Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[loki09789]

"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."

"Experience", the way you are using it implies only successful outcomes - not always the case. "Experience" just means that you have 'been there done that' maybe be survival was just dumb luck. But it is essential to a fighters development because, if it was an 'unsuccessful' experience, the fighter will be forced to assess what went wrong: observation skills, judgement, fighting skills, personal courage...and train/prepare better/differently. Individual or military unit, if you get your a(* handed to you on a platter, but are lucky enough to survive, that is essential to the development of the fighter.

Successful 'experiences' are both indicative of and conducive to fighter development because the fighter will be more confident in a theoretical future situation, and sometimes that confidence will come through in bearing, making him seem like a less likely target. More successes in diverse situations will reinforce the application of the fundamentals the fighter is applying, and in his will and judgement about using it.

A fighter with in depth, realistic, intense training will have confidence in himself and his abilities, but without experiencing the reality, confidence is like faith - and a very essential component to survival success. A fighter with experience will have knowledge that they can or can't do it and have to make adjustments from there.

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

True, the development of skills/abilities can be honed and refined in training, but the fighter as a human complete package will develop as a whole from experience more from experience than the lack of it.

Paul M

 

[loki09789]

"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 is a whole 'nother kettle of fish! Firstly, whether you like his sales pitch or not, it is a sales pitch. We all make them for ourselves or someone else in this business. It is embellishment and exageration to get people to sign your name on their checks.

Listing a martial arts instructor as a "military trainer" because he has Reservists and Guardsman in his/her class is true, but exagerated.

Relatively speaking any martial art could be described as 'deadly', just part of the game.

Claiming personal application experience has gotten people in the door of many Martial Arts instructors, including RP - whether he intended to use it or not.

Comstock's claim that there are no boring practices and so on is common language in advertising as well, will he give the money back if you raise your hand and say "I'm bored, I want my money back." Besides if he is tapping into his military/martial arts experience to develop his 'system', it will have some 'boring' stuff in it. I have been through a lot of military training that made me want to saw off my arm and beat myself with it to stay awake.

After reading the sample of his advertising, I would say he is promoting himself as the 'anti-trad martial artist' instructor, the 'anti-family TKD center' type, moreso than he is promoting violence. "Money makes the world go around"

Paul M.

 

[loki09789]

Geesh, I gotta get another hobby

"p.s. Remy Presas is my model example (sic) 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."

Based on his bio, the gang level, machismo fighting that he experienced that lead to this conclusion is sound, but that is not exactly the same as military/leo service as promotion of or a source of innovation within a self defense art.

"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."

His charisma and technical ability was inspirational and spoke volumes to his role as an instructor, not a fighter. THe fact that he was standing there with all his fingers and toes spoke to his role as a fighter. And again, I would really hesitate to question the validity of a serviceman/leo's experience as a credible part of his resume as a martial arts instructor/system head. The purpose/application and type of preparation for these types is very different from that of an admitted reformed 'gang banger' in essence.

There will be a whole generation of military martial artists who could be giving us a run for our money if the rest of the US military follows the trend of the USMC's martial arts program (loosely modelled after the ROK Marine and Krav programs). They will be able to say that they are the only 'government sponsered/sanctioned' art taught by and for Marines.... I can just picture the advertising. Entirely legitimate and accurate WITH a solid moral structure in place with the USMC Corps values program. Not to mention the ONLY modern lineage recorded and verified by the US government via military service records. Stiff competition in the future.

Paul M>

 

[Cruentus]

I am not talking about someone who uses his experience as a teaching tool. Back to the Remy P. example, I remember when he was talking about how rompida saved his life when all he had was a stick, and his attacker chased him with 2 swords. Professor came to a cliff with running water underneath, so he could no longer run. He used rompida to live through that circumstance.

Hmmmm.....what happened to the reast of the tale about the "bloody battle"? He didn't need to tell it.

