How should someone demonstrate self-defense concepts in a video?

[JowGaWolf]

But if I want to talk about V-Locks, it's a lot easier to have a partner who is at least semi-compliant with a V-Lock, so that I can demonstrate it.

At that point you really demonstrating the concept of it and not the actual use of it. So that is fine.

Here's a perfect example. Conceptual demonstration vs Use demontration

1st we see a real situation with a real eye gouge done on purpose and with intent to injure. (use demonstration)
2nd Nick Dagrossos does the conceptual demo. He walks us through it and goes into some detail.

The video gives a reference point which helps us to better understand the concept of the technique.
When people see concept demos, they often incorrectly imagine what's needed to pull it off. Unless a person actually sees how something is done, then the only thing they have to go on what they think it will be like.

Same thing here.

Now if you haven't seen videos of people getting poked in the eye, then you're going to have some misconceptions on how to use the technique because you only have your imagination or a concept demo / walk through to go on.

Seeing this video (below) before seeing other people getting poked in they would make a person think yeah a real fight isn't like that, that's not going to work. Now that we have seen a few example we have a better understanding of how we might use the techniques below. Without those videos, it's just a guessing game on how to actually use it.

I think things like this should be conceptual teaching and not a actual use teaching by intentional sparring with people for the purpose of intentionally poking their eyes out, just so one can teach an eye gouge lesson.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Sometimes a person with a better start out of the blocks will defeat a faster person with a slower start.

I'm with you on this one. I ran track for 6 years and practice always revolved around endurance, technique, and getting out the blocks first. Getting out of the blocks first is critical even if the person is faster. If the faster person has a bad start it means he has to run even faster just to catch up and past the person who had the good start out of the blocks.

Technique is everything, strategy is everthing. Being the strongest helps but it it's not everything.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

At that point you really demonstrating the concept of it and not the actual use of it.

Who is right? A, B, or C?

A: If his opponent pulls his punching back, there is no way that he can wrap his arm around his opponent's punching arm.
B: This clip is fake. Nobody can make this move work.
C: It's just a strategy. If you train, your successfully rate will be higher than those who doesn't.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

At that point you really demonstrating the concept of it and not the actual use of it. So that is fine.

Here's a perfect example. Conceptual demonstration vs Use demontration

1st we see a real situation with a real eye gouge done on purpose and with intent to injure. (use demonstration)
2nd Nick Dagrossos does the conceptual demo. He walks us through it and goes into some detail.

The video gives a reference point which helps us to better understand the concept of the technique.
When people see concept demos, they often incorrectly imagine what's needed to pull it off. Unless a person actually sees how something is done, then the only thing they have to go on what they think it will be like.

Same thing here.

Now if you haven't seen videos of people getting poked in the eye, then you're going to have some misconceptions on how to use the technique because you only have your imagination or a concept demo / walk through to go on.

Seeing this video (below) before seeing other people getting poked in they would make a person think yeah a real fight isn't like that, that's not going to work. Now that we have seen a few example we have a better understanding of how we might use the techniques below. Without those videos, it's just a guessing game on how to actually use it.

I think things like this should be conceptual teaching and not a actual use teaching by intentional sparring with people for the purpose of intentionally poking their eyes out, just so one can teach an eye gouge lesson.

I think the difference here is semantic. To me "demonstration" isn't the same as "illustration" or "example". When I give an example of a technique's use, it might be conceptual ("Here's a situation where this can be useful") or an example of it in use ("Here's a video of Rickson Gracie doing...."). When I'm demonstrating, I'm showing how it works (not that it works, but the mechanics of it), and will always use a semi-compliant (or fully compliant, depending what I'm trying to show) partner for that, so I can reliably show the movement they should practice.

So I think when you say "demonstrate" you mean the same thing I mean when I say "show an example of" (non-conceptual). And when you say "demonstrating the concept" you mean what I mean when I say "demonstrate".

 

[JowGaWolf]

Who is right? A, B, or C?

A: If his opponent pulls his punching back, there is no way that he can wrap his arm around his opponent's punching arm.
B: This clip is fake. Nobody can make this move work.
C: It's just a strategy. If you train, your successfully rate will be higher than those who doesn't.

