Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[Dan Anderson]

Originally posted by Tgace
So how effective is Modern Arnis empty hand???

Quite effective. Modern Arnis was designed as a self defense art as opposed to a fencing art. That includes the empty hands aspect, whether one is looking at the striking, parrying, locking or throwing aspects. Speaking of the empty hands Modern Arnis, isn't there a book coming out on that shortly?

Yours,
Dan Anderson

 

[Dan Anderson]

Originally posted by PAUL
Hey Dan...your promoting culinary violence! :rofl:

I'm sorry. I like food...really I do and I don't want any food out there to get hurt.

Apologizingly Yours,
Dan

 

[Tgace]

I believe that "real world experience" actually has a lot to do with integrating personality traits with technical training. Things like the will to survive, the will to inflict harm when necessary, tolerance of pain, dedication, fear (and the handling of it) and dealing with post traumatic stress all are very important regardless of your training. That being said, how do you train these "intangibles"? While upbringing and enviornment do play a role, they are also trainable, the success of our (US) military lies in such training. Rather than retyping it, ill just post a link to a good article from the USArmy NCO Journal...

http://www.usarc.army.mil/100thdiv/xxi/spirit1.htm

Granted its oriented toward the "team building" aspect of military service, but you can make your own connections to individual training. Notice that "technical" expertise is almost a given. Technical training is the "easy" part, you learn ,practice and test. The "other" traits are where leadership, self-analysis and creativity come in.....

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
Okay, things were dicey at that time because attitudes were swollen but, between Bob and Dr B, they decided what was clearly understood. Your perception has little to do with that.

It wasn't just my perception then, nor is it now. Furthermore, just because they talked that doesn't erase what the original intent was, or might have been, or is, or whatever. As I said, nothing is "clearly understood" regarding that issue, despite what "they" SAY they decided. As I also said, it was nice that they talked.

And wasn't this going to be dropped?

Water under the bridge...

And...

Isn't the 'answering a percieved threat with a counter threat' a way of escalating the stress and likelyhood of a fight? Thereby, within the tactic, fighting is being promoted. I only say this because if the person doesn't back off, what next? You have to follow through on your counter threat - or be percieved as weak, which is like blood in the water to a shark, when you are dealing with someone who is already demonstrating a disregard for humanity.

Paul M.

It depends. In hindsite, that wasn't the best way of handling that circumstance. I could have called Bob and/or pmed or called Dr. B to try to understand what the real intention was, and if there was truely a threat or not.

But, I am not the one who initiated the problem regarding the issue, and I am not the one who has staged challanges or arranged for "bad things to happend," (at least by my perception at the time those things were said) in the past. So, it wasn't really my job to dance on the head of a f**king pin regarding the issue. My comments should have been expected then, as I am sure they were. Because of this, I don't regret them, even if I could have handled things better.

Now in regards to "answering a threat with a counter threat." It can and often is a viable option. If someone says, "I'm gonna rape your sister when your not around...," what else would be a viable self defense option? Knocking him upside the head is not a viable option, cause he hasn't done anything yet. Telling him that there where be dire consequenses such as law suit, jail time, and/ or personal injury would be a viable option, as well as calling the authorities. If I am in a bar, and someone says that they are gonna kick my @$$, I can respond with, "Not only do you not want to do that, but I'd rather you didn't." If he asks why he wouldn't want to do that, I can say that not only do I intend to defend myself as best as I can, but I intend to press charges afterwards. "Answering a threat with a counter threat" if done correctly can be the most prudent way to handle a self defense circumstance.

Cops do this all the time. If someome has a gun out (threat) the cops pull their guns (counter threat).

The idea of offering a counter threat to make your attacker think twice is simple, prudent self-defense, provided it is done correctly. Your counter threat doesn't have to be "oh yea....well, I'm gonna beat YOUR face in!" Your counter threat needs to be "assertive" but not "aggressive."

This is a pretty basic self defense concept, and I don't think that the idea "promotes violence" as I have described.

PAUL

 

[loki09789]

Paul J.