Even if someone does use their experience to teach a lesson, there is a big difference between "This is what happened, I survived, and here is what I learned.." and "I was in a violent bloody battle so look at how tough I am, and how credible of a "fighter" and "instructor" that I must be." There are many people who use their experience as teaching tools who I respect. There are also many who try to use their experience to promote themselves or give themselves credability by saying that their experience somehow elivates them above every other instructor. I think that these people are promoting violence, and most often they are spreading lies and fantasy.

Fact: Experience doesn't mean you'll survive.
Fact: Experience doesn't make your skilled.
Fact: To promote the idea that YOU are somehow "better" because of your experience is not only promoting lies, but it is also encouraging your students to seek the same experiences so that they can also be "better"; you are promoting violence and fantasy despite what you may say to the contrary.

Now, do many credible instructors do this sort of self promotion in their ads? Yes they do. However, I still think that it is stupid and misleading. Yes, I am going against the grain of what is generally accepted. However, just because "everyone else is doing it", that doesn't make it right.

The fact is, just because you were a gang member, hitman, streetpunk, LEO, Military, bouncer, or whatever, this doesn't mean that you are skilled, and it doesn't make you a credible instructor. All this means is that you have a particular point of view. Because of this, it can and should go on your resume' as part of your viewpoint and what you have to offer; but if you are trying to use this to try to boost yourself above everyone else then not only are you falsely advertising yourself, but you might be helping to spread violence and martial fantasy if you find yourself indulging in all your "real world" experience. Sorry to break to any of you who were looking to use this as a boost for your credability....lol.

So, that's the way that it is. And it really doesn't matter how people 'feel' about the subject, because the fact is, WE all have to make the choice as to whether we are going to sacrifice morality, the prevention of violence, and quality instruction for self-promotion. WE have to decide if we are to engage in outright stupid marketing tactics and ridicules claims or not.

I happened to choose not.

PAUL

btw.. I liked Tom's analogy with Rock climbing. It seemed to fit a bit better. Also, it expressed the idea that experience is a factor, but is not the measurement or garaunteer of success, which is the main point I have been getting at all along.

 

[MJS]

"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."

Unless I'm reading wrong here, and that is very possible, I gotta disagree with the above. Going out and looking for a fight is stupid. However, in your training, you should be training as realistically as possible. Now, before someone starts yelling, let me explain what I mean. Am I saying that if you want to learn "real" knife defense or "real" gun defense, that you need to train with a real weapon?? Not at all. But, why not use a water gun or a marker? Dont you think that'll give a more realistic response? Adding a little aliveness and resistance will be a huge plus in anyones training.

Mike

 

[Toasty]

Wow, this has alot of posts!! It kinda went all over the place & has left the actual question of the effectiveness of Arnis empty hands so I will add a little "gas to the fire" if you will...

Can you call yourself a fighter/warrior if you have never been in a fight/war?
And, outside of going out & picking fights (which will get you hurt & probably put in jail - so dont do that) what are our options to "test" our abilities (or lack thereof)?

looking forward to replies,(remembering that all answers are personal opinions & not facts by the way)

Rob

 

[MJS]

Wow, this has alot of posts!! It kinda went all over the place & has left the actual question of the effectiveness of Arnis empty hands so I will add a little "gas to the fire" if you will...

Yes, you're right. It did get off topic, and it would be nice if it got back on track.

Can you call yourself a fighter/warrior if you have never been in a fight/war?

Sure, why not. Look at it like this. There are people that are excellent when it comes to drawing pictures. Now, jsut cuz their pics. dont end up in a museum or art gallery, does that mean that they suck?? We all train for different reasons. Some for fighting, and some for the tradition. I train to learn to defend myself. I'm always striving to improve myself and get better. Do I have to enter a cage to do this? IMO, not at all.

And, outside of going out & picking fights (which will get you hurt & probably put in jail - so dont do that) what are our options to "test" our abilities (or lack thereof)?

