between being an expert in a subject and being able to spot a fantasy is he is studied and is an expert at discerning real from fantasy.


----------



## jobo (May 24, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're in the UK. You might be unfamiliar with a trend in the states with"tuning" cars by dropping the suspension, adding a giant spoiler and a bunch of cool stickers.  Some put a louder muffler in them.  Man, if you don't get the analogy, the answer is just a Google search away.


 no im painfully aware of people sticking bits on modest cars so they look like the fast and the furious, we get films here as well.

how ever....... these is also the ''street sleeper trend,'',, that i have indulged in my self  of the exact opposite, thats a very ordinary, broken down looking vehicle that goes like billio and may need a wing out of sheer necessity


i had an exmilatary land rover, hand painted lime screen, with a tuned v 8 in it.

it was designed for a top speed of 60 mph, it would hit 120, but that wasn't the fun, it had silly low gearing and weighed next to nothing that mean i could hit 60 in 4 seconds, i used to blow motorbikes of it,, really really annoying BM W sports convertible driver was very easy, as long as i didnt attempt to go round corners,,, no big wing you see


----------



## Martial D (May 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> It is your comments that have had zero to do with the topic of the thread thus sidetracking it. You saw a chance to bash something you dislike and jumped on it.
> Do you even understand concepts like 'out fighting'? There have been countless matches ended with the hands in WT competition at all levels. I have a standing knockout recorded at the regionals in Indianapolis after a body punch to the ribs. Granted he was beat to hell otherwise but the rib shot is what ended the match. And that is with a hogu on. You may not know that there is barely any hand protection worn in WT, much different from a closed fingered padded glove. Like I said, it is a different ruleset and definitely Not tippy-tap.
> 
> As far as training; are you referring to a general TKD program or for specific upper level competition? Two very different things that only slightly overlap. In a comprehensive TKD (any style) program there will be training for striking all body areas. You seem to be blurring a subset of some schools with the overall training of the school itself.
> ...



I find that the word 'bashing' is often a sort of code word for any sort of honest assessment the one using that word doesn't care for.


----------



## drop bear (May 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> no im painfully aware of people sticking bits on modest cars so they look like the fast and the furious, we get films here as well.
> 
> how ever....... these is also the ''street sleeper trend,'',, that i have indulged in my self  of the exact opposite, thats a very ordinary, broken down looking vehicle that goes like billio and may need a wing out of sheer necessity
> 
> ...



You realise this concept is not a reflection on you?

Yes you can build an awesome car. But you can also modify a car and make it terrible.


----------



## drop bear (May 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> thats probably the truest thing you've ever said, quite possibly the only true thing you've ever said.
> 
> you cant measure the effectiveness of a system by the success/ abilities of the very best in that system
> 
> ...



You can either see the students progress or you can't though.


----------



## jobo (May 24, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You realise this concept is not a reflection on you?
> 
> Yes you can build an awesome car. But you can also modify a car and make it terrible.


i did make it terrible, it was really really terrible to look at, it woke people for literally miles around, the sound waves out of it used to set off car alarm motion sensors, it was near enough impossible to drive with huge tyres and no power steering and no servo assisted brakes,  and bits used to fall of it with a frightening regularity,,, it was however fun in the extreme and very very fast, when it wasn't broke which it frequently was, but spending my Saturdays fixing it was part of the fun

which was its reason for being,,, fun seems to be the bit you want to leave out along with things working extremely well within the limits of its design


----------



## drop bear (May 24, 2020)

jobo said:


> i did make it terrible, it was really really terrible to look at, it woke people for literally miles around, the sound waves out of it used to set off car alarms, it was near enough impossible to drive with huge tyres and no power steering and bits used to fall of it with a frightening regularity,,, it was however fun in the extreme and very very fast, when it wasn't broke which it frequently was
> 
> which was its reason for being,,, fun seems to be the bit you want to leave out along with things working extremely well within the limits of its design



Yes in self defense fighting. Fun is my priority.


----------



## jobo (May 24, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yes in self defense fighting. Fun is my priority.


well your very very odd, to a lot of people the best ma training is the one they enjoy enough to keep attending. the one that may be more effective is of no use if they dont have fun and keep going, not everyone lives in this life and death world you do, some folk just want to kill a couple of hours a week doing something pleasant

telling someone who runs for fun, they would get a lot fitter dragging a sled across the antarctic, is both true and useless information if they have no intent of going to the antarctic

telling me id be better at SD if i did MMA is much the same, I DONT WANT TO


----------



## dvcochran (May 24, 2020)

Steve said:


> Now it's contradictory?  You guys really can't keep your stories straight.
> 
> I don't claim a whole lot.  I provide evidence where needed.  And my opinions on self defense have been consistent for longer than you've been a member of the forum.  There was a guy, Chris Parker, who used to post.   I think you'd get along very well with him. He was another guy who considered himself a self defense expert.  Same discussions.
> 
> ...