I was willing to drop it, but your constant focus on the 'unknown' is bothering me. Bob and Jerome were privately and publicly building a bridge of a kind:

From what I read here, Bob H. was the one making the invitation, with sincere intention:
“Purhaps Jerm, you and I should get on the mats together sometime. We both might learn a few things. (And no, thats not a threat....just an invitation to share, somewhere down the road when all this BS is behind us all.)”

Jerome’s response was in the same tone.
“Actually, Bob, one of the two white boys writing as Lamont, says that I should say hello for him and he would love to have the opportunity to have a training exchange with you.
Getting together on the mats would be fun. I do not harbor grudges over disagreements.”

Now on top of this public exchange, Bob and Jerome communicated this same message in private, and Bob H told me directly over the phone that he did not percieve a threat. Now unless, you want to call Bob H a liar and a gamesman in his own right I think it is pretty clear. Besides, he runs this whole show of MT, we could always just let him tell it.

Now, according to your own criteria for lethal force:
“if you can prove these 3 things in a court of law, you are justified in using lethal force:

1. The attacker has the means to perminently disable or kill you.
2. The attacker has the opportunity to perminantly disable or kill you.
3. The attacker expresses intent to perminantly disable or kill you.”

I don't see any reasonable threat directed at Bob, nor do I see any justification for a third party counter threat from a six hour drive away.

They communicated clearly under some very unclear conditions, which was/is a positive thing. Based on our multiple thread exchanges, it looking hopeful that Bob's hoped time when the BS was behind us was close, if not here already. Now, I don't know if it is behind us or just politely supressed. That is sad.

Paul M.

 

[loki09789]

Paul J.

"Cops do this all the time. If someome has a gun out (threat) the cops pull their guns (counter threat)."

IN LEO training this usually defined as a defensive posture or defensive tactics, not a counter threat. I guess the term of a 'counter threat' starts to blur into mutual combat and not self defense in terminology for me.

In your example where you clearly state that you will be forced to defend yourself as well as pressing charges, I like the actions you describe because, with a confident delivery, it might throw the agressor off because you don't seem shaken. This is very different from telling the guy in the bar who just threatened you that you are going to Bash him in the face. I just don't know about calling that a counter threat instead of clear communication.

This above example reminds me of the rape defense training of not ***** footing around a 'no' during a date. Say it loud, firm and clear and if he doesn't stop his advances, you can take action because you communicated clearly you didn't want him to continue.

But, if you say things like "Whoa, hold on now" "Down, boy, not so fast..." or anything else along those lines the 'date' might not get the hint. I am NOT saying this is a valid excuse for rape, only pointing out that clear, unclouded communication is a powerful tool in a self defense moment, as well as in supporting your defendable position in court after the fact.

Paul M.

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
Paul J.

I was willing to drop it, but your constant focus on the 'unknown' is bothering me. Bob and Jerome were privately and publicly building a bridge of a kind:

From what I read here, Bob H. was the one making the invitation, with sincere intention:
“Purhaps Jerm, you and I should get on the mats together sometime. We both might learn a few things. (And no, thats not a threat....just an invitation to share, somewhere down the road when all this BS is behind us all.)”

Jerome’s response was in the same tone.
“Actually, Bob, one of the two white boys writing as Lamont, says that I should say hello for him and he would love to have the opportunity to have a training exchange with you.
Getting together on the mats would be fun. I do not harbor grudges over disagreements.”

Oh man, you really want to relive this, don't you?

Taken out of context, it might look like they were friendship building. Put in the context of the thread, it was a heated discussion with tempers flaring from ALL parties involved. Bob saying he'd like to see Jerome on the Mat wasn't exactly an invitation to hug and be friends and sing kumbia. It would be very niave to think that this was the case. Bob wasn't threatening anyone either, but let me put it to you this way. If I am tired of argueing with somebody in Martial Arts, "See you on the mat" is a common way to end the arguement, implying that words are no longer of use, and we can prove our points through training (not the same as a challange per say); but this doesn't mean that we're friends and that we'd be comfortable hanging out together.

