Aikido hate

[Gerry Seymour]

The opposite
He thinks the openings will be larger and more pronounced.

That's not exactly what I said, but I can see how it could be read that way. There will be openings in anger that won't exist in a controlled fighter. Those will, often, be both larger and more pronounced than if the same person is not angry, though the timeframe may be compressed (which makes them "smaller" in one way). For untrained people, the openings will, in fact, be often both larger and more pronounced.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you get an untrained guy, I agree with him. Well, perhaps untrained is the wrong word, as there's lots of self-taught fighters out there that can crack heads pretty well.

How about in-schooled. People who have very little idea what they're doing.

But, those kinds of people really don't get into fights, I've noticed... so maybe it ends up being moot.

People with no training/unschooled do get into fights. Heck, that would describe pretty much everyone I've had take a swing at me my entire life, outside a training situation. It also describes most of the people I've heard described by LEO and bouncers.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It depends how you look at evidence. If you are searching for fights that validate your training method. You can. You just have to filter out all the ones that don't.

Yes. And if you look at those that controvert your expectations, as well, you get a more balanced view.

 

[JP3]

People with no training/unschooled do get into fights. Heck, that would describe pretty much everyone I've had take a swing at me my entire life, outside a training situation. It also describes most of the people I've heard described by LEO and bouncers.

I don't think I was clear.

If a guy takes a swing at you.... as an adult... he's probably swung at people before because that's how that person has learned (so to speak) to solve his problems with other people. So, having swung at lots of people before, he's engaged in a it of live-fire training in getting your butt kicked or, alternatively if he found he was naturally good at it, kicking people's butts. So, not a rank, totally "untrained" individual at all.

As compared with these two someones:

A) Never got in a fight, never did any training... then ended up having the worse day of his life and ends up going all Michael Douglas (reference to the film Falling Down) on you, coming out of nowhere.... this guy is completely "untrained;" or

B) One of us who gets in the dojo/gym regularly and does this stuff for fun. Trained. Well, the efficacy of the training is a hot button issue, but I'm sure you see what I'm driving at.

The guy at the top of this reply is the one who "gets into fights" more than either A or B. Definitely was during my 5 year stint at the door. Coming in as a newbie, never having done it before, our old hand, Leon, would point out the troublemakers to keep an eye on from their past history.

Sure enough, 4 out of 5 situations... there was one of those kinds of guys.

 

[JP3]

Yes. And if you look at those that controvert your expectations, as well, you get a more balanced view.

Wha-wha-What?!

Look at extrinsic controverting evidence? Who does that!

I mean, if it disagrees with what I'm saying to my students, which my teacher said to me, and his to him, and his to him, and his to him, and his to him, and his to him... then I don't want to hear or see it.

Uh... right?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't think I was clear.

If a guy takes a swing at you.... as an adult... he's probably swung at people before because that's how that person has learned (so to speak) to solve his problems with other people. So, having swung at lots of people before, he's engaged in a it of live-fire training in getting your butt kicked or, alternatively if he found he was naturally good at it, kicking people's butts. So, not a rank, totally "untrained" individual at all.

As compared with these two someones:

A) Never got in a fight, never did any training... then ended up having the worse day of his life and ends up going all Michael Douglas (reference to the film Falling Down) on you, coming out of nowhere.... this guy is completely "untrained;" or

B) One of us who gets in the dojo/gym regularly and does this stuff for fun. Trained. Well, the efficacy of the training is a hot button issue, but I'm sure you see what I'm driving at.

The guy at the top of this reply is the one who "gets into fights" more than either A or B. Definitely was during my 5 year stint at the door. Coming in as a newbie, never having done it before, our old hand, Leon, would point out the troublemakers to keep an eye on from their past history.

Sure enough, 4 out of 5 situations... there was one of those kinds of guys.

Ah, gotcha. That's a reasonable entry to the discussion. People who are ill-tempered enough to take a swing at you have probably done so before. Most will stop doing it if they routinely fail. They still differ from someone who is skilled as a fighter, in that they are usually not going to face anyone with any real skill. So, they make mistakes that someone trained won't make. Someone who fights a lot, even occasionally against skilled fighters, is being trained, and will respond more like a trained fighter.

Those folks also are used to ending things quickly, because they're used to facing someone with very little skill. That probably accounts for many of the openings they leave. Someone who trains in boxing (for instance) for even a few months will know better, because they'll have sparred against people who leave fewer openings and take advantage of more openings.

 

[JP3]

Ah, gotcha. That's a reasonable entry to the discussion. People who are ill-tempered enough to take a swing at you have probably done so before. Most will stop doing it if they routinely fail. They still differ from someone who is skilled as a fighter, in that they are usually not going to face anyone with any real skill. So, they make mistakes that someone trained won't make. Someone who fights a lot, even occasionally against skilled fighters, is being trained, and will respond more like a trained fighter.

Those folks also are used to ending things quickly, because they're used to facing someone with very little skill. That probably accounts for many of the openings they leave. Someone who trains in boxing (for instance) for even a few months will know better, because they'll have sparred against people who leave fewer openings and take advantage of more openings.