Steve said:


> And my opinions on self defense have been consistent for longer than you've been a member of the forum.


Ah, I have been waiting for the 'old timer' defense to come up, weak as it is. There are people who have been on here for a long time who are still adolescent, at least in thinking. And that is okay. But seldom do they put up a front that they are something they are not.
I have zero knowledge of the person you mention. Over time, I have heard several names of people from the past. The reason I visit this forum is because of the people on here now and the consistently quality, accurate content. Generally better than the other forums I visit. If you are offended by people who call BS what it is, maybe things have changed here. But I seriously doubt it.



Steve said:


> What I see is a lot of guys who can't discuss the points so they attack the poster. You make it personal, and because a couple of the poor actors are mods, it just escalates.


So the centuries of experience from the people on this forum are nothing to your vast experience? Perfect logic.
Your idea of personal is hilarious. You are repeatedly offensive but apparently have put yourself on a throne and assume everyone is going to defer to you wisdom. Again hilarious.



Steve said:


> I have an idea. Instead if offering me advice and commentary on my rhetorical failings, why not respond to the points in making? Or not respond?


If you cannot handle simple questions and challenges to your often inaccurate content possibly it is you who should not respond to threads.
Many people have been responding to you. But you keep moving the target. You tend to make knee-jerk, bold claims then start to crawfish when people call you out. As the saying goes 'if you cannot walk the walk.....


Steve said:


> Regarding my qualifications, I think the ideas I discuss are commkn sense and speak for themselves. But I have been involved in training and instructional design for over 2 decades. I've designed and delivered training for new technicians, but most of my time has been spent working with new supervisors and new managers. I train them, and coach them. I've been at it long enough to see folks who I trained as new hires actually move into senior Management. I've designed and managed leadership development programs. I've developed a ton of face to face training, and have also developed online training, and live virtual training using programs like adobe connect. I manage a team of folks responsible for all training and development for 10 states. A big part of the last 15 years had also been training trainers and instructional designers. I don't know everything, but I do know how people learn to do things.


So, you are a motivational speaker/trainer? That answers a lot. Supports the saying 'those who can't teach'.

Look, you may be great at what you do. But you are not the only one doing it. None of us are. Surely you understand this. I asked what you do because you come off very shallow in most of your comments. It is pretty easy to see.

My wife and I have owned and operated as many as five businesses (four currently). She has her own law firm. I have/had over 100 direct employees in my control & automation business. I have been wholly responsible for projects in excess of 300M. I was the corporate director of automation for the 16th largest corporation in the world at the time(Masonite) and have worked all over the world. I have met a Lot of 'trainers'. Hell, I have often been one in technical applications and startups. Your comments regarding this ring so loudly of the theory vs. application discussion that has bounced around on this forum for so long.
We have two large cattle and crop operations. I own the real property for two strip malls, both with MA schools and have been active since 1984. I had a great competition career. I went to somewhere north of 200 competitions. I placed gold in my state in the Olympic circuit (USTU, USA TKD; call it what you want) 3 years in a row and medaled at the nationals the same years. I was two matches away from going to the Olympics. I am belted in three styles. 
Yada, yada, yada.
Do I have everything figured out? Hell no. But there is more than enough knowledge here to ferret out inaccuracies.
What I am saying is extend the same courtesies to everyone else that you expect from them. It may not fit Your memories of the 'glory day's on this forum but that is no reason to disrespect the people that are here now.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Ah, I have been waiting for the 'old timer' defense to come up, weak as it is. There are people who have been on here for a long time who are still adolescent, at least in thinking. And that is okay. But seldom do they put up a front that they are something they are not.
> I have zero knowledge of the person you mention. Over time, I have heard several names of people from the past. The reason I visit this forum is because of the people on here now and the consistently quality, accurate content. Generally better than the other forums I visit. If you are offended by people who call BS what it is, maybe things have changed here. But I seriously doubt it.
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, I won't even try to unpack the emotional stew you just threw up on the keyboard above.  I'll just address the "those who can't, teach" comment.  I think to be qualified to teach something, you have to be competent to do that thing.  I teach people to do things I've actually done and did quite well.  I'm also a very good instructional designer.  That means I help people like you (well, I avoid people like you) design training for their staff.  I work with subject matter experts, because I know you can't fake it.  You can't teach something you just don't have experience doing. 