So that explains Bobs comment. Now let's look at Jeromes. Lets see, what happend in recent history prior to that invitation? I distinctly remember something of a staged challange match between Tim H and "Lamont Norshadow;" a fictitious internet character. I distinctly remember a lot of vague language so there couldn't be legal reprecussion for setting up a "challange" so it was called an "audition" instead. The person demoing in place of "Lamont Norshadow" was "one of the 2 white boys" writing as Lamont (well, we are all pretty sure it was Jerome doing most of the writing, but whatever). And it would appear from certian actions that Tim H, or at least SOMEONE was supposed to get hit. As it turned out, I went on the floor instead of Tim H., "foiling" the plans. hmm... lets take a trip down memory lane...if your confused, or if anyone think I am making this up, refresh yourselves here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136943#post136943

Yes, as comic book villian-like that this immature display all is, its all true, in case you forgot, Paul M. You can peruse the thread to see the many times Dr. B refers to the event as an "audition" in quotations. Why all the cloak and dagger B.S.? Why not call it a demonstration, as what it ended up being?

I'll tell you why, because SOMETHING bad was supposed to happend to SOMEONE. SOMEONE was definatily supposed to look stupid here. SOMEONE was supposed to lose credability somehow. And, quite possibly, SOMEONE was supposed to get hurt from the "audition"

So, that's the background. Then after all that is said and done, in a later thread Jerome asks Bob if he would like to have a "Training exchange" with the same student who was a part of the infamous "audition."

What the hell is a "training exchange"? Who on this planet talks like that, with all these vague undertones? Could it be that it was a pending arrangement where SOMEONE was supposed to be at the least embarrassed, at the most injured, from this "training exchange"?

Paul M., I had every reason to believe that Bob was being either threatened or "set up." And...I still do. I don't care who talked to whom, or what excuse or explaination was or will be given to try to cover it. As I said before, nothing is "clearly understood."

Now on top of this public exchange, Bob and Jerome communicated this same message in private, and Bob H told me directly over the phone that he did not percieve a threat. Now unless, you want to call Bob H a liar and a gamesman in his own right I think it is pretty clear. Besides, he runs this whole show of MT, we could always just let him tell it.

Quite trying to pit me against Bob. I am not calling a Bob anything. In all seriousness, what the hell was he supposed to say regarding the issue? He was trying to put the issue to rest, where it belongs, so of course he was going to say, "naw, theres no threat, everything is cool." Even if he truely believes that there was no threat at all, couldn't he be wrong? If he was, being wrong wouldn't be lieing either.

I don't think Bob is a liar, just someone who is trying to keep the flames off his website.

But the fact that you have even brought this issue up, and have tried to twist the facts, and that you have tried to bait me into calling Bob a liar makes me believe that your motives are less then what would be considered honest, trustworthy, or with good intent.

Now, according to your own criteria for lethal force:
“if you can prove these 3 things in a court of law, you are justified in using lethal force:

1. The attacker has the means to perminently disable or kill you.
2. The attacker has the opportunity to perminantly disable or kill you.
3. The attacker expresses intent to perminantly disable or kill you.”

I don't see any reasonable threat directed at Bob, nor do I see any justification for a third party counter threat from a six hour drive away.

First of all, that is my quote regarding the use of lethal force. Lethal force was not used or present for anyone regarding the Jerome Barber issue, nor was it "threatened" by either parties, so you quoting my there to try to prove your point is fallacious.

Given the history, there was plenty justification to point out that if someone were to get physically harmed from his antics, that there would be consequences. That was the message I was getting acrossed to him. In my anger, I didn't relay that message the best way, but regardless, that message still stands for any of of us. If You, Dr. B., myself, or anyone were to cause physical harm to someone through game playing and antics, we could expect there to be negative consequences. Correct?

They communicated clearly under some very unclear conditions, which was/is a positive thing. Based on our multiple thread exchanges, it looking hopeful that Bob's hoped time when the BS was behind us was close, if not here already. Now, I don't know if it is behind us or just politely supressed. That is sad.

Paul M.

Putting an issue behind us doesn't mean that everyone has to agree, and it doesn't mean changing history so everyone comes out unscathed. I have done things in my past that I have to own up too, right or wrong. So do you, and so does Dr. B. Just because what happened is water under the bridge for me, meaning that I am not holding a grudge over it, that doesn't mean that it didn't happened. It doesn't change the truth. And it definatily doesn't make you, Dr. B, or anyone else involved "trustworthy."

