...And the word is defense...with an 's' and not a 'c'. When you get the squiggly red line underneath a word it means you misspelled the word. Unfortunately there is nothing to remind you to capitalize the first word in a sentence.
Before we get back into this too much, just to address this point… yeah, some of drop bears postings have me wondering exactly what is being meant (the odd applications of full-stops separating sentences in the middle etc), but in this case, it's not an issue… "defence" is the correct spelling here, not "defense" (which, for the record, gives us a "red line", and my computer wants to turn into "defines"…). The thing to remember is that the US actually changed a range of spellings from English (Continental), and, while we've adapted some of that, we are still spelling things the way they are in England… such as colour, rather than color (hmm, there's that red line again…).
Just so you know… okay, let's get back to it.
you cant ask for proof apparently because it is trolling.
No, asking for back up isn't trolling… demanding for a specific form of evidence that is flawed, and you know doesn't exist, then denigrating the other persons opinion just because you aren't getting what doesn't exist, and continuing to put down other approaches based on that, can start to edge across into trolling…
all the incidents are at our office. Which i believe is the same proof you have.
Hmm, I thought you said you "are not even taking shots at people"…
i am not sure how the other arguments you made are really helpful.
If you're referring to Kong Soo Do's comments about your posting, well, he's asking for you to pay more attention to your posts, as they can be a confusing mess to try to read… add to that your lack of clarity when quoting (quoting an entire post, then answering seemingly random aspects of it without having any reference to what exactly in the post you're discussing) and so on just adds to the confusion… I mean, I'm only guessing here at what part of KSD's post you're actually talking about… which is really a case in point for that.
Ok back to this because i find it quite a strange statement to direct towards kata.
can someone explain how it is valid?
"•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?
It can be a description of the intended structure and application of kata, not a description of kata itself… but, most importantly, you're looking at entirely the wrong thing. We'll cover that as we go.
It would be a property of Kata.
Yep.
some sort of non prearranged kata?
Nope. Not anything at all to do with it. "Pre-arranged" or "random" have nothing to do with this.
there is two person kata. And even the implied attack in one person kata is prearranged
Sure… but, again, not the point or the argument.
this thread is mostly ego sparring. I think people may have lost the ability to have a discussion.
Er, you do know what irony is, yeah?
it is like they have been saying this stuff and nobody ever turns around and says. "that just doesn't make sense"
Are you really suggesting that you are the first to question anything, from training methods, to applicability, to, well, sparring vs kata? Seriously? Have you considered that, perhaps, it's just possible that others have already gone through that phase, gotten answers, and understood them to the point that they don't need to continue in that vein anymore? Or that your questions have all actually been answered, you simply have ignored most of what you've been told?
after being in an echo chamber for long enough you can wind up believing anything is right.
Again, you do know what irony is, don't you?
ok but how exactly have you remove the rules from your training session?
I think you're getting confused between what was said (that the attacker doesn't have to be beholden to a particular, commensurate methodology as the defender… in other words, the attacker can have a very different set of parameters, including the usage of weapons against as unarmed target, not conforming to striking only, or grappling only, even up to having multiples against a single person, and so on), and your idea of the fact that it's a structured method of training.
i do a kata. It is a pre arranged structure. I don't just make up kata. I do it the way it is supposed to be done.
Do you? And how is it "supposed to be done"? Is there no freedom within kata? Do you know what bunkai actually is?
i do bunkai. Which i think would be a resisted drill or step sparing. You punch in a prearranged manner i defend either in a prearranged manner or on the fly. Still according to rules.
Hmm, that would be a "no", then…
While bunkai can be trained as drills, and can be done in a fairly regimented fashion, that's not really what it is… literally, the term refers to "exploration/examination"… and is a training concept, not a prescribed method or sequence. Individual bunkai can be a particular, pre-arranged drill… but so can a shadow boxing drill. That doesn't mean that the shadow boxing drill is the only way that sequence can be done, or applied…
In sparring like in conversation the rules do matter. Otherwise we either hurt each other. Or achieve nothing.
So, if you agree that the "rules" matter in conversation, why do you persist in pushing the rules here? But, for the record, the rules are actually a bit different, and have a range of different reasons for the two contexts… yet another reason that conversation isn't sparring, of course. Oh, and there's that irony again ("achieve nothing")...
in a combat scenario. The rules matter for the same reason.
No, in a training scenario the "rules" matter for that reason…
i mean this looks like it is prearranged and following rules.
it also does not look like a conversation.
As others have suggested, that is incredibly basic application of the kata… personally, I'd hesitate to refer to it as bunkai… there's really no exploration or examination present, simply a very basic "this is a block, this is the target for a strike" approach. In Japanese terms, this would be very much the omote (outside, face) application… the actual bunkai would be the ura (inner, hidden) side of it all. But let's leave that off, and look at your complaints.