There is always gonna be rules and limitations with our training. If every time we trained eye jabs, we actually hit our opp. then we'd be running out of training partners. So....how are we gonna know if that eye jab is gonna work? All you can do is train as realistic as you can, and hope that everything you've been doing over the past X number of years, is gonna pay off if you need it.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Unless I'm reading wrong here, and that is very possible, I gotta disagree with the above. Going out and looking for a fight is stupid. However, in your training, you should be training as realistically as possible. Now, before someone starts yelling, let me explain what I mean. Am I saying that if you want to learn "real" knife defense or "real" gun defense, that you need to train with a real weapon?? Not at all. But, why not use a water gun or a marker? Dont you think that'll give a more realistic response? Adding a little aliveness and resistance will be a huge plus in anyones training.

Mike

I agree with you Mike, and the quote you pasted was originally by Paul J. that I was responding to.

I think that effective training that simulates reality as closely as possible will create confidence, reasonable confidence in a student/fighter's abilities. This is also the most reasonable way to get as close as possible within the moral, ethical and legal world of self defense training. My point here, based on the original discussion idea of whether real experience is a necessity to fighter development, is that these are great ways to train right to the edge, but unless you have been over that edge, you are instilling training experience and confidence. These are very different from actual experienc. I will gladly spend the rest of my life being 'confident' in my abilities at the sacrifice of my 'fighter development.' But, if I ever do have to use my training experience, I will have gained knowledge which is very different.

Paul M

 

[Tgace]

I dont see where Paul M's view and mine part. Neither of us stated that getting into fights is necessary to make you a better fighter or recommended doing so. As a matter of fact we bolth stated that avoiding fights is the best defense (and were accused of putting "tactics" above fighting skills). What I believe we are saying is that "fighting is fighting" and "training is training". You have to get as close to "real" as you can get if you expect your training to work. And admit it, all things being equal (thats important enough to repeat) regarding training and technical expertise, we naturally tend to give more credibility to those who have "been there, done that".

 

[Cruentus]

Can you call yourself a fighter/warrior if you have never been in a fight/war?
And, outside of going out & picking fights (which will get you hurt & probably put in jail - so dont do that) what are our options to "test" our abilities (or lack thereof)?

Rob

Good questions.

I'd say for the first one that it depends on what your definition of "fighter" or "warrior" is. We have a huge definition problem in the self-defense/martial arts industry. It comes up all the time, and many arguements have been caused because both parties are not seeing eye to eye on a definition or two, so they are both argueing from differrent points of references. The "Martial Arts" industry (including Reality Based self defense and combatives) is a specialized field, therefore "dictionary" definitions or definitions from other industries don't directly apply to the meaning of certian words in the "martial arts" community. Also, other specialized industries, have boards or organizations setting the standards of practice and defining terms (Doctors have a medical board and resources to define industry specific terms for example). With no one board or organization setting the standards or defining terms, we have no set meaning of many of these terms that are commonly thrown around.

You can find examples of this particularly all over the net. For specifics, look earlier in this thread where Paul M. (Loki) and myself both had different definitions of the word "tactics." Also look here where there was a discussion of the word "warrior spirit": http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12959

I gave a basic definition (not one that I was married too, but one that I proposed for a conversation piece) of the word that one would think would cover it, yet there were many different ideas. You can see how this definition problem that we have effects us in the thread that caused me to start the above discussion about the definition of "warrior spirit" here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12917

You can see how obtuse some of these conversations and arguements can be. People in my last link are intensely discussing whether "warrior spirit" is learned or instinct, or what have you; yet no one really has agreed on what the definition of "warrior spirit" is.

Another discussion of "definitions" here: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12992

So, as you can see, it all depends. I used the word "fighter" for lack of a better term in my arguement previously in this thread. Instead of arguing over the term "fighter" looking at my different posts and the context of how I used the word will illustrate my arguement in regards to "experience".