Lol. D. I don't like this clip nor the technique. It doesn't look like the arm is secure so a big arm circle may provide an escape an opportunity to snap that arm or lock it. But most people would try that so there's a chance it would work. A and C are also possibilities.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think the difference here is semantic. To me "demonstration" isn't the same as "illustration" or "example". When I give an example of a technique's use, it might be conceptual ("Here's a situation where this can be useful") or an example of it in use ("Here's a video of Rickson Gracie doing...."). When I'm demonstrating, I'm showing how it works (not that it works, but the mechanics of it), and will always use a semi-compliant (or fully compliant, depending what I'm trying to show) partner for that, so I can reliably show the movement they should practice.

So I think when you say "demonstrate" you mean the same thing I mean when I say "show an example of" (non-conceptual). And when you say "demonstrating the concept" you mean what I mean when I say "demonstrate".

Yes. That's the same. Using your terms I tend to think of things as concept (demonstrate) and application/use (example). What I usually see are people who try to apply a technique as it's demonstrated. Which is why so many people have a difficult time use martial arts techniques beyond the kick and punch. With exception of most of the grappling systems.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Showing an example will often make it easier to understand the demonstration.

 

[skribs]

Showing an example will often make it easier to understand the demonstration.

For some people. Depends on your imagination.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

fully compliant, ...

What's your definition of "fully compliant"? Will you consider the following as "full compliant"?

1,.our opponent runs toward you with full speed. You raise your arm. He runs into your punch, and knocks himself out.
2. You pull your opponent. He resists. You let go your grip. his body flies backward and down to the ground.
3. You throw a roundhouse kick. Your opponent blocks with his arm. Your kick breaks his arm.
4. You move in. Your opponent moves back. Your hand can't touch him (don't give your a chance to punch).
5. You try to throw your opponent. He sits down onto the ground by himself (don't give you a chance to throw).

In other words, does your definition of "fully compliant" mean that your opponent always resists with 100% force (as in 1, 2, 3)? How about your opponent tries to avoid body contact and make all your technique fail (as in 4, 5)?

 

[JR 137]

What's your definition of "fully compliant"? Will you consider the following as "full compliant"?

1,.our opponent runs toward you with full speed. You raise your arm. He runs into your punch, and knocks himself out.
2. You pull your opponent. He resists. You let go your grip. his body flies backward and down to the ground.
3. You throw a roundhouse kick. Your opponent blocks with his arm. Your kick breaks his arm.
4. You move in. Your opponent moves back. Your hand can't touch him (don't give your a chance to punch).
5. You try to throw your opponent. He sits down onto the ground by himself (don't give you a chance to throw).

In other words, does your definition of "fully compliant" mean that your opponent always resists with 100% force (as in 1, 2, 3)? How about your opponent tries to avoid body contact and make all your technique fail (as in 4, 5)?

Fully compliant means your partner lets you do everything you want without resistance. Or making it look like he resisted without actually doing so. Either way, it means the technique will work every time because the partner allowed it to happen.

Think about how movies go:

I punch you in the face, you stagger back 3 steps, I step with you and kick you through the window.

You run at me and try to punch me in the face with a right haymaker, I grab your arm and spin, sending you flying onto the pool table.

Stuff like that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What's your definition of "fully compliant"? Will you consider the following as "full compliant"?

1,.our opponent runs toward you with full speed. You raise your arm. He runs into your punch, and knocks himself out.
2. You pull your opponent. He resists. You let go your grip. his body flies backward and down to the ground.
3. You throw a roundhouse kick. Your opponent blocks with his arm. Your kick breaks his arm.
4. You move in. Your opponent moves back. Your hand can't touch him (don't give your a chance to punch).
5. You try to throw your opponent. He sits down onto the ground by himself (don't give you a chance to throw).

In other words, does your definition of "fully compliant" mean that your opponent always resists with 100% force (as in 1, 2, 3)? How about your opponent tries to avoid body contact and make all your technique fail (as in 4, 5)?

Fully compliant just means there’s no resistance. They feed the expected input, and allow the technique.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Fully compliant just means there’s no resistance. They feed the expected input, and allow the technique.

I still don't understand the definition that you are using.

Are 1, 2, 3 considered as "full resistance" since it's force against force?

Also are 4, 5 also considered as "full resistance" since your opponent doesn't give you the chance to do whatever that you wat to do?