It looks pre-arranged… okay, sure. It is. So I'm hardly surprised that it looks such. But, and here's where you seem to be getting confused, that's not the same as "following rules". Sure, that particular form of application is sticking with the same context for both parties, but that's really not the end-all, be-all… nor even the reality across the board. There is nothing that says that that's the way it has to be… for example, the second application (against a grab from behind) could just as easily be a response against a pistol held against the back of the head… or a knife attack… or an attempted choke… or any of half a dozen other attacks I can see there. There are no "rules" about what the opponent can attack with… which was the point.
And no, it wouldn't look like a conversation to you… mainly as you're missing a lot of understanding as to what's actually going on. It's a prearranged drill set, sure… but so are "conversations" that are written down in plays… so let's take a look at what a conversation actually is, as I think that's been missed here.
A conversation is a communication between two or more parties, following a common thread or idea, or group of ideas. It's not two people randomly saying different things… not paying attention to each other (you might note, this is where the blog you've linked was making a connection, essentially saying that, in sparring, you should be paying attention to your training partner, rather than just focus on yourself… again, very, very different to saying that conversation is sparring). There needs to be a connective thread… going from one statement to another, from one impetus to a response, to a response to that, and so on. In that regard, the application in the video can be seen as a series of very short conversations… or can be strung along for a longer one, perhaps involving others as well. But a conversation can be just as scripted as those training drills, you realise…
So, with all that in mind, you might want to take another look at the video (and other bunkai forms), and look for the give-and-take… call and response. If the first action (statement) is ignored so the defender can do whatever, it's not "conversation"… if it's taken on it's value, and the response is geared towards answering in the same context, then it can be seen as a form of it. None of this says that conversation itself is sparring or kata… but it is showing that sparring and kata can be seen as a form of conversation, depending on how you want to stretch the analogy.
This all started when k man had an issue with being called coy. And i said conversation is like sparring. You get smashed in the head trying something new. It is part of the process. You cant take this stuff to heart.
If your idea of all conversation and communication is that you get smashed in the head, so don't worry about it, then I heartily recommend you expand your idea of communication… especially here.
Oh, and for the record, you were told that then as well, while being told that conversation is not sparring… how you've continued to here, I have no idea…
and turned into an idea that drop bear hates people.
Where has anyone said anything close to you hating people? I might say your communication skills need work, but that's about all I'd say from this vantage point…
sparring happens like that anyway. I trained in a Santa Claus onsie over Christmas.
Er… okay…
but otherwise yes and no. If i am sparring hard. I don't want things around that can unnecessarily hurt me. If i am in a car park i would not be sparring hard.
I think perhaps you missed the point… there was nothing about adding unnecessary danger… the point was to allow you to prepare for, or at least be somewhat aware of, different environments.
i am not overly effected by the o.o.d.a. Loop. And believe it is the hard sparring that causes a resistance to it. Because of the problem solving element attached.
Ha! Okay…
Look, you are just as affected (not "effected", for the record…) by the OODA loop as anyone… without it, you couldn't make a decision or act. That's just the reality. You may feel that you have sped up your processing of the loop, and you may indeed have… but to ascribe it to "hard sparring" and any associated "problem solving" is to assume a connection that, honestly, doesn't likely exist. You may very well have had your reflexes improved by such methods (not the only way to do so), you may have had your ability to read an opponent honed by them (again, not the only way), as both are very good benefits from sparring training methods. But to say that you're less affected by the OODA loop? Uh… no.
thanks for the olive branch.
i certainly have wasted my time on training something that would not fulfill my primary needs.
Or to put that better. I employed a method that got the job done. But through observation and experience. Am employing a better method now.
Yeah, this is where it gets tricky… you can't necessarily ascribe a universal value judgement to training methods in that way… you have found a training method that makes more sense to you, and that you get more value and benefit out of… it's frankly not a "better" method… it's just one that works better for you. I do recommend you recognise the difference there, as much of the heat that you and Hanzou have taken has been over the comments you've made that imply such definitive "better and worse" ideas.
when street fights work exactly as they do in training. I look at that training as useful.
See, we look at that, and see very different things… sure, it looks very similar to the form of technical methods seen in MMA… hardly surprising, really, as there are a range of reasons for it's taking the form it has today (which isn't just to do with the source systems, you understand)… but, to be frank, I see nothing that impresses me at all. I see someone who attacks another person, the one being attacked doing essentially nothing back, and, despite absolutely nothing stopping the techniques, there being almost no effect whatsoever. Which is something I don't find particularly useful…
Now we can have a tactical vs technical debate. But the technique looks sound. Showing me the core of the training is sound.
Again, not to me… the technique was rather lacking (and ineffective), despite the apparent "control" he had… all of which showed me that the training is lacking on a number of levels… both tactically and technically.
from sound training and good basics. Then i can come up with solutions to fight on stairs or in the dark.
And what makes you think that couldn't be done with other systems?
But, again, for the record, if that was the result of my guys being able to apply anything they wanted, I'd hardly call it good basics… but this is really far from the idea of "conversation is sparring"… so how about we try to address that topic, rather than what training method is good, bad, better, or worse… it doesn't change anything about what conversation is or isn't, and is just another rehashing of a discussion/argument we've all done many times now. If you want to retread that tired path again, perhaps yet another thread is in order, yeah? I mean, you started this topic… did you want to actually discuss it?
