Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[Tgace]

I went back and re-read this entire thread. Believe it or not . Albeit tangental and wandering at points, much of it was quite interesting and, looking back, I enjoyed being made to put my point of view into type. Its good to be made to define your stance sometimes.

The thing that confuses me is where this became an arguement. Yes some points of view and definitions were in conflict, but there are so many instance of general agreement that Im confused as to how we have taken this latest turn. Im getting the impression from the tones of some posts here, that some people believe that Tim K., Paul M. and myself are implying that (due to our professions/experience) we are somehow trying to lay claim to some sort of superiority....I can only speak for myself, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Things were much more constructive when we discussed things as "philosophy" rather than personal agenda.

In the grand scheme of internet discussion though.....admit it to yourself or not, we all like this kind of thing. Its the most active I have been on this board in a long time and I have been looking forward to seeing what the latest posts are. If only everybody could adhere to the saying "fight all we want as long as we are willing to drive each other to the hospital when we are done".

 

[Cruentus]

Tim Kashino

First of all, an arguement is: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion c : QUARREL, DISAGREEMENT.

It seems like Paul M. and I are in disagreement. I have given a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion, which is my arguement. Arguements can exist in a discussion, and they don't have to be inflamatory.

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.

First of all, don't try to play "Mr. Psychologist" here. Your not smart enough nor do you have the training to try to decifer the psychology behind my posts. You have no idea what you guys "represent in my mind." Also, don't think that you can say things without being called out on it. If you want to make the false claims that I have paraphrased things that someone else had said as if it were my own ideas, then you had better have the evidence to back it up. If you don't have the evidence, then your spreading lies and false information. And if your evidence is wrong, then unless you retract the statement and ADMIT THAT IT WAS WRONG, then you are also spreading lies. Wow...this ought to be fun. :rofl: Evidence please?

And since we are in the business of giving each other advise, apparently, I'll do myself a favor and go to the training hall as I always do, but I'll give you some advise as well. "A good commander only fights battles that can be won" - Sun Tzu. You should go back to the docks, Kashino, cause you can't win this one.

Now, to the heart of the problem:

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.

Here in lies the problem I have with the false logic of "experience is a nessesity for martial arts/self defense skill." The same false logic that Paul M. has been argueing with me over and that you are now coming to his rescue over. You admitted previously to me being correct because you know that logically I am correct, but now your wanting to renege on that statement because, well, it would seem that if my conjecture were true, then you wouldn't be able to use your military experience to elevate you above the rest of the world. So sad, too bad.

Yes, I do see that you especially, and Paul M., seem to want to be able to use your "real world" experience to elevate yourselves above others. At least for you, it is evident in this post. "Your arguement belies your lack of 'real world experience.'" And how do you know what my experiences are? People wondered why I felt the need to disclaim that I have had real world experience before...well now you all know why. lol...its like I'm psychic...scary, isn't it? It must be my tin hat I'm wearing....

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.

Oh... I see how the analogy works now. My arms and legs and hands and feet are like the members of a team! It makes total sense because of all those times my crazy elbows don't listen to my hands, my shoulders are always arguing, my knees are in perfect cooperation but ankles are a bit weak and my *** is slow to follow, and my pee-pee sometimes, well, just isn't in the game. :roflmao: Yea...I think you can give it up now. :deadhorse

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.

The examples I bring up aren't that extreme; they are all over the martial arts/self-dfense community. Yet, these examples partially prove exactly the flaw in the conjecture that experience is a nessecity.

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

Two wrongs don't make a right.

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.

That's fine that this is your last word. In your last word you have shown your true belief that "experience" is a nessesity, you know, to have "true knowledge". If you want to propigate these kinds of fantasies, I can't stop you. However, you are the one who decided to poke your head in this toilet...I didn't drag you into anything. So, go back to the "Dox"...uh...."enforcer"

PAUL

btw...What the hell is a "urination conflict"? If that something they do in the navy, or just in sicily? :idunno:

 

[Cruentus]

Last couple of things, then I gotta run...

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.

Well, say what you want in a nutshell. I agree with everything except the thing about "necessity." And understand that if you believe that "experience" is a necessity to fully develop your skills then you are inadvertantly encouraging "experiences", and therefore inadvertantly encouraging violence. Understand also that by doing this, this could lead to the propigation of "fantasy" and other things that negate good self defense.