Now, I'm very familiar with the kinds of trainers you talk about.  There are professional "facilitators" out there who teach all kinds of things they aren't competent to teach.  Maybe you've just been unlucky in your illustrious career to have never worked with quality trainers or instructional designers.  I'm not an expert in many things, but I am an expert in that.  So, I mean, you can be dismissive if you like, but, you aren't the expert, sooooo....


----------



## skribs (May 24, 2020)

Martial D said:


> I find that the word 'bashing' is often a sort of code word for any sort of honest assessment the one using that word doesn't care for.



No, "bashing" is when you think your opinion is an honest assessment and start belittling everyone else because they don't share your opinions.


----------



## Martial D (May 24, 2020)

skribs said:


> No, "bashing" is when you think your opinion is an honest assessment and start belittling everyone else because they don't share your opinions.


QED


----------



## jobo (May 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Ah, I have been waiting for the 'old timer' defense to come up, weak as it is. There are people who have been on here for a long time who are still adolescent, at least in thinking. And that is okay. But seldom do they put up a front that they are something they are not.
> I have zero knowledge of the person you mention. Over time, I have heard several names of people from the past. The reason I visit this forum is because of the people on here now and the consistently quality, accurate content. Generally better than the other forums I visit. If you are offended by people who call BS what it is, maybe things have changed here. But I seriously doubt it.
> 
> 
> ...


 im just wondering how many times a month you feel the need to write a long post telling everyone how rich/ successful you are ? and in very specific terms what this has to do with ma..

it does appear to be a constant theme of self justification no matter what subject is being discussed


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (May 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> What I see is a lot of guys who can't discuss the points so they attack the poster.  You make it personal, and because a couple of the poor actors are mods, it just escalates.


I'm not 100% sure which mods you are referring to (although based on your posts I can make some guesses), but just want to interject on this point. Us mods, and the admins, have to follow the same rules as everyone else. The mods can receive warnings, points and bans the same as anyone else. And if a particular mod is involved in a case, they do not interject with their opinion on who deserves a warning/point/ban, instead they state "involved". I'm not sure if this is how it has always been, but it's been this way since I became a mod 1.5 years ago.


----------



## dvcochran (May 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> im just wondering how many times a month you feel the need to write a long post telling everyone how rich/ successful you are ? and in very specific terms what this has to do with ma..
> 
> it does appear to be a constant theme of self justification


I do not mean to offend. I only pulled that out to prove a point to someone.
 Like I said in the post, there is a ton of knowledge on this forum. No one person should laud themselves as the sole source of information. Just a foolish thing to do. 
FWIW, I did not inherit anything we own. We have busted out asses to get where we are. So yes, I do get thin pretty quick with paper tigers. 

In specific terms, the reason for the post was to call out BS. What good is a forum like this if it is nothing but misinformation? We all do this from time to time don't we? 
There has been an extended narrative claiming the term 'self defense' automatically means false of a poor instructor or school. After a lot of debate the general theme mellowed and a more commensurate viewpoint was expressed. One poster in particular continued to be very accusatory yet expressed offense when people called them out even though they were/are doing the same to others.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (May 25, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You can either see the students progress or you can't though.



Now this is slightly off topic, but in that sort of area i have seen two blocs.       People arent perfect thus dont all respond the same to training and also the instructor is at fault.     It seems to be when its convient for either party and becomes quite partisan.       ie its the students fault is usually the cry of a mc dojo when somone doesnt respond well to their teachings as opposed to assesing if its the person, the teaching or a mix.  

Obviously the reality is, not everyone responds the same way to every form of teaching or every skill.  There is some objectivity in this though.  


Thats just another observation i have found.


----------



## Headhunter (May 25, 2020)

Rat said:


> Now this is slightly off topic, but in that sort of area i have seen two blocs.       People arent perfect thus dont all respond the same to training and also the instructor is at fault.     It seems to be when its convient for either party and becomes quite partisan.       ie its the students fault is usually the cry of a mc dojo when somone doesnt respond well to their teachings as opposed to assesing if its the person, the teaching or a mix.
> 
> Obviously the reality is, not everyone responds the same way to every form of teaching or every skill.  There is some objectivity in this though.
> 
> ...


Observed from where?


----------



## jobo (May 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I do not mean to offend. I only pulled that out to prove a point to someone.
> Like I said in the post, there is a ton of knowledge on this forum. No one person should laud themselves as the sole source of information. Just a foolish thing to do.
> FWIW, I did not inherit anything we own. We have busted out asses to get where we are. So yes, I do get thin pretty quick with paper tigers.
> 
> ...


 im by no means offended, more amused it, just seems to be a variation of Goodwin law, where any discussion eventually ends up with the Nazis, but in this case its how rich/successful you are

your martial arts career is indeed extremely impressive, but you mention this far less than your acquisition of wealth, though in most discussions its far more pertinent


----------



## Steve (May 25, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I do not mean to offend. I only pulled that out to prove a point to someone.
> Like I said in the post, there is a ton of knowledge on this forum. No one person should laud themselves as the sole source of information. Just a foolish thing to do.
> FWIW, I did not inherit anything we own. We have busted out asses to get where we are. So yes, I do get thin pretty quick with paper tigers.
> 
> ...