So can you be a "fighter" or "warrior"....? Depends on the definition of these words.

Second Question: To answer the second question, I think that training as realistically is possible is the key. Training both the technical and conceptual aspects of the art, added with the tactical aspects of your environment is key. Including all elements of self defense in your training instead of only certian elements that convienently fit with your skillset is key. Adding "Live" training or making sure you train with resisting unpredictable partners (sparring type) is key. Learning how to "translate" what you know to different circumstances so you can apply your knowledge is key. And also, understanding that no 2 "real life" circumstances will be the same, and that "training" is not the same as "real life" will allow you to be prepared for the unexpected is key.

These are some elements that I think we can do, anyways.

:ultracool

 

[Datu Tim Hartman]

Paul Martin-

just curious, what is your MOS in the Marines?

 

[loki09789]

There have been many tangents to the original thread, but the last one as far as I knew was reactions and opinions about the statement:

"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."

The change of topic to that of morals, false claims, and credibility isn't the focus of the posts I was making. The development of a fighter is.

"So, that's the way that it is. And it really doesn't matter how people 'feel' about the subject, because the fact is, WE all have to make the choice "

This is the only "fact" that I agree with, but just because I agree with it doesn't make it a fact, but a shared opinion. Facts are just evident, we organize them into logical constructs to reveal 'truth.' But, since 'truth' changes from person to person, culture to culture it is really opinion/values. I respect your stand that you will not promote violence, again I agree and also don't do this. But, the logical link from experience/fighter development and promotion of violence is really opinion and not fact. I could line up a logic thread that 'proves' that Ray Charles is God.

This is my problem with the idea that just because an instructor doesn't boast in advertising, or list fight resumes in advertising he/she is promoting violence:

"No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously...

"Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
meet.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
H. L. Mencken


PAUL Ghostface Killa

These signatures and the images of pirate's and skull/crossbones don't mention anything about 'self defense' justifications for the violence promised or intended. These images/quotes could be seen as 'promotion' of violence because they express a pirate/raider/mercenary philosophy/justification of violence for the preservation or improvement of a way of life.

If these images/quotes were hanging on the window/posters of a school I was interested in attending, or sending my son to, I would not make past the lobby. Since this is an internet forum, globally accessible it is a form of advertising.... who is getting the message?

Paul M.

 

[loki09789]

Paul Martin-

just curious, what is your MOS in the Marines?

I am no longer in the USMC, I was in from 1988 to 1992 (active), 92 to 94 (reserve). I then joined the 105th MP Company with TGACE (thanks again Tom) from 94 to 2001.

My first MOS was as a USMC clerck/typist. I served with 3rd Force Service Support Group in Okinawa (fun, good 'get out of the office' training) then Headquarters Marine Corps in Wash DC (not so fun, no real training). I was approved for the Public Affairs/Journalism MOS (my original enlistment choice, but got lied to by a recruiter - old story) but decided to get out of active service for my college/family priorities. After that, in the reserves I was a Corporal Fire Team Leader, then a Squad Leader in charge of 12 Marine infantrymen (general and cold weather operations).

When I joined the National Guard (MP's), I was assigned as a Fire Team leader, and after completing MOS Qualification I was promoted to Squad Leader in charge of 9 MP's and three HMV's with attached weapon systems.

Now I am out, but really want to finish my 20 years eventually, more as a personal commitment issue than the retirement. There are family issues that make that a complicated issue though.

Paul M.

 

[loki09789]

Sorry, forgot a piece...in the USMC reserve I got out because the last 6 months of my contract the unit commander reassigned me to the admin shop because I was the one with the 'experience' (not good in this case). I said I would do it, but when they wouldn't let me go back to the rifle platoons when I conned... I mean recruited another Marine with Admin experience/mos to take the job, I left. The office was just not as fun. Come on, getting to play cowboys and indians all day compared to typing....filing......SNORE!


