ANY Fighting Style can work if you train it right.

[Charlemagne]

Actually, I am happy to accept that people might doubt the effectiveness of the system that I study. That is fine with me. In the end it matters not, what some ignorant people on the internet might think, about something for which their only experience is YouTube. Anyone who holds up YouTube as the ultimate source of information, needs to get a real education.

YouTube is certainly not the ultimate source of information, and I did not suggest otherwise. However, it is a way to disseminate such information, and it is one that most people in the world have access to, which makes it a nice tool to use for such purposes.

As for the rest, of course there are people who express doubts who are not of good will and who have no honest intent to seek the truth. It would be appropriate to dismiss such people, or at least not pay them much attention.

However, and this is important, ignorance is not stupidity and it does not imply bad will. It is merely a lack of knowledge. If people are seeking knowledge about something, and those who claim to have it are unwilling to provide it (or at least try), then the fault is not with the person who is ignorant.

Finally, it should not be a surprise to anyone if a person who started out as sincerely interested in finding out the truth, after never being provided with the information that they sought, turns into a person who dismisses claims of effectiveness out of hand.

 

[Flying Crane]

YouTube is certainly not the ultimate source of information, and I did not suggest otherwise. However, it is a way to disseminate such information, and it is one that most people in the world have access to, which makes it a nice tool to use for such purposes.

As for the rest, of course there are people who express doubts who are not of good will and who have no honest intent to seek the truth. It would be appropriate to dismiss such people, or at least not pay them much attention.

However, and this is important, ignorance is not stupidity and it does not imply bad will. It is merely a lack of knowledge. If people are seeking knowledge about something, and those who claim to have it are unwilling to provide it (or at least try), then the fault is not with the person who is ignorant.

Finally, it should not be a surprise to anyone if a person who started out as sincerely interested in finding out the truth, after never being provided with the information that they sought, turns into a person who dismisses claims of effectiveness out of hand.

Ignorance is not stupidity, I agree. However, when someone is offered an education by someone who has direct experience, and they disregard that education in favor of what they have or have not been able to find on YouTube, then that is either stupidity or it is deliberate malicious intent, which speaks volumes about that persons character and their real intentions.

YouTube is a tool, and it can be useful and educational. But as I am fond of saying, a whole lot of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube for people like you and I to gawk at. The fact that it is not found on YouTube is a long way from meaning something does not exist. And that tea kettle bit, absolutely does not apply in this context. People who try to hold that up, also need to get a real education.

 

[Charlemagne]

Ignorance is not stupidity, I agree. However, when someone is offered an education by someone who has direct experience, and they disregard that education in favor of what they have or have not been able to find on YouTube, then that is either stupidity or it is deliberate malicious intent, which speaks volumes about that persons character and their real intentions.

If a person is offered empirical evidence of something and refuses it, then I would agree. If what one is offering is anecdotal evidence then I would not. I'm not accusing you of that, just clarifying the difference.

YouTube is a tool, and it can be useful and educational. But as I am fond of saying, a whole lot of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube for people like you and I to gawk at. The fact that it is not found on YouTube is a long way from meaning something does not exist.

Agreed. However, it is an excellent way to get information to the masses. In the absence of persons in a style without documented evidence of effectiveness just going around and fighting people one by one, if one is sincere about eliminating ignorance, then putting something out there showing effectiveness against a resisting opponent of another style for the masses is a good way to go. YT could be a way of accomplishing this, though it is not the only one. The reality though is that I don't think that such evidence does exist most of the time, and way too many people in the martial arts world are still buying into the fantasy rather than the reality of MA training.

Getting back to the premise of this thread, while I agree that there are many arts that do suffer primarily from bad training methodology, I believe there is good reason to doubt the claims that practitioners of many arts make in regards to the effectiveness of their particular system. At the end of the day, the easiest way to dispel doubt is to provide direct evidence. If one is not willing to do that, don't cry foul when people doubt.

And that tea kettle bit, absolutely does not apply in this context. People who try to hold that up, also need to get a real education.

You're telling that to the wrong guy. I never said anything about a tea kettle.

 

[Martial D]

You're telling that to the wrong guy. I never said anything about a tea kettle.

Tea pot.

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.

Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and has had influence in various fields and media.

Seems pretty relevant to this line of discussion from where I sit.

 

[Charlemagne]

Tea pot.



Seems pretty relevant to this line of discussion from where I sit.

I was not the person who introduced that idea, so I am unsure why he responded to me. It's an easy mistake to make in a forum, so it's not really a big deal.

However, I do agree with the concept in regards to burden of proof.

 

[Flying Crane]

If a person is offered empirical evidence of something and refuses it, then I would agree. If what one is offering is anecdotal evidence then I would not. I'm not accusing you of that, just clarifying the difference.