Oh, jesus christ.  You literally can't post on topic.  I can't remember what your position is, much less whether I agree or disagree with you, it's been so long since you've posted anything constructive.

You asked a question.  Foolishly, I answered you.  You then posted your credentials, which, frankly, I could give two squats about.  I have never questioned them, and I don't see how they're remotely relevant.  

It's so predictable.  You say I'm all over the place and inconsistent.  I say I've been consistent for years, longer than you've been a part of the forum.  You then say I'm pulling some kind of card.  You ask me for my credentials, I post them, you ridicule them.  

My theory is still that your feelings where hurt at some point.  I think you were embarrassed by being so obtuse earlier in another  thread, where you were angrily agreeing with me, but thinking you weren't.  It's clear you have quite the big head, and for a guy with an ego like yours, being embarrassed must be a hard thing to swallow.

So, you needle me like a child post after post.  It's partly my fault, I'll grant you that.  I knew I shouldn't answer your question.  I actually had you on ignore for a few days, but I really hate doing that to anyone, so I took you off.  You don't post in good faith.  Every question you ask is an obvious trap, and this question was clearly loaded. But if I didn't, you'd have twisted that around, too.  

But, you know, at the end of the day, I actually do the things I teach.  I'm a subject matter expert on everything I train people to do.  And i'm a subject matter expert on the profession of creating training.  And I'm a subject matter expert on teaching other people to design and develop training.  I've coached employees, managed employees, supervised managers.  And at the end of the day, I know people can apply what I teach them, because I see them develop those skills in the real world.  I can see new supervisors become a better supervisor through the performance of their teams.  That's how it works for everything except self defense.

I've also seen a lot of bad trainers and facilitators.  Sounds like you have, too.  The self defense phenomenon isn't unique to self defense.  People sell management training (all training, but a lot of management training) all the time who aren't qualified.  Guys who have never managed a team, teaching other people how to do that.  Doesn't work there, either.


----------



## jobo (May 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> Oh, jesus christ.  You literally can't post on topic.  I can't remember what your position is, much less whether I agree or disagree with you, it's been so long since you've posted anything constructive.
> 
> You asked a question.  Foolishly, I answered you.  You then posted your credentials, which, frankly, I could give two squats about.  I have never questioned them, and I don't see how they're remotely relevant.
> 
> ...


 if we could drop the private war of words going on, there are some interesting points here

steve

your using the term expert like it has some universal definition, clearly there are people in the world who most people could agree are experts, these general have a professorship or some such,

for everyones elves its a comparative term, you may have greater expertise than someone else, but that doesnt make you an expert, unless your the one with a singular level of expertise/ qualification. there can only really be a very small number of experts in any field and as they seldom agree on anything it throws the whole system of experts into doubt

for instance i was classed as an ''expert witness'' in my chosen field, however the other side of any court case would find another expert who disagreed with me. we both couldn't be ''experts'' or there would be only one opinion

even more, im skilled at adult training( employee training and development), i have a post grad degree in such, , im not sure that makes me an expert just proficient, the guy who wrote the book i revised from is the expert

however using such expertise as i had in training i found no difficulty in training people in subjects i was far from an expert in, just as long as i a) understood the material i was teaching and b) knew more than the people who i was teaching,,, teaching fire safety when someone from the fire brigade has turned up can be problematic, you immediately bow to there expertise and ask them to do the presentation, they general cant resist

though convincing people who know more than you, that they know less is a really really valuable expertise to develop and may quite possibly be the only thing in the world i am indeed an expert on


----------



## Steve (May 25, 2020)

jobo said:


> if we could drop the private war of words going on, there are some interesting points here
> 
> steve
> 
> ...


Good points.  If it helps, I'll explain how I think of expertise.  Expertise is a spectrum.  However, there is a very clear difference between a lay person and an expert.

Think about a trade carpenter... at least, how it works in the USA.  A person who isn't a carpenter is a lay person.  There are people who are learning to be carpenters, who are called apprentices. There are people who are proficient, called journeymen.  To a lay person, a journeyman could certainly be considered an expert, as they are competent to perform the full range of the craft independently. And then there are masters of the craft.  Those folks are experts among the experts.  And there are ranges within each of those classifications.