Right, what you said.

But what happens in a street fight?

J/K...

 

[drop bear]

Yes. And if you look at those that controvert your expectations, as well, you get a more balanced view.

How do you decide which one is right?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How do you decide which one is right?

It's not an "either-or" situation, DB. If both controlled and uncontrolled attacks occur in the evidence you can find, you prepare for both.

 

[JP3]

How do you decide which one is right?

For me... I evaluate it based on what the person was trying to do. If I can identify it. If they succeeded, or not, either way, you can learn something.

There is great value in knowing how NOT to do something.

 

[drop bear]

It's not an "either-or" situation, DB. If both controlled and uncontrolled attacks occur in the evidence you can find, you prepare for both.

See this is the difference. I prepare for sloppy attacks by preparing for good attacks. I dont consider being a bad fighter some sort of street superpower. Regardless how common it might be.

 

[drop bear]

For me... I evaluate it based on what the person was trying to do. If I can identify it. If they succeeded, or not, either way, you can learn something.

There is great value in knowing how NOT to do something.

Except people have a vested intrest in making themselves look good.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See this is the difference. I prepare for sloppy attacks by preparing for good attacks. I dont consider being a bad fighter some sort of street superpower. Regardless how common it might be.

I don't see good attacks and bad attacks as the same thing. There are openings (and occasionally problems) in bad attacks that aren't the same as similar good attacks. They are different things, so I train them differently.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except people have a vested intrest in making themselves look good.

And you seem to assume we can't take that into account when evaluating their input.

 

[drop bear]

And you seem to assume we can't take that into account when evaluating their input.

You could if anyone had a grounding in self defence. But most people are virgins talking about sex.

And yeah I get the impression you can't tell the difference.

When self defense discussions sound like trump speeches you know nobody really knows what they are on about.

 

[drop bear]

I don't see good attacks and bad attacks as the same thing. There are openings (and occasionally problems) in bad attacks that aren't the same as similar good attacks. They are different things, so I train them differently.

Which is a really hard way to do self defence. what you are trying to do is really only done at a top level of competition.

 

[JP3]

Except people have a vested intrest in making themselves look good.

Some do, sure.

Some might surprise you with their objectivity. I'd postulate that most people want to look good most of the time, that's natural I think.

But, there are times when people really want to truly know if they are doing something wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is a really hard way to do self defence. what you are trying to do is really only done at a top level of competition.

I don't see it as the hard way. To me, treating an off-balance punch like a compact punch is senseless. My range of options is quite different, though there's some overlap between them. And sometimes I can turn the compact punch into something like the off-balance one, so that training comes back into play.

It's clear you don't understand this. And that's not a shot at you. What I train in is different than what you do, and you've made it clear by your statements that some of it is foreign to your experience. You've several times said things like, "Yeah, that's exactly like..." and then mentioned something that's not at all like the original topic/technique/principle. Why not accept that we talk different languages on this one? You seem hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong on something, and you keep coming back to arguments that you've tried before. You get condescending and make really quite outrageous assumptions and claims about what others do, often saying people do (and even say) things we do not. Enough is enough.

 

[drop bear]

Some do, sure.

Some might surprise you with their objectivity. I'd postulate that most people want to look good most of the time, that's natural I think.

But, there are times when people really want to truly know if they are doing something wrong.

Ok. But it doesn't change the dynamic. If I go to three mechanics and one of them is dodgy. I won't really know.

 

[drop bear]

I don't see it as the hard way. To me, treating an off-balance punch like a compact punch is senseless. My range of options is quite different, though there's some overlap between them. And sometimes I can turn the compact punch into something like the off-balance one, so that training comes back into play.

It's clear you don't understand this. And that's not a shot at you. What I train in is different than what you do, and you've made it clear by your statements that some of it is foreign to your experience. You've several times said things like, "Yeah, that's exactly like..." and then mentioned something that's not at all like the original topic/technique/principle. Why not accept that we talk different languages on this one? You seem hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong on something, and you keep coming back to arguments that you've tried before. You get condescending and make really quite outrageous assumptions and claims about what others do, often saying people do (and even say) things we do not. Enough is enough.

Ok. Sensible part first. Two reasons your dual method is high risk.

1. Fighting happens really quite fast.

2. Getting punched in the face can be very distracting.

So you are trying to pick out if a punch is sloppy enough to use as a counter or tight enough to use a different counter in what could be an attack by a guy you know nothing about in a fight that could be done in seconds.

If you mess it up and enter on a sloppy shot. And it is not as sloppy as you fist thought you could eat a shot that ends your ability to continue.

This is again not because I do MMA and you do Aikido. This is just how that dynamic works.

Which is especially bad in a street fight and why I continue to preach people to fight conservatively..

And now for the silly bit. You can't sook about people making assumptions while making assumptions about them.

Suck it up princess and play the ball not the man. I am not trying to hurt your feelings.

I am trying to explain why what you suggest really isn't going to work very well without having to resort to just telling you I have tried all this stuff you are suggesting. Did it in real fights. And it is risky.