How do you think, Chris? You're a bright guy.
Look, I know how this is going to read, and really, that's probably going to be a fair assessment, but yeah, I'm a bright guy. Frankly, a lot more intelligent than you seem to understand… and I get what you think you were saying. But I wanted you to specifically answer the question… I wanted you to enunciate what you were meaning… not get me to read into your little snide dig. Which, I note, you added to… with even more passive aggression.
Steve, I heartily recommend you stop thinking you can read into what's being said, and just read what's actually being said. You've been assigning motives to a number recently, and you've been fairly off-base consistently. It doesn't help.
But, that said, I was going to leave geezer's post as it stood… but, if you're going to think it's accurate and applies to my posting, then we should take a look at it… specifically with regards to myself, and my posts.
@ Drop Bear: There is sparring between buddies or well intentioned acquaintances directed at both parties learning from the experience. Then again, there are those occasions when you enter into what you think will be such a productive session, and your opponent has such an attitude of disdain for your skill and experience that you can either continue and engage in a fight, or bow out and seek another partner to work with.
So, here's the problem with this idea.
What you've presented there is two extremes, and sure, they can fit sparring in a class… but they don't necessarily equate to conversation at all… which is the actual premise of the thread. The first scenario, yeah… but the second isn't a conversation… it's kinda the opposite, really. But, more importantly, we should take this to the context of the thread.
You talk about entering into "what you think will be a such a productive session"… which is really the last thing that drop bear could have thought this would be. He's brought the idea of "conversation equals sparring" up a number of times before… and each time, he's been informed (again and again) that, no, it's not. He expressed his idea as involving the idea of "smashing" or "crushing" his "opponent's" (in conversation), as that's his take on what conversation (sparring) is, or is meant to be. It's not meant to be a productive session… he has almost literally said that he only wants to beat people down with his take on things, and expects others to respond in kind (he mentioned that he learns by being beaten down). You then continue to say that the other person (the opponent), having such an attitude of "disdain for your skill and experience", makes it a "fight"… to which he can bow out and seek another person to work with.
No.
Drop bears very idea, by his own definition, is combative. That's how he's seeing "conversation" here. And it's far from my having any attitude of "disdain for his skill and experience", it's that the very premise is incorrect, not to mention destructive to the aims of the forum. And, as far as him leaving to "work with another", that's really not a solution either, as it denies the very reality of the situation.
On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, "Oh, dear lord..." I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.
No, he's not dealing with the second scenario, he's dealing with someone having to repeat the same damn thing again, as he's refusing to let yet another incorrect idea go. It's got nothing to do with "winning" or anything of the kind… and, as far as the direction of the thread, you did notice that the OP itself has 5 negative ratings, yeah? It was heading in that direction from before the first response.
hey, geezer. You were right. Should we continue the metaphor by discussing the dangers of unchecked ego within sparring?
No, Steve, you shouldn't. As, well, it's completely irrelevant, and again a case of you reading things that aren't actually present.
Great post, geezer.
It's been my experience that both sides have valid points. Where opinions and experiences are involved, it's very possible to have contradictory opinions that are both 'right'.
It's also equally possible that the person observing has so little understanding that they think both are equally "right"… when, frankly, that couldn't be further from the truth.
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some opinions are better grounded in fact than others. But there are plenty of times around here where two informed, fact based opinions are completely opposite Nd neither is wrong or all right.
An example, if you would?
This stuff, right here. Turns sparring into a real lesson. LOL
Not quite following you there… what sparring is going on, and what "real lesson" has it turned into?
yeah but on the internet if you are treating the conversation like kata. You are basically patronising people.
Who is "treating the conversation like kata"?!?! Seriously, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean…
this conversation we are exploring an idea. You are not patiently educating me. I am not educating you.
Well, you not getting educated is certainly true… but no, we're not exploring an idea… you presented one in your OP that you'd presented before, been corrected on, had the correction clarified, you brought up again, were corrected again, and you have now decided to make into a thread itself… since then, it's turned into yet another "kata is good, no it isn't" thread… which, bluntly, isn't anything to do with the OP or topic, other than you showing (again) in your OP that you don't get kata.
We've tried educating you. You don't seem to be interested in it.
seriously. How demeaning is that phrase.
Not at all, I'd say.
some people don't like kata. And you don't have to do be a martial artist.
Er… yeah… again, nothing really to do with anything here…
if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.
You're kidding, right?
There are many, many forms of evidence… in fact, there is a hierarchy of evidence… ranging from first-hand, to witness reports, experiential, testing of theories and hypotheses, circumstantial, contextual, and so on. Having something on you-tube is not necessarily even close to the better end of the scale, if it can be considered "evidence" at all (which will depend entirely on the content itself).
In other words, absolute garbage. You don't have the first clue about what evidence actually is.
and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point.
Was that even meant to be a sentence? Or just a random assortment of concepts that you think have some connection? What point is meant to be "supported"? What does "evidence based" mean? Especially if you don't understand what can constitute evidence in the first place?
eg. The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage. But apparently that is not the real knee exploding kick that is successful in the street
Yeah… you completely missed everything you were being told there… again…
so i got educated on a kick that nobody had thrown successfully.
No, you had a range of aspects, ideas, and more explained to you… I wouldn't say you got educated, though… and as far as "nobody had thrown successfully", is there anything to support that? Or are you simply taking the very small sample here as indicative of all attempts and applications ever, combining with your own lack of ability to see beyond the preconceived notions you already hold?
the cage reference is valid. There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.
Wow… no. To all of that. Just no.