Now, I have been letting "bygones be bygones" despite the TRUTH about what happened. To you, if this means polite suppression, which isn't enough, then why don't you take the steps to remedy the problem.

The first thing that might help remedy the "past," if you feel it is nessecary, would be a public, written apoligy from Dr. Barber, you, and anyone else who chose to be involved. It can be addressed first to Tim H., Rich Parsons and myself second who were dragged into the issue. And don't even try to argue that an apology would be unwarrented. If at the very least lying and trying to ruin someones credability doesn't warrent an apoligy, then I don't know what does.

If you really want to address the past beyond "polite suppression," then you and your buddies can start with an apoligy. Although, I am sure you don't think ya'll did anything wrong, and that an apoligy would be unwarranted. The probability that you and your buddies won't apoligize is what's far more "sad" then just letting it be water under the bridge.

Last thing: I'll start with my own apoligy, to show that hey, I'm not beyond apoligies myself. I apoligize to Dr. Barber for dragging his name in the mud a second time in this thread over past issues. He hasn't done anything to provoke this that I know of, but unfortunatily because I was backed into a corner by Paul Martin, the issue was forced to the surface. I was perfectly happy to let it all be water under the bridge, and I still am.

So Paul M., because you have a hard time admitting that you might be wrong when your losing an arguement more or less, you decided to bring up Dr. Barber and past issues to try to make your points. This only resulted in dragging someones name through the mud...again. Remember the Bobby Toboada incident in a different thread?

So, like with that incident, I'll ask again:

Are you done yet?

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by loki09789
Paul J.

"Cops do this all the time. If someome has a gun out (threat) the cops pull their guns (counter threat)."

IN LEO training this usually defined as a defensive posture or defensive tactics, not a counter threat. I guess the term of a 'counter threat' starts to blur into mutual combat and not self defense in terminology for me.

In your example where you clearly state that you will be forced to defend yourself as well as pressing charges, I like the actions you describe because, with a confident delivery, it might throw the agressor off because you don't seem shaken. This is very different from telling the guy in the bar who just threatened you that you are going to Bash him in the face. I just don't know about calling that a counter threat instead of clear communication.

This above example reminds me of the rape defense training of not ***** footing around a 'no' during a date. Say it loud, firm and clear and if he doesn't stop his advances, you can take action because you communicated clearly you didn't want him to continue.

But, if you say things like "Whoa, hold on now" "Down, boy, not so fast..." or anything else along those lines the 'date' might not get the hint. I am NOT saying this is a valid excuse for rape, only pointing out that clear, unclouded communication is a powerful tool in a self defense moment, as well as in supporting your defendable position in court after the fact.

Paul M.

Good points here. I like your term "defensive posturing" over counter threat. I'm going to use it, if you don't mind!

Despite our last few posts regarding past issues this has been a good discussion where valuable things come up.

PAUL

 

[loki09789]

Again, I just think it is sad.

Paul M.

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Let's keep this to the thread. The Paul / Jerome stuff was taken of the net. Let's keep it that way.

 

[Dan Anderson]

Originally posted by Renegade
Let's keep this to the thread. The Paul / Jerome stuff was taken of the net. Let's keep it that way.

Ditto.

Yours,
Dan

 

[loki09789]

"Good points here. I like your term "defensive posturing" over counter threat. I'm going to use it, if you don't mind!"

It is a standard term in LEO training and defensive tactics. Since it isn't my term, and is public knowledge, go for it.

Check Tom's website for the links to other tactical/defensive sources for this kind of thing. The sites are easily found in a google or yahoo search if you are doing any research, but Tom made it a one stop shopping convenience by linking the research.

Paul M.

 

[Cruentus]

"Good points here. I like your term "defensive posturing" over counter threat. I'm going to use it, if you don't mind!"

It is a standard term in LEO training and defensive tactics. Since it isn't my term, and is public knowledge, go for it.

Check Tom's website for the links to other tactical/defensive sources for this kind of thing. The sites are easily found in a google or yahoo search if you are doing any research, but Tom made it a one stop shopping convenience by linking the research.