That's my "opinion", anyways... :wink2:

Also, I have been very clear on my arguement up until this point. I pointed out the problem with my use of the word "fighter" because of the inconsistancy in the possible definitions of that word, but I explained my points in a variety of different ways. Since there appears to be some confusion as to how these connect, I'll break it down further. Yes, this can be confusing because there are multiple points being made here. Howver they all logically connect.

A. No two "experiences" are the same.
B. There are many factors involved in the developement of "skill," and experience is just one of these that may be a factor.
C. Because of A, experience does not ensure success in future encounters.
D. Because of C and B, The inexperienced person could survive a self defense encounter over an experienced person.
E. Because of D, Experience is not a nessecity in the developement of skill, or a determination in the ability to survive.
F. Because of E, to promote the idea that Experience is a nessecity in the developement of skill or a determination in the ability to survive, then you are promoting lies.
G. Promoting "lies" leads to promoting "fantasy."
H. In a "Martial art", the goal is to develop skill and the ability to survive.
I. To encourage real world experience in martial arts is to promote violence.
J. If you commit the falsehood as described in F., then not only are you promoting lies, you are promoting fantasy (G), and because of H, you are encouraging violence as described by I.

Thats the arguement broken down in a logical format. You can see how it all connects. If you can't see the arguement, then you might need to go back to school.

Tgace

I know that the tendency is to lump you into the same category of Tim K and Paul M., but I don't believe your doing the same thing that they are. You are saying things a bit different then them in ways that I can accept and agree with much of what you are saying. Also, I don't think that your using your military/leo experience to lay claim to superiority at all. I do think that there are other things going on with Paul M. and Tim K.; things that I do have a problem with... :asian:

Things that seem to be occuring here that I have a problem with...

#1. Inability to admit that you might be wrong. It would seem, Paul M. and Tim K., that you have an inability to admit that you might be wrong when we have disagreements. Its not fair, because If I am wrong, I'll admit it. I've admitted to being wrong on a couple of things in this thread already. You guys seem to stand by your arguements even when they are clearly false. It seems pathalogical; like you trying to appease a psycholigical need to be better then everyone else.

#2. Aversion in admitting when I (and others) might be correct. This goes hand and hand with #1. This isn't a d**k measuring contest ya know. If I happend to be correct in something, that doesn't make you PaulM or TimK, the lesser man. You have admitted it at times, as I have backed up your points at times. Yet, when it comes to the possibility that you might be wrong by admitting me right, there is a major problem. This fits with the pathology as described in #1.

#3. Inclination to use your "real world experience" "military training" and so forth to make you more "all knowing" then others around you. Paul M. and Tim K., That is why you are so adament in not seeing my arguement in regards to real world experience...this would crush your entire fantasy that you might just be better then everyone else because of your experiences. This also fits in with the same patholigy.

These are 3 major problems that I am seeing. I may be wrong, but I don't think so at this time. Solutions anyone? So...when do you think the D**k-waving is going to stop, fellas?

:idunno:

 

[Tgace]

I do see your logic here BUT...I just cant entirely agree with playing down experience too much. Id much rather have experienced troops with me in combat, just as Id rather have an experienced cop backing me up over a brand new rookie. Somebody with a record of success has a better chance at future success (IMHO), while a rookie is "unknown". So my "personal" experience (not claiming fact here just IMHO) goes against C,D,E+F to some extent. So I cant accept all of your premises (SP?) as "Fact". But this goes back to my "tactics" thread.....experience goes beyond technique into all those "other" issues (terrain,positioning,taking advantage of situations, blah...blah...), those harder to quantitfy things that experience gives you a different perspective on. Is it "necessary"? If you do as you are trained, and you are trained well and "realistically", then you should do well. So I still say no. I aim to be a good gunfighter but Im not going out looking for a gunfight to prove it. But in defense of the other guys here, I cant find them stating the opposite. Granted theres some "history" here Id rather not get into. Id just like to see this turn back to the "constructive disagreement" we had earlier in this monster thread.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I do see your logic here BUT...I just cant entirely agree with playing down experience too much. Id much rather have experienced troops with me in combat, just as Id rather have an experienced cop backing me up over a brand new rookie. Somebody with a record of success has a better chance at future success (IMHO), while a rookie is "unknown". So my "personal" experience (not claiming fact here just IMHO) goes against C,D,E+F to some extent. So I cant accept all of your premises (SP?) as "Fact". But this goes back to my "tactics" thread.....experience goes beyond technique into all those "other" issues (terrain,positioning,taking advantage of situations, blah...blah...), those harder to quantitfy things that experience gives you a different perspective on. Is it "necessary"? If you do as you are trained, and you are trained well and "realistically", then you should do well. So I still say no. I aim to be a good gunfighter but Im not going out looking for a gunfight to prove it. But in defense of the other guys here, I cant find them stating the opposite. Granted theres some "history" here Id rather not get into. Id just like to see this turn back to the "constructive disagreement" we had earlier in this monster thread.