Paul M

 

[Cruentus]

There have been many tangents to the original thread, but the last one as far as I knew was reactions and opinions about the statement:

"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."

The change of topic to that of morals, false claims, and credibility isn't the focus of the posts I was making. The development of a fighter is.

"So, that's the way that it is. And it really doesn't matter how people 'feel' about the subject, because the fact is, WE all have to make the choice "

This is the only "fact" that I agree with, but just because I agree with it doesn't make it a fact, but a shared opinion. Facts are just evident, we organize them into logical constructs to reveal 'truth.' But, since 'truth' changes from person to person, culture to culture it is really opinion/values. I respect your stand that you will not promote violence, again I agree and also don't do this. But, the logical link from experience/fighter development and promotion of violence is really opinion and not fact. I could line up a logic thread that 'proves' that Ray Charles is God.

This is my problem with the idea that just because an instructor doesn't boast in advertising, or list fight resumes in advertising he/she is promoting violence:

"No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously...

"Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you
meet.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
H. L. Mencken


PAUL Ghostface Killa

These signatures and the images of pirate's and skull/crossbones don't mention anything about 'self defense' justifications for the violence promised or intended. These images/quotes could be seen as 'promotion' of violence because they express a pirate/raider/mercenary philosophy/justification of violence for the preservation or improvement of a way of life.

If these images/quotes were hanging on the window/posters of a school I was interested in attending, or sending my son to, I would not make past the lobby. Since this is an internet forum, globally accessible it is a form of advertising.... who is getting the message?

Paul M.

First of all, what is our definition of "fighter"? I'd actually like to renege the word "fighter" because I used it for lack of a better term.

Regardless, despite a semantics dispute, my arguement is quite clear when you put it into the context of the entire thread where I have expressed my arguement in many different ways. Examples:

""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."

"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."

"To promote the idea that YOU are somehow "better" because of your experience is not only promoting lies, but it is also encouraging your students to seek the same experiences so that they can also be "better"; you are promoting violence and fantasy despite what you may say to the contrary."

So, I think its pretty clear what my arguement is. I'm not the one who has been trying to change the context of the argement here.

Now, a "fact" is "a piece of information presented as having objective reality".

"Reality" is 1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

An opinion is: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.

Now, the antonym for fact is "illusion". An illusion, as applied to this conversation, is: something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature.

Indulging in "illusion" over "fact" creates "fantasy". A fantasy, as it applies here is: the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Fact&x=20&y=11
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=reality&x=13&y=17
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Opinion&x=13&y=9
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=illusion&x=12&y=13
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Fantasy&x=19&y=15

A statement like "We make choices" is either fact or illusion, and can be logically proven either way. Your opinion or belief as to whether this statement is fact or illusion is inconsequentual to the arguement. What your "opinion" does demonstrate is if you are willing to accept "reality" or if you would rather indulge in "fantasy." A statement like, "Well, in my opinion the idea that 'we make choices' might not be true because, uh, how do we know that our minds aren't being controlled by aliens," would be an extreme example of how a refusal to argue facts and instead indulge in opinions leads to indulging in fantasy. This happends in Martial Arts/self defense all the time. "In my opinion weapons aren't useful because they can be turned against you in a fight!" As it pertains to this discussion, "In my opinion he MUST be skilled in self defense because he was trained in the military and got into lots of fights" Or, "In my opinion you just can't be skilled in self defense or combat unless you've been in the trenches like me!" These statements are examples of using an opinion to indulge in illusion or fantasy to appeal to a psychological need.

Now, the statements that I have said to be "fact" here have been shown as such through a logical arguement. To try to deminsh these "facts" as mere "opinions" with no logical arguement to prove that the statements in question are "illusion" is a blatent demonstration of an inability to accept "reality," and an inclination towards "fantasy".