A black belt in BJJ is, by any objective measure, an expert.  But there's are black belts and then there are black belts.  If that makes sense.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 25, 2020)

I think this video sums the answer up nicely.


----------



## Buka (May 25, 2020)

Martial D said:


> I find that the word 'bashing' is often a sort of code word for any sort of honest assessment the one using that word doesn't care for.




I kind of agree with you. But probably not for the same reasons. I find bashing to just be bashing. I find it the tool of complete asshats.

Myself and our group of Martial Artists were some of the original "bashees". We were the heathen American Karate people who did not do any form of Katas, and, God forbid, we wore black gis. And who was bashing us, and I mean constantly bashing us? The Traditional Karate world who ruled the tournament circuits back in the day.

They were complete **** hole Mother F'kers. I'm sure it didn't help that we constantly beat them. And I believe what really ticked them off is we were polite about it.

As far as I'm concerned, bashing is bashing. And the people who bash today are of the same ilk as the old complete **** hole Mother F'kers back in the day.

And, in my opinion, probably can't fight any better than those other bashers could.


----------



## drop bear (May 25, 2020)

Rat said:


> Now this is slightly off topic, but in that sort of area i have seen two blocs.       People arent perfect thus dont all respond the same to training and also the instructor is at fault.     It seems to be when its convient for either party and becomes quite partisan.       ie its the students fault is usually the cry of a mc dojo when somone doesnt respond well to their teachings as opposed to assesing if its the person, the teaching or a mix.
> 
> Obviously the reality is, not everyone responds the same way to every form of teaching or every skill.  There is some objectivity in this though.
> 
> ...



There are two points to this.

1. Martial artists are very quick to throw their hands in the air and say "I guess we will never know" and what this attitude does is it takes away from the facts and draws attention to the marketing.

There is a very common theme here that the evidence isn't important only the marketing matters.

And an unprovable claim will always be brighter and shinier than a provable one. So it is in martial arts best interests to disguise evidence and disprove facts.

2. In other fields where evidence does matter they still have methods of determining these sorts of effects where people don't react all the same.

Mental health drugs for example have what is called the rule of thirds. Because if they just threw their hands up in the air. The profession would devolve in to something like martial arts.

What is the "rule of thirds" concerning the prognosis of late-onset major depressive disorder (clinical depression)?


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Good points.  If it helps, I'll explain how I think of expertise.  Expertise is a spectrum.  However, there is a very clear difference between a lay person and an expert.
> 
> Think about a trade carpenter... at least, how it works in the USA.  A person who isn't a carpenter is a lay person.  There are people who are learning to be carpenters, who are called apprentices. There are people who are proficient, called journeymen.  To a lay person, a journeyman could certainly be considered an expert, as they are competent to perform the full range of the craft independently. And then there are masters of the craft.  Those folks are experts among the experts.  And there are ranges within each of those classifications.
> 
> A black belt in BJJ is, by any objective measure, an expert.  But there's are black belts and then there are black belts.  If that makes sense.


 yes expertise is a spectrum, but the term expert only has any currency at all, if its reserved for an elite few, other wise its meaningless,  and anyone can call themselves an expert as it is a term of no value

is a bjj black belt an expert, no not to my mind, above averagely competent, which is far from the same thing, just as im an above average pool player


----------



## dvcochran (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> I've also seen a lot of bad trainers and facilitators. Sounds like you have, too. The self defense phenomenon isn't unique to self defense. People sell management training (all training, but a lot of management training) all the time who aren't qualified. Guys who have never managed a team, teaching other people how to do that. Doesn't work there, either.



This we agree on. And it allows us to get back on topic. As you say, some trainers are good, some are hacks. The same is true 100% true in teaching/training self defense. Yet you took a hard line, saying ALL self defense training is bad. This is where the rub began. Then you eventually crawfished your way out of the statement. I called you out; you got offended and began deflecting. I called you out again, back and forth, etc.....
You are correct that I am very 'A' personality, particularly when my buttons get pushed. I have a disdain for BS as it is a colossal waste of time. As well as for people who just can't say 'I was wrong' and instead waste everyone's time going down a fruitless trail. You cannot do my kind of work if you can't check your ego and be okay with being wrong and just moving on. I note that as a character trait.
I get the idea of injecting questions/comments to gauge the response but you take/took it Way past that, trying to persuade everyone to come to your side. Exactly what @jobo was jokingly (I think)  inferring when he said "though convincing people who know more than you, that they know less is a really really valuable expertise to develop and may quite possibly be the only thing in the world i am indeed an expert on". 