Tom,

Dr. Demming has study and book out about the willing worker and the red beads.

You have a tray that holds ten beads. You have a tub full of Non-red beads with a small percentage being red. You dip in your tray and you get your beads. You total them up. After five tries this is your week (* could be months of years *) work experience. You then lay off a third of the group, for being poor performers. You keep the rest as experienced and well trained employees. You have the top 10 percent train the new employees. Repeat the process, until you either loose all your employees or you shut down because you cannot produce.

In your case you would rather have a trained or experienced person at your side. What if there training was not real enough or actual enough, or they got through just by pure luck. So, your trained person could be a total loser when it comes to a gun fight in a house, because you experienced partner has no experience at all. Let us say 20 years of experience.

Next Case, you rookie partner has been in street fights and and knows how hold and shoot a gun, and also to treat a wound. Yet, he is green out of the academy and only 20 years old, with no work expereince.

Add, in that the 20 year experienced person has only dealt with traffic stops and not crack addicts.

The 20 year old knows how to carry himself and presents himself to handle a crowd and the crack addict.

Yes, you can say this is taking your point out of context. What I am trying to point out is that your point is that you properly trained people for the job with experience in the job at hand. I apologize for I do not mean to put words into your comments.


I agree I would like to have experienced people around me also.
:asian:

 

[loki09789]

Paul J.

Now, if the point of your post is to discredit Tim K's and My motivations/intentions/intelligence/self esteem, to indicate that our/my posts and opinion is ‘wrong’ or that we are evading a ‘lose’, isn't that as invalid an argument by your own definition, as your perceived attack on you? It doesn't take away from the points or topic being discussed:

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

Aren't you basically saying?

"Of course you'd argue that experience is a necessity, you have it."

Sayings like “Lead by example”, “Clean up your own yard…” and “ducks in a row” come to mind when we are having this discussion as the instructors and role models of students, some young enough to still be very impressionable. Especially when you’re making statements like “I will not promote violence,” but you are saying that signatures with killing people is ‘funny’, and those signatures are on the internet.

Inconsistencies between word and deed do count in the real world when you are taking the role of teacher seriously. We live in the real world, and in martial arts – like the skill you bring to the floor – your presentation of yourself is an expression of your values and beliefs. If you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk or both you and the values you are promoting come into question. I am focusing on the topic/discussion being invalid here, so don’t spin this.

I could point to suspicions of personal attacks/set ups in the past as well. I could have suspected an attempt at a personal attack with Tim H’s shift from topic to me earlier in this thread concerning how much I ‘know’ about RP, or from your questioning my current instructor/training status, or the latest ‘what is your MOS question’ by Tim H (who knew me when I was with the USMC Reserve, and have made no secret about my military experience to). Based on this ‘problem,’ you have should I see the “Desk Jockey” as me since one of my MOS’s was a Clerk/Typist? But, I chose to answer those questions frankly and honestly. I could only go on what I read…not what I was reading into it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. So much for water under the bridge...

Conversely, you have made disclaimers about not being the 'inexperienced' person that only has training to rely on. When I said that no one is trying to discredit you, your reply was “it isn’t any of you…(paraphrase)” and now it seems that it is 'us.'

I have yet to find a time when Tim K, myself or anyone else has said that we are superior or better because of our experience/professional history. I have yet to see how you can spin anything I have said as a promotion of violence.

I have been consistently talking about fighter development and experience, where you have been switching to topics of skills and abilities, false claims of experience, and the link between experience as essential and the promotion of violence… was the questions/response searching suppose to be a trap? You seem to have had this idea for a while. It didn’t just come to you. And as soon as ‘we’ said yes… you pounced.