Paul M.

Yea...Toms Website is a great resource. :asian:

 

[Tgace]

Just an honest question......One question that didn't come up was whether Remy would have been as good as he was if he hadn't fought?

 

[loki09789]

Paul J,

I think that there is some confusion about the link between respecting and acknowledging the role of experience in the development of the fighter and the intent of the training. I don’t think that I am promoting Nazism, even though I can acknowledge Hitler’s public speaking skills. He was an incredibly motivating speaker, but he used that along with other skills for horrible things. I have studied the public speaking techniques, practice them and then apply them, but for my own purposes, with my own intent - hopefully less evil but that doesn't mean that I am practicing/promoting Nazism.

From the bio on RP in regards to his experience:

"Although this training helped Remy hone his stick skills to a razor's edge, he found the senseless violence disturbing. "I began to change my concept," he recalls, "I was doing fighting all the time, for real, not sport. My reputation was that all the time if they spar with me, there will be blood. Soon no one will practice with me. I have a bad reputation. So I thought to myself I should change my way."

I see the RP’s experience as a necessity for his development, not only as a fighter, but as a human being. RP recognized that this type of gang level of violence was a waste of his time, and making it hard very hard to accomplishing his martial arts/career goals because of the impact on his reputation. So he re-evaluated his priorities and:

“With the blessing of Grandmaster Bacon, Presas left Cebu to design his own system of fighting that would emphasize self-defense”

I would definitely say that I acknowledge/respect RP's experience and would also say that it was very important to his development as a fighter, but I would also say that I am not interested in gang style street duels, nor would I promote that. RP is/was a more developed fighter than I am/will be because of his experience.

I helped teach at both a suburban and a city campus for Dr B's self defense program. The some of the student's direct experience was very important to their development because they trained with intention and purpose. They used their experiences to recreate the 'fight' mind that they needed to generate good technique and realistic reactions for the street. I would consider some of those students more developed as self defense artists than I was at the time, all because of their experience.

Conversely, most of the suburban students were very slow in developing, mainly because they had grown up in such a safe and wonderful place that fighting and attacks were not an immediate danger. The best students were the girls who had 'been there done that' because of either actual attacks, or just coming damn close to being jumped/raped.

The other group of good performers in both the city and suburb program were former athletes. They used their experience - though not fighting - of full contact (football and wresting mainly) experience to click into the level of intensity and force generation that they had used in competition.

Luckily, in your fight experiences you found your training and preparation as effective. Based on that experience, you kept working on what worked. But, what would you have done if it hadn’t worked at all? Chances are, during a re-evaluation you would have either trained harder or trained differently. In either case, your experience was the basis for the decision, and essential to your development.

Paul M

 

[loki09789]

"IF you think it is nessecary for someone to have real fighting experience to truely have good combative skills, then you are promoting for others to seek out these experiences. In other words your promoting for others to get into fights. In other words (in case your a mental cripple and can't understand) your promoting violence."

I think the confusion is best illustrated in this statement. I, not speaking for the other posters to this point, am making the point that experience is essential for FIGHTER development - not good combatives skills. Skills can be developed in training, definitely. During Vietnam, MAC-V SOG boasted the only 'training program' (RECONDO SCHOOL) that finished with real combat patrols as part of the certification process. They combined experience and training. LEO's have to be on the road with a training officer for at least 6 months around here where real experience is part of their development.

Based on this discussion, my point is that those with more experience than I have will be more developed fighters because they will know themselves/their personal art better because they have 'been there done that'. I may be a more developed fighter (at this point, I am really a self defense artist) than someone with less experience.... and so on. If someone is stupid enough to go looking for real fights to gain experiences firstly, they are really stupid and secondly, they won't stay one of my students for long.

Paul

 

[Rich Parsons]

Just an honest question......One question that didn't come up was whether Remy would have been as good as he was if he hadn't fought?

Maybe , maybe not.

I know at least one person who did not fight like nor as often as GM Remy Presas. And GM Remy Presas respected this person, and knew him. THat person being Manong (GM) Ted Buot. Manong Buot would play or fight with others, only he would not allow the other person to control the fight. He would place his cane about two inches from his opponents head, and let the guy know he was hit. He would not "POP" anyone just because.

