Anecdotal vs. empirical

[jobo]

Yeah I do make a conscious effort not to beat people around the head with my street experience.

(unless they really start getting irritating)

do you want to swap street experiences, mine,stated when I was four and I'm 58 now, could take a while,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

to be honest I just wander round in my own little world, the head on a swivel thing is reserved for if I've parked in a very very dodgy place, it must be really horrible living in the states, I live in one of the toughest cities in the uk and I'm seldom worried for my safety, though a guy got attacked with an axe not 400 yard from my door, but I think it was a revenge thing

You're making some strange assumptions about the states. There are dangers everywhere in the world. I've never had someone get attacked with an axe within 1,000 yards of any house I've ever lived in.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

do you want to swap street experiences, mine,stated when I was four and I'm 58 now, could take a while,

It's not really a pissing match.

 

[jobo]

Except you don't actually know the outcome without that training. Just because you used it, that doesn't mean it actually caused the non-mugging. We can make some educated inferences, but that's all they really are.

if I punch some one and they fall over, that more than an educated guess that the punch caused the falling over, if I poke them in the eye and they run round screaming my eye, my eye, its safe to say the poke in. The eye did that,

 

[drop bear]

Your use of the axe kick on a mugger isn't actually empirical evidence. It's anecdotal (not measured or controlled). I'd argue it's extremely useful input when we have so many uncontrollable variables, but it's not empirical.

Where as flying kicks come up a bit on the street. I did a thread about the difference between perception and reality. Gave examples and everything. But because it did not conform with belief. The evidence got met with resistance.

flying kicks for the streets.

Pretty funny thread.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

if I punch some one and they fall over, that more than an educated guess that the punch caused the falling over, if I poke them in the eye and they run round screaming my eye, my eye, its safe to say the pole in. The eye did that,

Again, you don't know what the outcome was without that. You know the punch caused the falling over, but you don't know it caused the non-mugging.

 

[jobo]

You're making some strange assumptions about the states. There are dangers everywhere in the world. I've never had someone get attacked with an axe within 1,000 yards of any house I've ever lived in.

I'm guessing you live in the,suburbs , I'm an inner,city sort of lad, can't sleep unless I can hear,sirens

 

[jobo]

Again, you don't know what the outcome was without that. You know the punch caused the falling over, but you don't know it caused the non-mugging.

if the guy is on the floor, the non mugging occurs a) because he is on the floor and b) because I have now kicked him several times, that's cause and effect

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Where as flying kicks come up a bit on the street. I did a thread about the difference between perception and reality. Gave examples and everything. But because it did not conform with belief. The evidence got met with resistance.

flying kicks for the streets.

Pretty funny thread.

Actually, that's a pretty good example, DB. I didn't read the whole thread - just your OP and the first few replies. We could argue a few different points off the evidence. What we can't argue is that a flying kick is never useful for SD (as I said earlier, anecdotal evidence is good for disproving absolutes). Someone could argue that flying kicks are universally useful for SD (probably an overstatement of the evidence). Someone else could argue that flying kicks are quite useful when chosen for the appropriate situation by someone with adequate competence (a more likely reason they worked in those situations, and actually balances with people arguing they aren't a good choice).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

if the guy is on the floor, the non mugging occurs a) because he is on the floor and b) because I have now kicked him several times, that's cause and effect

Still the same problem. You don't know what would have happened without the training. You might have been able to fight him off, anyway.

You're looking for the effect of the punch, rather than looking for the cause of the non-mugging. That's backwards.

 

[jobo]

You're making some strange assumptions about the states. There are dangers everywhere in the world. I've never had someone get attacked with an axe within 1,000 yards of any house I've ever lived in.

I got a real telling off when I was there, as i went off wandering round Hollywood on my own,

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm guessing you live in the,suburbs , I'm an inner,city sort of lad, can't sleep unless I can hear,sirens

Way out past the suburbs. If you know the term "redneck", that describes most of the people who've lived near me. Far more axes, guns, knives per capita than in US cities.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I got a real telling off when I was there, as i went off wandering round Hollywood on my own,

I've wandered a few places that city dwellers wouldn't approve of. Some they were right about. There are some scary places in the US. Not so different from some of the scary places in Europe, except there are almost certainly more guns.

 

[jobo]

Still the same problem. You don't know what would have happened without the training. You might have been able to fight him off, anyway.

You're looking for the effect of the punch, rather than looking for the cause of the non-mugging. That's backwards.

i might, but I have training and I used it to good effect, that proves the training has value, its impossible to know what would have happened with out it

 

[drop bear]

Actually, that's a pretty good example, DB. I didn't read the whole thread - just your OP and the first few replies. We could argue a few different points off the evidence. What we can't argue is that a flying kick is never useful for SD (as I said earlier, anecdotal evidence is good for disproving absolutes). Someone could argue that flying kicks are universally useful for SD (probably an overstatement of the evidence). Someone else could argue that flying kicks are quite useful when chosen for the appropriate situation by someone with adequate competence (a more likely reason they worked in those situations, and actually balances with people arguing they aren't a good choice).

Yeah. You need to nut out why they work. And then nut out how likley it is that the situation will present itself that will make that technique work. For flying kicks it is almost purely street. So it is hard to recreate in the gym.

In training you are probably not going to get many situations where you may be running. Gyms are to small.

But if running is part of your self defence. Running attacks probably should exist as well.

So we have this kind of sort of mix between hypothetical. Ancecdotal and empirical. Not to mention overcoming dogma and peoples preconceptions.

 

[drop bear]

i might, but I have training and I used it to good effect, that proves the training has value, its impossible to know what would have happened with out it

Why do you think the kick worked?

 

[Juany118]

To the OP, the issue with finding more than general empirical evidence, such as the psychological dynamics of the offender and victim, the pre-attack cues, general tactics of a street robbery etc. is because there are simply way to many variables to consider in terms of the attack itself. Environment, training, health, age, even the clothing worn by attacker and defender matter. Now would it be possible to comb through a butt ton of police reports of a specific "typical" city and look at all of that but there are two problems with that. First, it would cost money and the chances of getting a grant to pay for skilled researchers to study "the efficacy of martial arts based self defense training in street attacks" is slim to none. Second I don't know of any officer who actually asked a person who was a victim "do you have self-defense, martial arts training" so it likely wouldn't be in a report unless the victim volunteered the information.

 

[jobo]

Way out past the suburbs. If you know the term "redneck", that describes most of the people who've lived near me. Far more axes, guns, knives per capita than in US cities.

i bet p

Why do you think the kick worked?

mostly because I was capable of doing such a kick

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i might, but I have training and I used it to good effect, that proves the training has value, its impossible to know what would have happened with out it

That last part is the point Steve was making earlier.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. You need to nut out why they work. And then nut out how likley it is that the situation will present itself that will make that technique work. For flying kicks it is almost purely street. So it is hard to recreate in the gym.

In training you are probably not going to get many situations where you may be running. Gyms are to small.

But if running is part of your self defence. Running attacks probably should exist as well.

So we have this kind of sort of mix between hypothetical. Ancecdotal and empirical. Not to mention overcoming dogma and peoples preconceptions.

I don't see much empirical in that process. It's logical, and using anecdotal evidence to support it. Where running exists, flying kicks become more likely to be useful. Similar to my comments about overextension (which also happens when people are trying to catch you, incidentally) and aiki.