I choose to look at "facts," and I find "facts" through evidence and logic, and I choose to accept "reality". I think it is imperitive to good self defense and martial developement to look at "reality" rather then to indulge in "fantasy." I can't help it if many people in martial arts/self-defense circles would rather indulge in "illusion" and "fantasy" over "reality," to appease some psychological need to be better/tougher/etc. then someone else.

We can discuss whether a blatent statement is fact or illusion. If you'd rather indulge in your opinion, that's your choice, although I don't know how many people will be interested. If you'd rather indulge in fantasy and illusion too, well, hey, go for it. I just ask that we not misunderstand what I am saying, dispite what planet we'd like to pretend we're on today.

and, btw, I'd love to argue over whether Ray Charles is God anyday!

Now you said:

This is my problem with the idea that just because an instructor doesn't boast in advertising, or list fight resumes in advertising he/she is promoting violence:

I am not sure what you mean with that statement.

Now in terms of the rest, you are committing the very common logical falacy of "Argumentum ad hominem" or "arguement against the man." Your trying to bring down the credability of my arguement by criticizing me and my behavior. Me or my behavior, whether right or wrong, has nothing to do with the arguement. In fact, you have been doing this throughout the thread, and I find it pretty laughable. I haven't said anything until now, because, well, a good sign that someone is clearly losing an arguement is when they resort to trying to bring down your credability. Perhaps my signature lines do promote violence if "you find a way to take it too seriously." I have them there because I find them humorous, but I have been thinking about changing some of them since this thread so I don't come accross as one who promotes violence.

Yet...what do my signature lines, or even my past behavior have to do with my arguement, or the facts that I have presented?

NOTHING! :rofl:

 

[loki09789]

“Perhaps my signature lines do promote violence if "you find a way to take it too seriously." I have them there because I find them humorous, but I have been thinking about changing some of them since this thread so I don't come accross as one who promotes violence.”

This acknowledges an inconsistency between you as the messenger and the message of ‘refusing to promote violence.’ Any inconsistencies in the communication chain - messenger/message/receiver – will create confusion and lack of credibility of the point. Much like your:

“That's the bottom line, folks. That's the REAL DEAL. I don't care if you disclaim it by saying, "I don't condone getting into fights." Your disclaimer is the equivelent of a parent telling a child that swearing is wrong, after rebuking them with a slew of F and S bombs.”

You are stating that any inconsistency between the action of the person making a claim/disclaim invalidates the persons claim. You say you stand for something, yet your behavior is inconsistent, that undermines your topical stance, because you are not applying it yourself. You are talking the talk, but not walking the walk.

You are condoning fighting with these signatures as well as by your ‘no regrets’ statements about past behaviors…. Using you as a living example was an attempt to make my point clearer because you are in the example, and have direct experience with the example. Since analogies don’t seem to work for you, this direct exampling was an attempt to make my opinion clear. "If you can’t even live by this code, is it valid?" was the basic message.

“Personally, I don't give a flying F**k if the whole world disagrees with me on this one. I will stand behind my opinion on this, because I will learn/teach survival, I will learn/teach martial arts, but I will not promote violence.”

You have said that it is a fact, yet here it is your opinion. Facts are evident, meaning observable and existent. Opinions are personal.

“I can help build someones ability to handle real life encounters, without them having to be in a "real life" encounter themselves, and they will be just as effective, or even more effective as someone with a load of experience.”

Building ability is not the same as building or developing the fighter. And again you can be confident and have faith that students' are prepared, but saying that you know that they will be just as effective is the ultimate in martial fantasy, and a dangerous piece of advertising (in the form of a testimonial/claim) to make.

Paul M

 

[DoxN4cer]

Well this thread has certainly become a turd tossing contest. Hasn't it? Some of it was quite interesting, while much seems to be the same old personality conflict driven rhetoric.

