Sun_Helmet
Orange Belt
loki09789 said:1. No it wasn't the purpose but the purpose was suppose to show/prove what did work in real fight time...I think that word 'fight' would indicate half of the 'fight or flight' idea. So, not acknowledging or accounting for its affect in reality on a fighter's performance and only focusing on getting techniques off isn't very real to me.
Work modular... take what you learn from the 'fight' data and then add it to the other scenarios or training drills. If one doesn't have the correct responses in the fight section of their training, by lumping it in on the broader scenarios - it will dilute the necessary skills one has to learn.
loki09789 said:2. As I said, as well as the Prosecutor, if an event is on the up and up, with no alterior motives (advertising, promotion, abuse, legitious/civil liability risks) then I shouldn't get dodges and have to go behind close doors for more info. Bob made a good point along the same lines with the picture/attendance issue. Either say it out right or don't say it at all.
Ask your prosecutor friend if he would NOT call the direct contact if he was given/encouraged the opportunity to.
loki09789 said:3. It very well might, but since all you say to my questions is "We had it covered" and "your assuming"...how can I know anything. Again, either say it out right or don't even bring it up.
Because YOU do NOT have to KNOW anything. You weren't part of the training.
loki09789 said:5. ... Great, you had people with medical training there because they were part of your organization, but if you had people hitting each other with sticks in the head and didn't have EMT (meaning on duty with an ambulance and response equiptment) there, that is pretty irresponsible to me. Again you 'answer' with information, but no real structure or details.
We had it MORE than covered. Next.
loki09789 said:This is my last public post on this (for real this time). Ultimately, I think the marketing/Public Relations strategy of being secretive but 'open' leaves too many people with questions about motives (whether training or advertising) and responsibility of practice.
Outside people will have questions. Only the REAL participants matter. Our motives are not questioned by those in the know. That's all that matters.
loki09789 said:I know I am saying it again (but gee isn't that what having a consistent stance is all about?), if it was 'legit' and there was no reason to be 'closed door' other than to create this aura of mystery then simply answering questions about attendance and results with "20" or what ever would be a great way to avoid that impression.
I know... false premise.
okay... we had 20. See how moot that question is?
loki09789 said:I don't see Blauer/Wagner/MacYoung types who are of the tactical schools of martial arts doing the 'secret society' thing in their approach. It is all in the open and upfront. They are very well respected and 'contracted' by LEO/Military as well as civilian types - and I imagine because they don't create the mystery around themselves they seem a hell of a lot more accessable than the "Beeatches come to me" approach to advertising.
Great for them. The more the merrier. I recommend anyone who wants to seek them out to train with them. Sayoc Kali does not try to market AGAINST any one/style/system. We don't consider anyone teaching FMA our competition. It's a huge world.
We LIVE the FMA and to pit one against the other as you just did, is just divide and conquer mentality. That's a lose / lose situation. Force teaming your POV with others doesn't concern us.
Sayoc Kali does VERY VERY well with our methods.
loki09789 said:If you want to continue this in PM that would be fine with me. I have explained what my 'positive goals' were. If they were in contrast to promoting or stroking the Sayoc ego, oh well. I still haven't seen anything that convinces me that this was anything other than a 'fight club' event (btw, the philosophical justification for the fight club in the book/movie was to 'gain experience' through 'fighting' and discovering who you were in strife - much like you are saying your stick fighting will validate technique through reality) designed to promote another DVD.
Since you have NOT seen the material, I suppose you would agree that this is YOUR assumption . I, who have seen the material would say for a FACT that it was a false premise.
loki09789 said:Tyler from FIGHT CLUB :"The first rule of fight club is, you do not talk about fight club. The second rule of fight club is, you do not talk about fight club. The third rule of fight club, someone yells stop, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. The fourth rule: only two guys to a fight. The fifth rule, only one fight at a time fellas. The sixth rule: no shirts, no shoes. The seventh rule, fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule, if this is your first night at fight club, you have to fight.")
Therefore by POSTING our event on a public forum (which now has OVER 2000 hits!) AUTOMATICALLY removes the 'Fight Club' connotation.
By giving a DIRECT contact on selfsame PUBLIC forum, REMOVES the 'Fight Club' connotation.
By FILMING and DISTRIBUTING some footage of said event, REMOVES the fight club connotaion.
Knock Knock... FALSE PREMISE!
--Rafael--