There are a precious few who teach/instruct/own MA's businesses as their full source of income. And frankly, I don't how/why they do it. And that is from someone who LOVES MA's and who is invested in it personally and financially. It has been very good to me. 
I place these people in the category of school teachers, LEO, EMS and such. It is their calling and they love it unconditionally.  Even though they may be post educated ($$$) and trained to highly trained individuals,  the low wages and lack of income is less important to them. 
While I don't get it I have a ton of respect for it. Passion it something that is hard to qualify and harder to quantify. 

I too have been back and forth with putting people on ignore but decided that is just a cop-out and defeats the purpose of this forum. I sometimes have to remind myself that there are people from all over the world and all levels of experience. I measure my responses largely based on these two factors.


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> yes expertise is a spectrum, but the term expert only has any currency at all, if its reserved for an elite few, other wise its meaningless,  and anyone can call themselves an expert as it is a term of no value
> 
> is a bjj black belt an expert, no not to my mind, above averagely competent, which is far from the same thing, just as im an above average pool player


Eh, I hear what you're saying, but disagree.  I like to think of it in terms of Bloom's taxonomy, a framework that has been around for decades.  It's a framework that makes a lot of sense to me, and I use it a lot to help people design training appropriate for the expertise level of the audience.  Lots of information about it on the internet, but essentially, it breaks down skill development into six stages:

Knowledge
Comprehension
Application

Analysis 
Synthesis
Innovation

The three stages below "application" are different stages of expertise.  I'd characterize anyone who is at one of these stages to be an expert, though some would certainly be experts among experts.  

Training alone can get you through comprehension and to the cusp of application.  You can even dip into application through simulations and such.  Note that this is if the training is exceptionally well designed and executed.  But simulations don't replace real world experience.  The best training framework, in my opinion, is some foundational training, and getting the person into the task as quickly as possible, with periodic training focused on filling in gaps.  And a lot of coaching. Where there is no task, the training becomes the task, and you are essentially creating expert trainees, which even just saying that makes me cringe.


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This we agree on. And it allows us to get back on topic. As you say, some trainers are good, some are hacks. The same is true 100% true in teaching/training self defense. Yet you took a hard line, saying ALL self defense training is bad. This is where the rub began. Then you eventually crawfished your way out of the statement. I called you out; you got offended and began deflecting. I called you out again, back and forth, etc.....
> You are correct that I am very 'A' personality, particularly when my buttons get pushed. I have a disdain for BS as it is a colossal waste of time. As well as for people who just can't say 'I was wrong' and instead waste everyone's time going down a fruitless trail. You cannot do my kind of work if you can't check your ego and be okay with being wrong and just moving on. I note that as a character trait.
> I get the idea of injecting questions/comments to gauge the response but you take/took it Way past that, trying to persuade everyone to come to your side. Exactly what @jobo was jokingly (I think)  inferring when he said "though convincing people who know more than you, that they know less is a really really valuable expertise to develop and may quite possibly be the only thing in the world i am indeed an expert on".
> 
> ...


I've been giving self defense training every benefit of the doubt.  My comments regarding self defense training presume that it is exceptionally well designed and delivered.

Edit.  Just to be clear, there are all kinds of training programs that teach skills commonly associated with self defense that are great.  They are just taught by people with experience to people who will use those skills in some way.  So, teaching fighting skills to a fighter works great.  Teaching cops to be better cops.  But I don't classify that as self defense training.  

When I think about self defense training, I apply the "middle aged elementary school teacher" test. Is the middle aged elementary school teacher going to apply the skills ever?  Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be an expert?  Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be competent to teach someone else these skills?

The answer to the above questions for self defense training is no, even if the training is excellent.


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Eh, I hear what you're saying, but disagree.  I like to think of it in terms of Bloom's taxonomy, a framework that has been around for decades.  It's a framework that makes a lot of sense to me, and I use it a lot to help people design training appropriate for the expertise level of the audience.  Lots of information about it on the internet, but essentially, it breaks down skill development into six stages:
> 
> Knowledge
> Comprehension
> ...


any one who is receiving training is not an expert by definition


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> any one who is receiving training is not an expert by definition


Hard disagree on that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Will this middle aged elementary school teacher ever be an expert?


When you

- teach elementary school, you are not trying to do research, and publish academic paper.
- train for SD, you are not trying to develop "door guarding" skills.

A simple "door guarding" skill can be as simple as a roundhouse kick that can break attacker's arm and leg.


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you
> 
> - teach elementary school, you are not trying to do research, and publish academic paper.
> - train for SD, you are not trying to develop "door guarding" skills.
> ...