The cage reference is only valid for the context of the cage (sport). Who gives a damn if they all get recorded… so do all professional football games… does that mean that no-one does anything in any football game not recorded didn't happen, as it wasn't recorded and dissected? A resource we have not really had before? Are you kidding me? What do you think kata are, if not a dissection of such things? Do you want me to quote Homer's The Iliad, and it's dissection and recording of the fight between Achilles and Hector? Do we discuss the examination of the battles of history from Tacticus onwards?
Pure ignorance, you say? Care to try again?
Then, once again, you're in the wrong place. I heartily recommend you either re-assess your take on communication, especially as it pertains to this forum ("friendly", remember…), or recognise that this is not the place to go around trying to start fights. Especially not the place to openly admit that that's what you're doing.
i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported. I want my martial arts to work. And that means sometimes getting punched in the face.
Your opinions are artificially supported. What you can get here is the opportunity to put your opinions and beliefs up against the knowledge, opinions, experience, understanding, and insight of a much larger pool than you could hope to attain on your own… in order to assess whether or not your opinions hold up, or could benefit from re-examination.
And it's great that you want your martial arts to work… you're hardly alone there… but, one more time, to "work" is a less-than-precise concept… it's highly contextually dependant. There isn't anything that's equally applicable ("works") in all contexts. I'll deal with the last sentence in a bit.
i see the point of kata. I know good fighters who do it and have had a reasonable practical explanation why. I don't like it and find other methods.
Honestly, I don't think you do see the point… or, more accurately, I don't think you understand the value and relevance to it. Which, really, is fine… you don't have to get it, or like it. Of course, telling people that what they're doing doesn't work when you don't understand it doesn't make you many friends…
your explanation that sparring is detrimental because it does not reflect a fight. Is hanzou,s explanation of why kata is detrimental.
Hanzou was wrong. It's really that simple.
But, here's the thing… both he and you are looking at the wrong aspect to find where a real encounter is reflected in kata.
And i have disagreed with both of you on this subject.
Right.
you cant keep the logic that sparring is not realistic but kata is. That just does not make sense.
Yes, it does. You don't understand it… which is not the same thing as it not making sense, you realise.
and that is basically how you lost me regarding respectfully asking your opinion on kata and its effectiveness.
Because you couldn't grasp what you were being told? Okay…
Sure… but it's also completely out of place here.
Look, the biggest issue here is that you're advocating a method of communication that flatly goes against the beliefs, aims, and ideals of this forum. If you want to treat all communication as a sparring match, looking to "smash or get smashed", looking to get metaphorically "punched in the face", you are seriously, seriously in the wrong place.
and if people really believed that we wouldn't have arguments.
No.
i think there may be some subjectivity regarding that.
Sure… but not so much when it comes to the forum here.
sparring has been proven as an effective self defence tool.
No, it hasn't. The best you can say is that sparring is an aspect, or part of the training methodology of some systems that have claimed some success in self defence… when it comes to the hierarchy of evidence, it's largely circumstantial, and would be classed as "post hoc ergo propter hoc", in a legal sense ("after it, therefore because of it", implying that while a connection is sometimes noticed, it is not a genuine causation relationship).
because there are documented accounts of sports trained being effective in self defence. Which for some reason you continue to ignore.
And there are plenty of documented cases of non-sporting systems, even non-sparring systems being effective in self defence… which, for some reason you continue to ignore.
so again you have lost me.
Yes… I could see we had… (okay, maybe you need to hear that in Tim Roth's voice from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead…)
sorry your conclusions don't add up.
Yes, they do. Yours, on the other hand, are relying on a biased viewpoint from the outset, combined with an abject denial of anything anyone else has tried to explain to you.
Kong soo do.
"•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"
This would be a description of kata?
Yes, it certainly can be.
ok read that last statement. Then apply your first one.
"That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?"
and you will understand where i am suggesting that people may not be applying evidence to their training.
No. What I can see is a lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence, how that evidence is rated, how it is applied, what it is applied to, and more.
To put it simply, there are many forms of evidence that you seem completely unwilling to recognise, and only a small, biased, and flawed form that you do.
sort of this quote from a master trainer explains the concept a bit better.
Zahabi:" Then how do you know them? I’ll tell you one thing: Look at when man was trying to fly. People jumped off buildings because they believed so much that their device would work. The first man who attempted to fly jumped off a building and broke his back. Theory is one thing, but you haven’t been cross examined yet, and that’s the beauty of philosophy. People ask me, “Why did you get a degree in philosophy? What’re you going to do with that?” I use my degree every single day, because it taught me how to cross examine and test the truth value of any statement. To say that to punch one way or to punch another way or to attack you this way is better than another is a truth statement. We have to cross examine it. If I tell you, “Get in this airplane.” You ask, “Has it been tested?” “No, but don’t worry, the guy who made it is 100 percent sure it’s going to work.” “Well, what’s the guy’s background? How many planes has he made before?” “First time, but he thinks he knows.” “Has it been tested?” “No, no testing.” I wouldn’t get in that plane; and it’s crazy, because even when we’re testing things, still one in a million times something happens that you never saw coming. Fighting is the same way, man. It’s very hard to control. There are so many factors. Anything can happen in a fight, so to understand the chaos of fighting and the millions of variables, you have to taste them, taste the action itself. Bruce Lee said, “If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water.” He said that. He was a philosopher. He was a thinker. He understood the importance of experience."
Er… no, it doesn't. It's a reducto ad absurdum argument, and in and of itself, flawed. Oh, and as for the Bruce Lee comment… all I have to say to that is Theodor Kaluza…