...Now in terms of the rest, you are committing the very common logical falacy of "Argumentum ad hominem" or "arguement against the man." Your trying to bring down the credability of my arguement by criticizing me and my behavior. Me or my behavior, whether right or wrong, has nothing to do with the arguement. In fact, you have been doing this throughout the thread, and I find it pretty laughable. I haven't said anything until now, because, well, a good sign that someone is clearly losing an arguement is when they resort to trying to bring down your credability...

Why is it an argument? I thought this was a discussion forum.

Paul Martin isn't the only one doing that, Mr. Janulius. You have also done that throughout this thread, and I belive it isn't so mouch what Paul, Tom and I are saying rather than who we are and what we represent in your mind. On occasion you even paraphased things that someone else had said as if it were your own idea, after you had already disagreed with the original statement. You are making argument just for agument's sake. Do yourself a favor and step away from the computer and back into the training hall.

I don't know how say this in a nice way, so if I offend you please allow me to apologize in advance. You're missing the point in terms of what is being said, and ridiculing things that you know little nothing about. It appears as though you spend more time ranting on the internet than you do in persuit of "perfect technique" as you say. Your arguement belies your lack of "real world experience". It's just my observation based on my experience that the man with the loudest voice has the least.

The hockey analogy was flawed in the way it came across. However, the analogy is quite valid. Any team sport makes a valid analogy. Hockey, Football, Lacrosse...you name it... is a team working together as one entity to dominate and the oppostion. Much like an infantry squad conducts fire and maneuver to out-position and overwhelm an objective, which in turn is much like the way your arms, legs and mind work together when you're in individual combat. Anyone a small amount of knowledge and experience could see that and make a valid comparison.

I have already conceded that experience is not "end-all-be-all". However, you continue bring extreme cases persons claiming "X" number of battles, brawls, etc. High profilers like that are on ego trips and are out for your money rather than your betterment. In my experience, the most serious operators out there are people with real world experience that keep a low profile. If you have the opportunity to learn from them you are fortunate.

What's worse: a "high profile" braggard with real world experience, or "master" with none claiming to teach "combat oriented", effective self defense?

Your de-valuing of experience is short sited, Paul. It's all part of the combative equation, so to speak. Experience is how you learn beyond the classroom, beyond the training hall, beyond the private lessons. it is an essential part in the development of any skill set. That's my last word on the matter. I won't let you drag me into your urination conflict, though I do expect you to run off at the mouth (or keyborad in this case) in a response disigned to discredit what I have to say.

Tim Kashino

 

[loki09789]

Here's my point in a nut shell:

IMO, experience is not the end all be all of fighter development, because there are other factors to weigh into the equation - training, character, fitness, age, education..... But, experience is a necessity in fighter development because it is 'combat' (I prefer self defense, but this is what was proposed) that we are preparing for, therefore everything else is preparation.

The enigma is that, within my own view, in order to develop yourself as a fighter then requires that you have experience. This does not automatically mean that I, my students (past and future) or other practitioners MUST SEEK experience. It does mean that for those who are well trained, fight in full contact and scenario formats, can break boards and recite the state penal laws on use of force are only well trained.

Within the self defense focus of my training/instruction, Students with no experience are not as well developed as those with experience, they know that, and I know that. And within the context and INTENT of the training, that is good. I train them to 'avoid' experience because that is moral, ethical and legal. But, if avoidance will only put them in further danger than defending themselves, they will respond based on their personal make up/character combined with their training - that is the whole fighter. Not just combatives skills/abilities, but the whole fighter.

If they/I am lucky enough ( and by that I mean I have tilted the odd in my favor with training and preparation, but acknowledge the other factors beyond my control) to survive, I have gained experience that cannot be replaced by training.

I guess I am comfortable enough with my place in this overall pecking order of martial arts/combatives community to know that I will be in the 'confident' category as long as I don't have 'experience' and therefore a less developed fighter than someone else. If I spend the rest of my life 'confident' and not 'experienced' I guess I am the better "self defense/fighter" because I have used the minimal amount of force to stop a threat - because I wasn't even there, or defused it before it could manifest. Conceptually this would be, to me the highest level of Economy of Motion in a realistic expression.