Agreed. However, it is an excellent way to get information to the masses. In the absence of persons in a style without documented evidence of effectiveness just going around and fighting people one by one, if one is sincere about eliminating ignorance, then putting something out there showing effectiveness against a resisting opponent of another style for the masses is a good way to go. YT could be a way of accomplishing this, though it is not the only one. The reality though is that I don't think that such evidence does exist most of the time, and way too many people in the martial arts world are still buying into the fantasy rather than the reality of MA training. At the end of the day, the easiest way to dispel doubt is to provide direct evidence. If one is not willing to do that, don't cry foul when people doubt.

You're telling that to the wrong guy. I never said anything about a tea kettle.

Yeah, the tea kettle comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, I just saw that it showed up in the discussion a few posts back and it seemed an appropriate place to comment on it.

Here is the thing tho. A whole lot of people are not on a mission to show what they do, to the world at large, and don't have any deep interest in proving the worth of their system because, in a nutshell, it really does not matter, nothing needs to be proven. I am in that camp. So people like me will not make any videos because not only do we not care in the big picture, but we recognize that the subtleties that are meaningful within the system will be lost on the lay audience who does not have direct experience with it. Not only that, but I don't get into fights and I certainly do not make an attempt to film such things for popular viewing. I actually do not find fights to be entertaining, either as a participant or a viewer. Neither do I film training sessions because I'm more interested in simply training than showing the world how i train. So...I and others of a like mindset simply do not do it.

However, when we see people who have no experience with what we do making negative claims, we are often happy to explain some things and offer some real information, based on some years of direct experience. My apologies for not having a library of video to offer up as "proof" of what I may say. But I have genuine experience and I have been very willing to share it.

And yet some people who, as I said, have zero direct experience with these things want to simply discount anything that contradicts their position that they have arrived at through ignorance and YouTube, continue to simply reject what anyone else has to say about it.

Here is a hint to such people: it is ok to simply accept that some things lies outside of their direct experience, and perhaps some people who have that experience just might know what they are talking about. But some think they are an expert on everything, especially those things in which they have no experience.

Honestly, it is a weird, even surreal, thing.

 

[Martial D]

I was not the person who introduced that idea, so I am unsure why he responded to me. It's an easy mistake to make in a forum, so it's not really a big deal.

However, I do agree with the concept in regards to burden of proof.

I just wanted to clarify that for the gallery. I'm pretty sure that guy has me on ignore anyway.

 

[Martial D]

Yeah, the tea kettle comment wasn't aimed at you specifically, I just saw that it showed up in the discussion a few posts back and it seemed an appropriate place to comment on it.

Here is the thing tho. A whole lot of people are not on a mission to show what they do, to the world at large, and don't have any deep interest in proving the worth of their system because, in a nutshell, it really does not matter, nothing needs to be proven. I am in that camp. So people like me will not make any videos because not only do we not care in the big picture, but we recognize that the subtleties that are meaningful within the system will be lost on the lay audience who does not have direct experience with it. Not only that, but I don't get into fights and I certainly do not make an attempt to film such things for popular viewing. I actually do not find fights to be entertaining, either as a participant or a viewer. Neither do I film training sessions because I'm more interested in simply training than showing the world how i train. So...I and others of a like mindset simply do not do it.

However, when we see people who have no experience with what we do making negative claims, we are often happy to explain some things and offer some real information, based on some years of direct experience. My apologies for not having a library of video to offer up as "proof" of what I may say. But I have genuine experience and I have been very willing to share it.

And yet some people who, as I said, have zero direct experience with these things want to simply discount anything that contradicts their position that they have arrived at through ignorance and YouTube, continue to simply reject what anyone else has to say about it.

Here is a hint to such people: it is ok to simply accept that some things lies outside of their direct experience, and perhaps some people who have that experience just might know what they are talking about. But some think they are an expert on everything, especially those things in which they have no experience.

Honestly, it is a weird, even surreal, thing.

How is it weird or surreal to expect people to support the claims they make with evidence?

Excuse me for not finding the bald assertions of strangers on the internet entirely convincing. We obviously live in completely different worlds.

 

[Paul_D]

How is it weird or surreal to expect people to support the claims they make with evidence?

That's rich coming from someone that refuses to accept any evidence that proves his opinion to be incorrect.

 

[Martial D]

That's rich coming from someone that refuses to accept any evidence that proves his opinion to be incorrect.

You keep saying that as if it were true. The thing about evidence is that it can be different things to different people.

For instance, a video showing an aikido guy doing a certain technique that cuts to a street fight video of a guy doing something completely dissimilar does not to me, constitute evidence of effectiveness of the prior, where for you it does.

 

[Paul_D]

You keep saying that as if it were true. The thing about evidence is that it can be different things to different people.

For instance, a video showing an aikido guy doing a certain technique that cuts to a street fight video of a guy doing something completely dissimilar does not to me, constitute evidence of effectiveness of the prior, where for you it does.

That's because, in your words "I admittedly would not recognize Aikido in action the way someone that has trained in the art would,". The fact you cannot recognise it does not devalue the evidence.

 

[Martial D]

Nice save, we'll just ignore all the evidence posted by numerous people showing people in wheelchairs can defend themselves.