Sure, that makes sense.  But would you ever go to the school teacher for lessons on how to be a door guard?  That's kind of what we're suggesting here... that it's possible to transform a teacher into an expert bouncer without him or her ever guarding a door.  Seems like a stretch to me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> Sure, that makes sense.  But would you ever go to the school teacher for lessons on how to be a door guard?  That's kind of what we're suggesting here... that it's possible to transform a teacher into an expert bouncer without him or her ever guarding a door.  Seems like a stretch to me.


The "door guarding" skill is not skill use by a bouncer. The "door guarding" skill is the skill that you use to guard your own life. - your best MA skill.

The issue is I'm not sure that a SD teacher will ask his SD students to develop such MA skill (such as to hang on the pole for 5 years to develop a strong head lock).


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> I've been giving self defense training every benefit of the doubt.  My comments regarding self defense training presume that it is exceptionally well designed and delivered.
> 
> Edit.  Just to be clear, there are all kinds of training programs that teach skills commonly associated with self defense that are great.  They are just taught by people with experience to people who will use those skills in some way.  So, teaching fighting skills to a fighter works great.  Teaching cops to be better cops.  But I don't classify that as self defense training.
> 
> ...


is the point they are an elementary teacher relevant ?

why do you believe they will never use the skills be proficient and proficient enough to teach ?

its seem a fair amount of prediction from something as unimportant as their occupation


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> This we agree on. And it allows us to get back on topic. As you say, some trainers are good, some are hacks. The same is true 100% true in teaching/training self defense. Yet you took a hard line, saying ALL self defense training is bad.



It quite simply is bad unless it is proven to be good. 

And I can't think of a work around for that.


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> any one who is receiving training is not an expert by definition



Champion fighters still receive training.


----------



## dvcochran (May 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It quite simply is bad unless it is proven to be good.
> 
> And I can't think of a work around for that.


True enough. So you go out and test EVERY program and get back to us. I look forward to reading your report. Oh, and make sure and provide a cover of the intimately detailed guidelines used to weigh and measure each statistical category.


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> is the point they are an elementary teacher relevant ?
> 
> why do you believe they will never use the skills be proficient and proficient enough to teach ?
> 
> its seem a fair amount of prediction from something as unimportant as their occupation


I think when I say, middle aged elementary school teacher, we can all create a mental image of what that suggests.


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> True enough. So you go out and test EVERY program and get back to us. I look forward to reading your report. Oh, and make sure and provide a cover of the intimately detailed guidelines used to weigh and measure each statistical category.


I've actually offered at least three different, objective studies that could be done to get at some real information.  No one seems to want to fund me, though.  Maybe if I start a gofundme page.

But, being serious, can you point me to an example of a self defense program that teaches average people that you think is effective, is not competition oriented?  Would be interesting to take a look at what it is, and break down what you see and why you think it is effective.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 26, 2020)

In a SD school, do you intend to develop some MA skill like this?


----------



## dvcochran (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> I've actually offered at least three different, objective studies that could be done to get at some real information.  No one seems to want to fund me, though.  Maybe if I start a gofundme page.
> 
> But, being serious, can you point me to an example of a self defense program that teaches average people that you think is effective, is not competition oriented?  Would be interesting to take a look at what it is, and break down what you see and why you think it is effective.


Not in the confines I think you are referring to for the purely layperson. There are the job/roll specific classes but they can also get a bad rap if done poorly, from either the teacher or student. It is never a 'do this once and you have it' type of thing. If someone is presenting this way then yes, it is a total hack job. I have always experienced it as a component part, usually of a MA. I have never seen it presented or presented it any other way.


----------



## dvcochran (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> I've been giving self defense training every benefit of the doubt.  My comments regarding self defense training presume that it is exceptionally well designed and delivered.
> 
> Edit.  Just to be clear, there are all kinds of training programs that teach skills commonly associated with self defense that are great.  They are just taught by people with experience to people who will use those skills in some way.  So, teaching fighting skills to a fighter works great.  Teaching cops to be better cops.  But I don't classify that as self defense training.
> 
> ...


I would say this is most often true even in the more common environment of a MA program. There is a high percentage of people who never get proficient by some standards. However, they are still better in several dimensions than had they never worked out. I very much agree with @jobo on the raw fitness element having value. Perfect? No but better than nothing. 
I do not think it is realistic to think Everyone will get to an 'ultimate fighter' level. Even the ultimate fighter is going to get pummeled soon or later so how do you scale that? 
I would go so far as to say it isn't even always up to the person. Person A can become proficient in X amount of time. Person B will Never get to Person A's level no matter how much they train and workout. But they are still better for their effort. 

I am hazarding a guess that this may fall into the idea of it for you. 
I Love to see someone's switch come on when they are pressure training. They have been shown over and over and drilled a skill over and over and just never got it. Then something in them triggers and they 'get it'. A beautiful thing but I have no clue how you harvest this. If I could I would be a bazillionaire.