Yes, he was hit, as he was learning. Yes, he has it back. Yet, he never had the type of reputation that GM Remy Presas did, nor did he want too.

So, I say amybe because it may be requried for an individual, not for all individuals.
:asian:

 

[Cruentus]

Once again, I'll express that experience is a factor in someones "mixing bowl" of knowledge.

What I am sort of standing up against is this kind of behavior:

Spec op vet Dale Comstock has developed this unique and deadly fighting style over a period of 28 years and has used it in 8 bloody combat missions. This "instant domination" training really fits with the way Americans think. A little boxing, a little grappling, lots of pure streetfighting smarts… and the simplest "menu" of end-the-fight-fast moves you've ever seen. You'll learn the exact "condensed fundamentals" that Delta Force soldiers demand before facing combat. "Condensed" means there are NO complex moves, NO boring practice required... yet it's still the most lethally dangerous skills a fighter can know. In this amazing video, Dale will teach you how to throw a devastating punch just like a top-ranked American boxer... which will instantly stun anyone who thought you were "easy pickings"... plus much more!

THis was taken directly off an ad. I don't know if Mr. Comstock is skilled or not, but I'll bet you that before he tells you about all his "deadly fighting style", he'll tell you about how he doesn't promote violence. This is a stupid and ridicules "double negative" that exists in all facets of the martial arts.

Another stupid thing that occurs is so and so says he's been in 10 fights. So then another so and so says that hes been in 30 "deadly encounters". So then another so-and so says he has been in 100 "knock down drag out brawls with multiple opponents and weapons. Whats next? It just gets stupider and stupider now that reality based martial arts has been the "in thing" lately. And to top off all the stupidity, they are usually blatent lies and fantasy. Not in every case, but usually. Personally I don't want some desk jockey telling me about how his extensive military experience will give me the secrets of combat "beyond traditional martial arts," when I can get the same info he has with a trip to the library.

And to top off all this posturing, lieing, shady marketing, and egotism...THESE PEOPLE ARE PROMOTING VIOLENCE. Some do it on small levels just by glorifying their experiences with their students in the school. Other blatently advertise it. Bottom line is its wrong.

The other bottom line is this: "Experience" is not condusive of success in a self defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other.

Since this is true, experience is not a nessecity in developing skill, or abilities when we are refering to "combatives".

If your propigating anything but this idea, then not only are you indulging in "martial fantasy" yourself, but your promoting violence with your own students.

I am not accusing anyone here of anything, so don't misunderstand me. I am saying that perhaps we should analyze our stance on certain issues before we hastily buy the platter of B.S. that is being currently served in the majority of RBSD and martial arts circles.

PAUL

p.s. Remy Presas is my model example of how to handle this. He talked about some of his experiences with me, but in large groups he didn't glorify his "combat experience." He taught, and realized, that being in violence doesn't make you the better "fighter," and isn't nessesary for self defense, and in fact contrasts it. He let his charisma and technical ability speak multitudes for himself. Perhaps we should strive for this, rather then glorifying "our life on the streets" or "the blood I've seen when I was in the service" or whatever foolish pile of S**T that is popular now a days.

Hmmm? what do yall think? :idunno:

 

[Tgace]

I don’t think any of us are trying to equate "experience" with skill. My friend Paul M. made an analogy with hockey, I’m going to try and make a comparison with a different sport, rock climbing.

Climbing is a very technical sport. There are specific physical techniques for climbing different features and various ways to use your hands and feet to adhere to the rock. Beyond using your body, there are ropes and knots. There’s hardware with specific uses and precise applications; carabineers, descenders, cams+chocks, harnesses, chalk, webbing and on and on. Many climbers (me) start by top roping (rope goes from ground to top and back to climber, so you don’t fall more than a few feet) or gym climbing. This is a safe environment where you can practice technique, train with gear and even compete. Many climbers never leave this level and that’s OK, it's as close to a real cliff as you can get without a real cliff. The skills built here can be applied to the "real thing". Most walls are 50'-100'.