Ultimately, anyone teaching martial arts is 'promoting violence' by nature of the art. The hole in your logic is that there is no mention of what type of violence, what type of justification continuum is being applied... to set up the contextual appropriateness of violence. Look at my 'nutshell' post again and find where I am promoting violence, or using my experience to say I am better... than who by the way? You, everyone.... Who are you accusing me of claiming to be superior to?

I was discussing, you were arguing. I think it is time to leave this. Reply all you want, I left questions and I know that you will respond to them. Take the last word, I know how much it means to you….


Paul M>

 

[Tgace]

Tom,

Dr. Demming has study and book out about the willing worker and the red beads.

You have a tray that holds ten beads. You have a tub full of Non-red beads with a small percentage being red. You dip in your tray and you get your beads. You total them up. After five tries this is your week (* could be months of years *) work experience. You then lay off a third of the group, for being poor performers. You keep the rest as experienced and well trained employees. You have the top 10 percent train the new employees. Repeat the process, until you either loose all your employees or you shut down because you cannot produce.

In your case you would rather have a trained or experienced person at your side. What if there training was not real enough or actual enough, or they got through just by pure luck. So, your trained person could be a total loser when it comes to a gun fight in a house, because you experienced partner has no experience at all. Let us say 20 years of experience.

Next Case, you rookie partner has been in street fights and and knows how hold and shoot a gun, and also to treat a wound. Yet, he is green out of the academy and only 20 years old, with no work expereince.

Add, in that the 20 year experienced person has only dealt with traffic stops and not crack addicts.

The 20 year old knows how to carry himself and presents himself to handle a crowd and the crack addict.

Yes, you can say this is taking your point out of context. What I am trying to point out is that your point is that you properly trained people for the job with experience in the job at hand. I apologize for I do not mean to put words into your comments.


I agree I would like to have experienced people around me also.
:asian:

Like i said I dont "entirely" agree. Yes I see your point, but the rookie with "street" experience right out of the academy still has "experience" dosent he? What about the guy from the burbs straight out of community college with only "book training"? Im not certain I can agree entirely with the "bead dipper" analogy. The professions I mentioned involve more than simple manual labor. BUT I do find points I can agree with in almost everybodys points. And like I said, I dont believe that experience is the "end all, be all", but I hesitate to minimize its importance either. The trouble here lately is everybody wants "all or nothing" with their drive to force their opinion down each everybodys throat. (theres enough of that to go around so dont assume im talking about anybody in particular)

:asian:

 

[Tapps]

Thinking like a fighter IS manditory.

Actual fights can be valuable but evry fight is different. You never know exactly how you will react till you're in a situation.

 

[loki09789]

Tom,

Yes, you can say this is taking your point out of context. What I am trying to point out is that your point is that you properly trained people for the job with experience in the job at hand. I apologize for I do not mean to put words into your comments.


I agree I would like to have experienced people around me also.
:asian:

I don't think that this is taking Tom's quote out of context as putting it back into context. Tom is discussing experience as a separate topic and you are plugging it back into an analogous contruct, sounds fitting - considering that even though he, and I have been discussing experience singly, the discussion and points are only valid if all things being equal. I would say, meaning me and not you, that you are implying that experience AND training are necessities to fighter development. That I can respect that point.

If I am off on my interp, sorry and let me know.

Paul M.

 

[Cruentus]

First of all, I will concede that if I were a LEO or in the military, I would want the experienced person, depending on who they are and what they know, by my side too. It would have little to do with hand-to-hand combatives skill, and would have more to do with the other knowledge they have. This still doesn't make experience a nessecity, but I do see what you mean when coming from a military/LEO perspective.

Paul M.

First of all, don't be a Kashino and fault me for "having the last word." Thats not fair, considering that you posed questions to me and comments that warrant explaination on my part.

#1. I am not trying to discredit you or Tim K in saying that you are bad people, or you have ill motives, or whatever. I AM questioning you motives and behavior though. There is a difference. I am saying that it SEEMS that both have A. an inability to being able to admit that you might be wrong, B. an aversion to being able to admit that someone else (particularly me) might be correct, and C. an inclination to try to elevate yourselves through various methods. This behavior would be fitting with a psychological need to be better then others. And a psychological need to elevate oneself implies a short coming in other areas, whether technical or otherwise. I know that this comes across as disrespectful and insulting, and I do apoligize for that. Unfortunatily, I don't know another way to be frank about what I think might be going on here. I either have to sacrifice honesty for politeness, or vice versa. I choose to sacrifice politeness. Now, am I saying that all these things are "fact"....no. I don't know if this is what is occuring or not, but it sure does seem that some shady motives are in place here. I am trying to figure it out.