----------



## Steve (May 26, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> Not in the confines I think you are referring to for the purely layperson. There are the job/roll specific classes but they can also get a bad rap if done poorly, from either the teacher or student. It is never a 'do this once and you have it' type of thing. If someone is presenting this way then yes, it is a total hack job. I have always experienced it as a component part, usually of a MA. I have never seen it presented or presented it any other way.


That's fair.  So, can you share an example of an MA or school that effectively teaches self defense to a lay person?


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think when I say, middle aged elementary school teacher, we can all create a mental image of what that suggests.


 well its clear you have but it seems to be based on a massive amount of stereotyping and discrimination

im friends with a middle elementary teacher,, she 61 now, ive know her from her wild biker chick days, now slightly more refined with the lsd, (i did seemed to spend a big chunk of the 80s stoned on her couch), she still shoots round on a harley, and mountain bikes and badminton's to a comp level.

im wondering why you think she couldn't attempt a robst defence with some training, i saw her drop BIG nigel with a right cross back in the day for touching her up

her husband, also an elementary teacher is huge and plays senior rugby, are you ruling him as well


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Champion fighters still receive training.


well there not experts then, hard to be really with brain damage


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> True enough. So you go out and test EVERY program and get back to us. I look forward to reading your report. Oh, and make sure and provide a cover of the intimately detailed guidelines used to weigh and measure each statistical category.



Well no. The whole point of that is I only have to test good schools and can leave the bad ones alone. 

I mean you don't go test every hypothesis in the hope it works. Otherwise it wouldn't be every self defense school. It would be every school that exists. How do we know that interpretive dance or speaking French isn't the best course for learning self defense?

Well we do know because there is no evidence that speaking French assists in self defense.


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Well no. The whole point of that is I only have to test good schools and can leave the bad ones alone.
> 
> I mean you don't go test every hypothesis in the hope it works. Otherwise it wouldn't be every self defense school. It would be every school that exists. How do we know that interpretive dance or speaking French isn't the best course for learning self defense?
> 
> Well we do know because there is no evidence that speaking French assists in self defense.


it assists greatly in France


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> well there not experts then, hard to be really with brain damage



You kind of can't just insert your own reality and call it an argument. 

There is a fairly consistent definition of subject matter expert. 

And an invented case of brain damage isn't part of that.


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> its assists greatly in France



So does interpretive dance. But i am not in France.


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> I Love to see someone's switch come on when they are pressure training. They have been shown over and over and drilled a skill over and over and just never got it. Then something in them triggers and they 'get it'. A beautiful thing but I have no clue how you harvest this. If I could I would be a bazillionaire.



Look up kit dale.


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You kind of can't just insert your own reality and call it an argument.
> 
> There is a fairly consistent definition of subject matter expert.
> 
> And an invented case of brain damage isn't part of that.


 i didn't invent fighter getting brain damage, that was god

clearly if they have someone to teach them than that person is the expert not them


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So does interpretive dance. But i am not in France.


but this is an international forum and there are many millions of french speakers in the world, quite possibly even in Australia.

you said it doesnt help for self defence, which is wrong you didn't say it doesn't help DB,


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> but this is an international forum and there are many millions of french speakers in the world, quite possibly even in Australia.
> 
> you said it doesnt help for self defence, which is wrong you didn't say it doesn't help DB,



Who speaks French on this forum? And who has it benefited from a self defense perspective?


----------



## drop bear (May 26, 2020)

jobo said:


> i didn't invent fighter getting brain damage, that was god
> 
> clearly if they have someone to teach them than that person is the expert not them



You are confusing expert with omniscient.


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Who speaks French on this forum? And who has it benefited from a self defense perspective?


 well anyone who could understand hand over your wallet or il stab you in french has derived immense befit


----------



## jobo (May 26, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You are confusing expert with omniscient.


clearly your confusing expert with brain damaged chugger


----------



## dvcochran (May 26, 2020)

Steve said:


> That's fair.  So, can you share an example of an MA or school that effectively teaches self defense to a lay person?


I would have to say most schools I have been to.  I used to travel a Lot for work and would go to a class every chance I had. Did not really care about what style. I do think it is more school/instructor specific rather than style.  
It has a lot to do with how the material is presented I think. In job specific training (when I was a LEO) there were always guys there who could care less about the training and were just there because they had to be to satisfy in service requirements. Most of these guys already had 'their own ways' of dealing with resistance. Some good, some bad. 
I don't think it would be apropos to start naming specific schools but I will say there are some very good ones in Nashville.


----------