I was going to let that one sit, but since you brought it up;

To you, a video of a guy in a chair with a karate gi on doing three moves to an 'opponent' that offers his arm and leaves it out there for said guy in chair to do said 3 moves constitutes evidence that disabled people can usually defend themselves against one or more able bodied attackers, for me it does not.

This is fun isn't it?

 

[Charlemagne]

Here is the thing tho. A whole lot of people are not on a mission to show what they do, to the world at large, and don't have any deep interest in proving the worth of their system because, in a nutshell, it really does not matter, nothing needs to be proven. I am in that camp. So people like me will not make any videos because not only do we not care in the big picture, but we recognize that the subtleties that are meaningful within the system will be lost on the lay audience who does not have direct experience with it. Not only that, but I don't get into fights and I certainly do not make an attempt to film such things for popular viewing. I actually do not find fights to be entertaining, either as a participant or a viewer. Neither do I film training sessions because I'm more interested in simply training than showing the world how i train. So...I and others of a like mindset simply do not do it.

You cerainly have no obligation to put your training sessions on YouTube or to go around getting in fights. Just don't get your panties in a bunch (metaphorically) if someone thinks what you do is BS and says so. You claim not to care about such things. So be it.

Honestly, it is a weird, even surreal, thing.

I don't think it is all that weird or surreal to hope that people might provide empirical evidence for claims that they make. I find it even less so for persons who are giving advice to others about the effectiveness of a particular martial arts system for things such as self protection. In fact, I would argue that claims which cannot be validated of a particular martial arts system being effective for fighting/self-defense are unethical.

If you study XYZ martial art for other reasons, such as health or social interaction, etc. then that is fine. Others however might study them for differing reasons. As such, I would argue that they are deserving of information that verifiable in nature.

 

[jobo]

I was going to let that one sit, but since you brought it up;

To you, a video of a guy in a chair with a karate gi on doing three moves to an 'opponent' that offers his arm and leaves it out there for said guy in chair to do said 3 moves constitutes evidence that disabled people can usually defend themselves against one or more able bodied attackers, for me it does not.

This is fun isn't it?

you've added the one or MORE bit recently, om not aware that any one has claimed that a,disable person can defend against multiple attackers any more than anyone else can

 

[Martial D]

That's because, in your words "I admittedly would not recognize Aikido in action the way someone that has trained in the art would,". The fact you cannot recognise it does not devalue the evidence.

That being said, I can still recognize the difference between a wrist manipulation ending in the opponent flipping himself vs a guy charging someone and getting hip tossed.

 

[Flying Crane]

You cerainly have no obligation to put your training sessions on YouTube or to go around getting in fights. Just don't get your panties in a bunch (metaphorically) if someone thinks what you do is BS and says so. You claim not to care about such things. So be it.



I don't think it is all that weird or surreal to hope that people might provide empirical evidence for claims that they make. I find it even less so for persons who are giving advice to others about the effectiveness of a particular martial arts system for things such as self protection. In fact, I would argue that claims which cannot be validated of a particular martial arts system being effective for fighting/self-defense are unethical.

If you study XYZ martial art for other reasons, such as health or social interaction, etc. then that is fine. Others however might study them for differing reasons. As such, I would argue that they are deserving of information that verifiable in nature.

Ok then. I'm not interested in getting into a repetitive, circular dabate over it as has happened many times here in the past, so I'm done. I've made my point and people can do with that what they will.

 

[DaveB]

There are really a number of factors here. Specifically,

1. Style/Systems trained
2. Training method (how is a given style trained. Is there contact, aliveness, technical precision, power, etc.attributes/anthropometerics

All I will say is to reiterate the point that training and fighting style are independent. There is no "how a style trains" only how a school trains, unless your talking about really tiny styles with like 2 schools globally.

If you want to silence the critics, you know how to do it.

And as I pointed out in one of the many wing chun threads, even when video evidence exists its not enough to silence those with a fixed idea of what effective looks like.

 

[DaveB]

I just wanted to clarify that for the gallery. I'm pretty sure that guy has me on ignore anyway.

If that's me I don't have you on ignore, I just wish you had more to show for 30 yrs training than snide remarks.

 

[Martial D]

If that's me I don't have you on ignore, I just wish you had more to show for 30 yrs training than snide remarks.

I am a 3rd degree master...in snide remarks....

...in the same way as you are 3rd Dan in selective-reading-jitsu.

 

[DaveB]

I don't think it is all that weird or surreal to hope that people might provide empirical evidence for claims that they make. I find it even less so for persons who are giving advice to others about the effectiveness of a particular martial arts system for things such as self protection. In fact, I would argue that claims which cannot be validated of a particular martial arts system being effective for fighting/self-defense are unethical.

But consider what you are asking. Many expressly train for self defence so to validate their claims they need to get attacked and defend themselves while on film??

Unless you advocate starting street fights it is just not feasible. And ring fights are zero evidence of self defence applicability so what else do you want?