#2. You thinking that experience is "nessecary" does convienently suit the pathology of "I'm better" given that you can try to lay claims to "experience" with a military background. It does make me question your motives in your refusal to even see my arguement as a valid one, even if you don't agree with my downplay of experience. Yet, I am not saying, "Of course you'd argue experience is a necessity, you have it, so your arguement must be wrong." If I was saying that, then yes, I'd be guilty of logical falacy. I can question your motive to understand why you'd stand by a losing arguement so ademently, but I must recognize that your arguement isn't a losing one BECAUSE of your motive. Like credability, motive doesn't make an arguement right or wrong. I have understood this all along, hence why I am not the one guilty of falacy here.

#3. You can try to "defame" me all you want by drawing attention to my signature lines or past behavior, but the FACT is that you don't know how I interact with my students or how I act on the training floor (outside the symposium, but we weren't really able to interact much there) to be able to say that I am "setting a bad example".

But, I can admit when you are right, because I don't have the patholigy where I have to be "right" all the time. I may be very blunt and vocal, but that doesn't mean that I am not here to gain insight and to learn. Having said that, I'll say that you have a valid point about my signature lines. I am only screwing around with them, yet someone may get the wrong idea. As I said previously, as soon as I figure out what to change them too, I plan to change them. :asian:

#4. Hey, in regards to your military experience, I respect your honesty and the fact that you have been very candid about your duty. I also respect what you do even if it is behind a desk; your serving your country and that's what is important, and you are not lieing about your service and that is very respectful. My "desk jockey" comment was not a shot at you at all, nor were any of my other comments a shot at your military record. I respect your honesty in this manner, and I respect that you have been able to serve our country. My respect for service extends to Tim K. as well. As much as you guys can piss me off at times, this doesn't mean that I disregard or disrespect the fact that you are serving our country. Thanks again for your honesty....you should be proud of your service!

#5. When I gave my disclaimer about my own personal experience, I stated that it wasn't directed at anyone in particular, but that I was just "disclaiming" it. This was true, however, I KNEW that some idiot was going to try to say how my arguement points to my "lack of experience," I just didn't know which idiot. Low and behold, I was correct. Wow....like I said, it must be that tin hat.... :viking3:

#6. I wasn't baiting you by asking about "fighter experience" so I could "pounce" if you gave the "wrong answer." I honestly wanted to know what people thought about the subject, because it is a subject that is taken for granted in the self-defense business. I got various opinions, and some opinions didn't match my own (in fact many did until I could explain my position). Even one of my friend/peers in Balintawak (Toasty) came in and disagreed with me, at least at first. No big deal, but I stated the logic and facts behind my opinion. Instead of "good point, I understand what your saying" or "wow I never thought of that" or even just a good logical arguement to counter what I am saying, I got all kinds of crap and flames because God forbid I question you or Tim K's all knowing authority(I am being facesious, but that's the impression). And YOU have been insistant that I am the one holding a grudge, yet you are the one who backed me into a corner by rehashing old flames and problems. All of this makes me wonder about your motives when you talk with me. It makes me "feel" that you and certian others are "out to stick it to me" with all that is going on.

So anyways, unless more is brought up that warrants discussion, I am going to back off of this one now that I have said my piece. I am the type of person who can have a knock down drag out arguement with a friend, and have a beer with them later. Yet, this seems to be getting too personal, and feelings are going to get hurt if they haven't been hurt already. Just understand that my arguement regarding experience still stands strong. Also, understand that because of the way things have been going when we talk, I do question your motives sometimes (same goes with Tim K).

With that, I'll leave it the mods to lock the thread to prevent future flames, or I'll leave it to someone to change the subject to a more relevent topic.

Thank you,
PAUL

 

[Cthulhu]

Since this thread has degraded into an argument involving a few people, this thread is now locked. Those who wish to continue to discuss the topic are welcome to start a new thread on the same topic. Thank you.

Cthulhu
-MT Admin.-