"Real" rock climbing is called lead climbing. A length of rope connects two climbers. One climbs up placing anchors and clipping the rope through them as he goes. The length of fall depends on how far back your last anchor is and if it holds. Once the rope runs out the leader sets up an anchor system called a belay and the second climber climbs up, removing the anchors and the system repeats. I’ve climbed faces as high as 800'-900' and those are on the small side of average.

The first time I "lead" a climb, it was an eye-opener.... I had the technical skills; I knew the ropework, the knots, and the gear placement techniques. I could climb gym routes 2-3 grades higher than the cliff I was on BUT.... I could die here, I was getting way up, I was getting scared, my physical technique was degrading, I was clinging and scrambling more than I was climbing, I was slapping in anchors as quick as I could (OK was good enough, #@$% perfect). I learned that some techniques I could pull off in the gym I couldn’t do (yet) on the face so I tossed them. Many times I "just did things" without thought, sometimes there were moments of "wow I actually planned to do that and I did". I did it though and made it to the top.

Did the gym training help? Couldn’t have done without it. Did it apply on the cliff? Yep. Did "real" climbing improve my technique? That is a qualified "yes", yes in the sense that it gave me a better grasp on what I had to work on back in the gym. It gave me a different perspective on what my training produced and my "real" (current) ability to apply what I learned. Was the "real" climbing "necessary"? Obviously no. I did my first climb successfully with what I had. If I lived near real cliffs and could climb on them regularly I probably could have improved my technique with constant practice on them, if I survived. Did "real" climbing give me more clout in teaching a new climber? Not really, there are many climbers WAY better than me in the gym and on the cliff , BUT...I think I could give a new climber a better grasp on what the "real" thing is like and what he should know, at a minimum, to reach the top than a gym only climber. I would advise him to get better training on technique than I could provide though.

Now an analogy can’t be perfect in all its facets. I chose to climb, it wasn’t something I was forced into or would rather have avoided like a fight. But this is as close to an explanation of "experience counts" as I can make right now.

The other bottom line is this: "Experience" is not conducive of success in a self-defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other.

Now, I do understand what you are saying here and I don’t say this as argument. Yes the random bullet can kill the commando as easily as the private, but every military man will tell you that experienced soldiers will put themselves into fewer situations where that random bullet will get the chance. Every war tells the story of new replacements being killed quicker than the veterans. In your field whom would you hire? 2 applicants with identical educations and personnel traits but one has 5 years of successful experience in the field where the other has none? Again, a perfect analogy, no. But I think you get my point.
So, in the martial arts, do I believe that "fight experience" (read:street fight) is necessary for my personal development? No, I would rather have MA training as a "better to have it and not need it, than a need it and not have it" type thing. However I would want to simulate it as close and often as possible.

 

[loki09789]

"We disagree regarding your hockey analogy, in that you think it fits, and I don't. This is fine, and we can agree to disagree on that one.

But what about this statement alone:

Real world fighting experience can be helpful to someones improvement as a fighter, but it is not an end all be all, or even a nessecity."

Wasn't this the point being discussed?

Paul M.

I have heard stories on the training floor from Dr Gyi, Bobby Taboada, Mark Pacholec (IsshinRyu/LEO/Marine), Remy Presas, and countless other instructors civilian and military/LEO tell 'cautionary tales' or use personal experiences for the purpose of instruction and never felt that they were promoting violence. I think what may happen is that some student, hungry for personal challenges/proving themselves... whatever, makes some poor judgement and doesn't deal with a potentially violent situation with self defense in mind, but proving themselves...I have heard this called the "GREEN BELT MENTALLITY." How is this the responsibility of the instructor who was using a story/experience for the purpose of illustration/instruction? That is entirely on the accountability of the individual in the fight. If the person chooses to ignore the entire context that the story/experience was being applied to (the above mentioned instructors ALL teach with self defensive purposes) that is their screw up.

I would never blame my Driver's Ed instructor of 'promoting drunk driving' if he brought in a driver from a DWI accident and had the DWI driver tell the story/experience. If I miss the point of the story/experience and get drunk and drive, that is on me, not anyone else.

Paul M.