Im pretty tired so Im not going to write too much tonight.
Thanks for the thread link Chris. I read the first couple of pages... robs read a bit more later (its a pretty long thread)
Okay. Honestly, what I'm hoping you get out of it is that, without the proper experience/education, what you're doing is an incredibly bad and dangerous thing to do. Cody (Destroyer Style) actually has some physical talent, a lot more than you showed in your videos, but he was completely ignorant of what was required to teach or develop methods to teach in this area, as are you. Eventually he seemed to realize that... I'm hoping you manage the same.
Yeah, sorry bout that. I just reply to the thread I view first.
Okay, then, when you get to it, can you say where you base your advice on? What experience do you have that leads you to think you can offer advice for group assaults? What training have you gone through in that area?
Youve made this point pretty clear. I can save you some time and say you dont have to say it again. Ill just keep it as a 'tone setter' for when I read your replies to my posts.
The reason I keep repeating it is that you say, as you do here, that you've heard me say it... and then continue to demonstrate that you don't understand just how much you don't have a clue. This post is yet another example. So while you've heard me tell you you don't have a clue, it hasn't sunk in yet.... you still think you have something to offer, and that your opinion on fighting (and self defence) is valid. It isn't.
Yes. Because how can you know if something will definitely work.
You don't seem to get subtlety, so I'll be blunt. Your advice has the same "chance" of working as telling someone that they can win a game of pool by closing their eyes and just swinging the cue across the table... they might hit the cue-ball, and it might knock the other balls into the pockets, but the chances of that happening are so remote that it's not worth advising people to try.
The idea of "how can you know if something will definitely work" is just showing how little you understand here. There are no 100% guarantees in this area, but there are some things that just shouldn't be advised, as they fly in the face of reality. Your advice fits that description. Your advice is bad. It is dangerous. The result of people following your advice would be that they would get themselves beaten up badly, when they could have avoided it entirely. People following your advice would likely be hospitalized. It is purely bad advice, given by someone who really shouldn't be giving advice at all.
yeah.. i spose your right. I probs wouldnt suggest it.
You did suggest it, though. They were your words. Oh, and the reason I copied the entire blog here was to provide an archive if you start editing the original to include your mis-understood take on what we say here. So you know.
Do you have the first clue about how that is done (training your peripheral vision)? Or why it's needed? Bluntly, I seriously doubt it.
I train it, simply by using it when I remember to
So that's a no, then.
I disagree. Whenever I think im in a potentially dangeous situation, my awareness definately spikes
No, it focuses. And unless you understand what that actually means, and what the difference is, then you really shouldn't be stating anything or offering advice.
You agree that you were completely wrong? And still think that you are offering valid advice in everything else? Can you not see the delusions at work here?
Its not tactic where Im say 'just line them up' as the only tactic. I realise it is not that simple. More that it is something to do, while using other tactics. Tactics are used together. (I apologise if my sentences arent making perfect sense gramatically, but you get the idea (hopefully))
I understand tactics to a much deeper level than you realize, as well as the one you're discussing. And your entire take on it is unrealistic, ill-advised, and dangerous.
Oh dear lord...
Not true. You would not have to be an idiot for these tactics to work. What you may be forgetting is that you guys know how to fight. Alot of people do not. So, yes, i guess you could say they are retarted fighters, but not necessarily retarted.
Also, i know its training, but I have tested these things on other people that also know 'how to fight'
No, the attackers would have to be idiots. And what you're forgetting is that you don't have a clue about the realities you're attempting to address. This entire passage shows that, by the way.
Oh, and I have serious doubts about any validity of your "testing" these things, especially based on the videos of you and your friend. Neither of you have a clue about violence. I actually kinda wish they were still up, just to highlight what I'm talking about. The one on chokes would be best, if you still have a copy...
maybe.. unintentional descriptive flaw. But others have read it and understood they where not to be just standing there.
Except that, once you have pro-active attackers (realistic ones), all your tactics fall in a heap and fail dismally.
the tactics arent ineffective if you use them as intended. ie as a collomative (i dont think this is a word) of tactics, together with your combined knowledge of other teachings.
Posts/chapters are meant to be taken in retrospect, together with other posts/chapters. Not any one tactic will work all the time.
I think you meant "cumulative"... but, to the point, you've missed the point of tactical approaches here. Completely.
my decision?? do whatever I can to escape.
Wow, did you miss the point of that one...
I didnt describe at all how to avoid it, except maybe the comment of not using kicks. It wasnt something I intended that post to get in to.
Yes you did. You described (vaguely) ideas about "looking to your balance more", which is what lead to your comments about not kicking (which is really besides the point... the reasons you would tend not to kick are rather different, which again shows you don't know what you're talking about.... as well as other issues...
I dont know.. it got some good insights from you
Thanks
Right. The insight you should have gotten is that all the advice you have given is deeply, dangerously, fundamentally flawed. The types of people who would read and follow it are those who don't know any better, and trust that someone who has founded their own system/organisation/group named "First Action Self Defence", with the tag-line of "More than just fighting" knows what they're talking about, and don't have the experience to apply critical assessment of the material you're proffering. But the fact is that you don't have the requisite background or experience to offer anything of value, and what you are giving is largely just going to get people hurt. And, as far as the whole "I don't teach self defence, I just teach fighting" that you've started saying now, firstly, no, you don't. You present it as self defence (hell, look at your tag-line), so just just saying that "changing the name is too much bother" shows that you have no concern for anyone looking at your material, or presenting anything accurately. Secondly, you don't have any fighting ability or knowledge, so you're really teaching "First Action Self Defence; Not Even Fighting".
Seriously. There is nothing of value on your site. You present yourself as an expert (just by having the site), and if people trust it, they will get hurt. Badly. I don't care if you just do this yourself, and get yourself beaten up on a daily basis, but if you're going to present it to a worldwide community, then I'm going to be concerned when it is that damn dangerous and poor. And for that reason, I say again:
Stop. Take down the website.
And just stop.