1,.our opponent runs toward you with full speed. You raise your arm. He runs into your punch, and knocks himself out.
2. You pull your opponent. He resists. You let go your grip. his body flies backward and down to the ground.
3. You throw a roundhouse kick. Your opponent blocks with his arm. Your kick breaks his arm.
4. You move in. Your opponent moves back. Your hand can't touch him (don't give your a chance to punch).
5. You try to throw your opponent. He sits down onto the ground by himself (don't give you a chance to throw).​

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Fully compliant means your partner lets you do everything you want without resistance.

When your opponent runs away from you, is that "full resistance"?

 

[Buka]

I just got done watching a video, made by someone who has read too many Youtube comments. It was a 9 minute video, and probably 6 minutes of it seemed to be aimed at preempting the "this only works because you're doing it slow" and "try that on a non-compliant partner" conversations.

The video had a lot of explanations of "my partner is complying, because I'm showing you slow enough so you can see it", and explanations that if his partner didn't do exactly what he expected, he would modify the technique and take a slightly different approach.

While I agree with all of this, in the end the video left me unsatisfied. For one, all of his talk about doing the techniques slow and building speed later, he never did. He only showed the slow, compliant version. On the other hand, he spent so much time worrying about what people would think, he didn't leave much time to actually demonstrate the techniques, and it really affected the pacing of the video.

Now, I'm not going to link the video I watched, because I don't want the discussion to be about that video. Just in general, if I were to do a video and demonstrate techniques, how should I do it in such a way that:

1. I can demonstrate the technique at a teachable pace
2. I can demonstrate the technique at a believable pace
3. My video doesn't feel all over the place

Here are my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to leave yours below.

• Demonstrating on a compliant partner is not the only way to demonstrate a technique. Slow-motion breakdowns are important, but you can also cut high-speed versions of the technique as well.
  
• Demonstrate against resistance by instructing the resistance. Show how you would modify it based on different responses by your partner. This sequence can be scripted, as long as the one technique is not scripted the same from start to finish every time.
• Make use of voice-over and b-roll. This will allow you to show techniques at speed while still being able to talk, as you can show them on repeat while discussing the technique. It also allows you to use slow motion capture of a full-speed technique, instead of using a slower version of the technique (although a slower, more exaggerated technique can sometimes be better for explaining). The other nice thing about voice-over and b-roll is that it can allow you to have slicker editing, make more use of different items (like a partner, a BOB, etc), and it can help you get rid of the "ahs" and "ums" from your verbal description of the technique.
• Plan ahead. Have an outline of what you want to talk about. Be very clear about which part of the demonstration you are in. If you want to show a specific throw, then show the correct technique first, modifications to the technique next, troubleshooting third, and then leave room for drills, comments, or counters at the end. Don't jump back and forth between topics, as it will get confusing.

I've been thinking about making some videos, and at some point I will. But before I start doing something like that, I want to plan ahead and make sure that what I present is the best way I can present it.

Skribs, what I think is important is first - know your audience. This is a big deal. It's all about who you're trying to reach, even in a nonchalant way. Then do some practice videos and see how you like them before sharing them.

Then write a rough script.

THEN, don't pay any G'damn attention to that rough script, just be yourself.

You should also utilize your resources. Feel free to bounce them off of whoever here you feel comfortable with in getting honest feedback.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I still don't understand the definition that you are using.

Are 1, 2, 3 considered as "full resistance" since it's force against force?

Also are 4, 5 also considered as "full resistance" since your opponent doesn't give you the chance to do whatever that you wat to do?

1,.our opponent runs toward you with full speed. You raise your arm. He runs into your punch, and knocks himself out.
2. You pull your opponent. He resists. You let go your grip. his body flies backward and down to the ground.
3. You throw a roundhouse kick. Your opponent blocks with his arm. Your kick breaks his arm.
4. You move in. Your opponent moves back. Your hand can't touch him (don't give your a chance to punch).
5. You try to throw your opponent. He sits down onto the ground by himself (don't give you a chance to throw).​

I didn’t use the term “full resistance.”

 

[JR 137]

When your opponent runs away from you, is that "full resistance"?

Could be. They’re not letting you do what you want, resisting as best they can. I’ve never really thought of it that way though.