How can any of that be spun into me, knowingly or not, promoting violence? I ask because you have said that anyone who says that experience is a necessity for fighter development is promoting violence. That would be me, and I don't think that I am engaging in Martial fantasy - which sounds like an attack on the character/ego/intelligence of anyone who doesn't see it your way.

Paul M.

 

[loki09789]

"a good sign that someone is clearly losing an arguement is when they resort to trying to bring down your credability. "

First, I am on board with Tim K's point about this being a 'friendly discussion' and not an argument.

Secondly, I think it is clearer that, based on the 'fact' that you see this as an argument you are feeling the heat because none of the three following posts are related:

""Experience" is not condusive of success in a self defense encounter"
Basically, experience in self defense means dooky to future encounters.
So this one is about encounters and experience. Not experience/development as a necessity.

"experience is not a nessecity in developing skill, or abilities when we are refering to "combatives".
Basically, skills and abilities can be developed outside of actual application. So this one is about skills and abilities. Again, not fighter development...

"To promote the idea that YOU are somehow "better" because of your experience is not only promoting lies,"
Basically, if an individual artist thinks they are better because of fight experience, they are wrong.
So this one is about ego and identity. You know the song, sing along.

Three different messages/themes when the original point was, for me at least, to respond with my opinion on the following.

"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."

I responded, you disagreed. We continued to go back and forth. Somewhere along the way it seemed to become personal with you because you felt the need to make a disclaimer, regardless of your "it's not any of you..." statement. Now it is an argument. And in the process told me and those like me that believe, not as a fact but opinion that experience is a necessity...and if I am alone, okay you are telling me...we were stupid and dilluded about what we were doing and how we saw our training....

"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 think it might be time to move on if this has become an argument.

Paul M

 

[Cruentus]

There are a lot of posts here, so please excuse me as I'll be addressing them one at a time. :asian:

Paul M.: In regards to your fist response to my last post

This acknowledges an inconsistency between you as the messenger and the message of ‘refusing to promote violence.’ Any inconsistencies in the communication chain - messenger/message/receiver – will create confusion and lack of credibility of the point.

NO...this is a falacy. I can argue that cheating on ones spouse is wrong, even if I have cheated on my spouse before. Whether the arguement is right or wrong has nothing to do with the credability of the arguer.

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well."

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make.


There...I did the research for you. "Argument against the man" is a very common fallacy, and truthfully if you were to try this tactic in a university debate its safe to say that the judges would deem that you lost the arguement.

If I have done things, inadvertantly or otherwise, to promote violence in the past, or if I do so in the future, this doesn't make my arguement regarding the promotion of violence wrong. If anything, it says that I am human and that I can make mistakes. I already admitted that I should have used different language in the "warning" post in regards to Dr. B and Bob. In my anger, I was promoting "violence" through my language, and it was wrong. But as I said before, I didn't initiate the problem, therefore I am not apoligizing for it. Secondly, the "warning" WAS warranted, I just should have used different language.

We all make mistakes...I don't regret mine, but I can admit to them and learn from them. Regardless, no mistake I have made or will make renders my arguements invalid. An inability to admit when we are mistaken does make us hippocrites though...hmmm. :idea: More on that later...

Building ability is not the same as building or developing the fighter. And again you can be confident and have faith that students' are prepared, but saying that you know that they will be just as effective is the ultimate in martial fantasy, and a dangerous piece of advertising (in the form of a testimonial/claim) to make.

Well, I'll concede that my statement sounded pretty blatent. I should reiterate that I am not gaurunteeing to develop the "ultimate fighter" of any kind. I am simply saying that I can teach them, and the possability is there that they will be just as effective as someone with a load of experience. Obviously there are a lot of dynamics involved with that.

PAUL