Good arts for getting to your gun

[lklawson]

Which is what the PPCT guy said. When I said his stuff doesn't work.

So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?

Not so much.

 

[drop bear]

So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?

Not so much.

Yeah I hadn't done the two week course so I can't spot rubbish when I see it. I don't know how voodo works either but that is probably rubbish as well.

Otherwise it is their job to prove they are legitimate not mine to prove they are not.

 

[lklawson]

Yeah I hadn't done the two week course so I can't spot rubbish when I see it. I don't know how voodo works either but that is probably rubbish as well.

Otherwise it is their job to prove they are legitimate not mine to prove they are not.

So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?

Not so much.

 

[drop bear]

So you have no direct experience with "industry trainers," don't know which ones are considered legitimate within the industry, or even what is considered legitimate training. Yet your opinion is supposed to be valid?

Not so much.

And only a priest can tell you if god is real huh?

Was the guy who you linked valid? You know the guy who was drawing a gun from a grappling position. Like I said from the outset.

How do we know?

 

[Juany118]

Late to the party. To the OP I would say FMA. Yes, FMA has empty hand but it's focus is also on weapons. It's implicit in the training four things, 1. Weapons are better than empty hand 2. weapon retention and 3. if your weapon is still sheathed/holstered, creating the opportunity to deploy the tool 4? Empty hands is for when you do not have a weapon.

 

[lklawson]

And only a priest can tell you if god is real huh?

Was the guy who you linked valid? You know the guy who was drawing a gun from a grappling position. Like I said from the outset.

How do we know?

Sorry pal but you are the equivalent of a Taekwondo guy complaining about the state of grappling in Combat Hapkido. You don't know what you don't know and are unwilling to find out. Instead, you seem to want to argue about your lack of experience and competence.

 

[drop bear]

Sorry pal but you are the equivalent of a Taekwondo guy complaining about the state of grappling in Combat Hapkido. You don't know what you don't know and are unwilling to find out. Instead, you seem to want to argue about your lack of experience and competence.

A Taekwando guy doesn't have to understand grappling. What you are suggesting is not true. Same as I dont have to be a priest to work out if there is a god or not.

You test the system against some basic premises.

Is there any requirement for combat hapkido to be any good?

Is there any evidence combat hapkido is good? (does it work in live training)

Does combat hapkido stand up against other grappling systems?

Is it applicable for my needs?

So without any experience in grappling at all you could look at this.

Then say compare it to this.

And note what should work with what people who can grapple are actually doing to what people from combat hapkido want to think they are doing.


If you get a whole bunch of shifty responses about how you have to understand combat hapkido or it just works on the street or it is used by the ninja cowboy astronauts of china.

You can pretty much see the red flags going up.

I have had the same argument with non evidence based styles. I give pretty much the same responses. Of course with industry training they have the added advantage of no free market.

So when the ninja cowboy astronauts don't get a choice in what they train. This adds less weight to the argument of authority rather than more.

Especially when they do get a choice and train something else.

It is all about protecting a brand and not about providing a service.

 

[lklawson]

You test the system against some basic premises.

You don't have the applicable basis to design or even consider the tests. Never mind actually make them.

I've been trying to be nice about it but frankly, to be blunt, you are a poser.

 

[drop bear]

You don't have the applicable basis to design or even consider the tests. Never mind actually make them.

I've been trying to be nice about it but frankly, to be blunt, you are a poser.

4 Danger Signs of Cult-Like Behavior, and 4 Antidotes

 

[Juany118]

Okay, for the obtuse, the point being that if you have no direct experience with something, commenting on it's efficacy is inappropriate. One can say "my way works for me based on my anecdotal experience" but that doesn't allow you to say "ergo that will not work."

Also, in my experience, there is no such thing as a "non evidence based system." if you look at virtually any decent system, it takes elements from what you would call "evidence based systems". They may prioritize different elements, or not include others. The point of these systems is to try and impart basic skills that will work in a majority of encounters against your most common opponent, an aggressive subject who is NOT formally trained, in a compressed period of time. Now yeah, they use a lot of marketing speak, some of which is hyperbolic "our stuff works their stuff doesn't". That said, if the system teaches you using an elbow shield to protect your head from a round strike, while you blade to deploy your weapon, does the marketing speak suddenly make this effective strategy ineffective?

This isn't to say that SOME of these systems don't work, that the structure they put proven techniques in is simply not appropriate. The thing is unless you actually try the system you have no experience to base a conclusion on.

 

[drop bear]

Okay, for the obtuse, the point being that if you have no direct experience with something, commenting on it's efficacy is inappropriate. One can say "my way works for me based on my anecdotal experience" but that doesn't allow you to say "ergo that will not work."

Also, in my experience, there is no such thing as a "non evidence based system." if you look at virtually any decent system, it takes elements from what you would call "evidence based systems". They may prioritize different elements, or not include others. The point of these systems is to try and impart basic skills that will work in a majority of encounters against your most common opponent, an aggressive subject who is NOT formally trained, in a compressed period of time. Now yeah, they use a lot of marketing speak, some of which is hyperbolic "our stuff works their stuff doesn't". That said, if the system teaches you using an elbow shield to protect your head from a round strike, while you blade to deploy your weapon, does the marketing speak suddenly make this effective strategy ineffective?

This isn't to say that SOME of these systems don't work, that the structure they put proven techniques in is simply not appropriate. The thing is unless you actually try the system you have no experience to base a conclusion on.

Ok. Explain SCARS.

EDIT.

Sorry I just realized that SCARS is easily explained. We just take a page out of the LKLAWSON handbook and say nobody here is an expert in mentaltastic programming or whatever they use and obviously don't understand what they are looking at there.

 

[Juany118]

Ok. Explain SCARS.

EDIT.

Sorry I just realized that SCARS is easily explained. We just take a page out of the LKLAWSON handbook and say nobody here is an expert in mentaltastic programming or whatever they use and obviously don't understand what they are looking at there.

Well that's good that you said "never mind" essentially. Because all I would have done is ask, at this point, "explain what?". That said, if you are asking for the initial reason SCARS was ended I can actually tell you why. In 1998 the Navy Special Warfare center got permission to phase out some SCARS programs, not because of ineffectiveness, but because it took people out of the field for too long. It was a 30 straight day program. The SEALs you see complaining it didn't work NOW, never went through the program THEN.

So if the reason it was taken out of play, starting 2 decades ago had NOTHING to do with effectiveness but rather length of training taking people out of the field, and those complaining now never went through it, I would say, "STFU because your predecessors clearly thought it worked, otherwise they would have cancelled the program because it didn't work, not because of extended training time."

Most recently the principles of SCARs was noted in a thesis, by a Lt Commander at the Navy Post Graduate School (in 2012), are still being taught. So the principles are good, they just thought the curriculum of the physical side took to long. I can provide a link to the thesis btw if you want to download a PDF and read it.

 

[lklawson]

Ok. Explain SCARS.

EDIT.

Sorry I just realized that SCARS is easily explained. We just take a page out of the LKLAWSON handbook and say nobody here is an expert in mentaltastic programming or whatever they use and obviously don't understand what they are looking at there.

Are you still blathering you poser? Geez, give it up. You lost the argument. Mostly because you were arguing an unsupportable position from a position if inexperience and ignorance.

Stick to arguing over stuff you know about.

 

[drop bear]

Well that's good that you said "never mind" essentially. Because all I would have done is ask, at this point, "explain what?". That said, if you are asking for the initial reason SCARS was ended I can actually tell you why. In 1998 the Navy Special Warfare center got permission to phase out some SCARS programs, not because of ineffectiveness, but because it took people out of the field for too long. It was a 30 straight day program. The SEALs you see complaining it didn't work NOW, never went through the program THEN.

So if the reason it was taken out of play, starting 2 decades ago had NOTHING to do with effectiveness but rather length of training taking people out of the field, and those complaining now never went through it, I would say, "STFU because your predecessors clearly thought it worked, otherwise they would have cancelled the program because it didn't work, not because of extended training time."

Most recently the principles of SCARs was noted in a thesis, by a Lt Commander at the Navy Post Graduate School (in 2012), are still being taught. So the principles are good, they just thought the curriculum of the physical side took to long. I can provide a link to the thesis btw if you want to download a PDF and read it.

And right there is the issue I am trying to explain. And why I don't have faith in industry training.

 

[drop bear]

Are you still blathering you poser? Geez, give it up. You lost the argument. Mostly because you were arguing an unsupportable position from a position if inexperience and ignorance.

Stick to arguing over stuff you know about.

 

[lklawson]

And why I don't have faith in industry training.

Based on your recent admission that you don't have any direct experience with the firearms "training industry?" That your sole experience with the firearms training industry is via some youtoob videos and a google search to try to support your position?

 

[lklawson]

Which one is you? Who's the other?

 

[Juany118]

And right there is the issue I am trying to explain. And why I don't have faith in industry training.

How? Your complaint was "industry training doesn't work." I pointed out that as far as the Navy was concerned SCARS did work BUT since the training took their best operators out of the field to become trainers for to long, it got phased out.

So SCARs, aka industry training, in this circumstance, did work. It was logistic concerns, not effectiveness, that got it phased out. That wasn't the argument you were making.

 

[drop bear]

Which one is you? Who's the other?

Neither that is just some poser who doesn't understand guns.

Here is another one.

Contact Shooting With a Pistol - USConcealedCarry.com - Tactical Training

 

[Juany118]

Neither that is just some poser who doesn't understand guns.

Here is another one.

Contact Shooting With a Pistol - USConcealedCarry.com - Tactical Training

What does this have to do with your point. The person even says the method will be controversial

I know that this will be one of those controversial things, and that people all over the internet will be arguing about the wisdom of this concept, and perhaps about my very sanity. So please read through the article before passing judgment.

and they were simply giving a method to keep a semi-auto in battery in the event you are forced to discharge it while it is in contact with the target. It seems you don't know about guns or you would know that many/most, semiautos won't fire if in forceful contact with a target, as may happen in a grappling situation.

As for the photo, that shows no context. A single snap shot in time with no context says nothing.