Internal Power of Martial Arts (Breathing Technique)

[Ironbear24]

Isn't that what a demo is? We can do all that with our eyes closed is not materially different to me than a demo of "we can do all of that against multiple attackers" or "we can do these things against people,with guns/knives/bazookas."

A demo is purposely designed to have a lot of fluff in it. It is made for that purpose which is to get people to sign up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its a demo. Those are off limits, if the folks in the video play for your team.

Unless the demo is used as evidence of something it actually doesn't show. I'm perfectly willing to allow that demos are typically unrealistic, but if someone points to a demo and says, "This shows great ground defense," but it doesn't, I'll call BS on that claim. That doesn't mean the art shown doesn't have great ground defense, but the hypothetical demo video doesn't show it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Isn't that what a demo is? We can do all that with our eyes closed is not materially different to me than a demo of "we can do all of that against multiple attackers" or "we can do these things against people,with guns/knives/bazookas."

A demo is normally designed to show an art in the best light possible to the intended audience. It can rarely be used as evidence of anything, because it is typically fairly staged. I've participated in demos that were not staged, and took a training knife to the neck during one such.

 

[Steve]

Given that demos are flyffy, intended to show an art in the best possible light, aren't evidence of anything and frequently overstate what the art actually teaches (fighting blind fold or fending off multiple crazed pcp addicts in a dark alley or whateved) I just don't see any problem with this one. Its The same as the rest.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Given that demos are flyffy, intended to show an art in the best possible light, aren't evidence of anything and frequently overstate what the art actually teaches (fighting blind fold or fending off multiple crazed pcp addicts in a dark alley or whateved) I just don't see any problem with this one. Its The same as the rest.

I never said there was anything wrong with the demo. I just said it's not evidence of what the OP posted it for.

 

[Steve]

I never said there was anything wrong with the demo. I just said it's not evidence of what the OP posted it for.

They never are.

 

[drop bear]

Unless the demo is used as evidence of something it actually doesn't show. I'm perfectly willing to allow that demos are typically unrealistic, but if someone points to a demo and says, "This shows great ground defense," but it doesn't, I'll call BS on that claim. That doesn't mean the art shown doesn't have great ground defense, but the hypothetical demo video doesn't show it.

Ok but what about all the really good non demo examples that don't make it to youtube?

Because the bulk of good training isn't filmed.

 

[drop bear]

Because it is ********. They are 90 pound people jumping up and down on a mattress. That is not levitating or even flying.

You have to understand that it is being done on mats with rules.

The street is a lot different.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok but what about all the really good non demo examples that don't make it to youtube?

Because the bulk of good training isn't filmed.

What does that have to do with the statement I just made, which was entirely about demos?

 

[Ironbear24]

You have to understand that it is being done on mats with rules.

The street is a lot different.

In the street or on the matt or on a mattress it is still bs.

 

[drop bear]

What does that have to do with the statement I just made, which was entirely about demos?

If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.

You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.

Which is Vibravision works.

I believed she even used science to support her claim.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Ok but what about all the really good non demo examples that don't make it to youtube?

Because the bulk of good training isn't filmed.

That doesn't stop some people from using YouTube as the sole source of 'evidence' for the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a martial art they have never studied.

 

[RTKDCMB]

A demo is purposely designed to have a lot of fluff in it. It is made for that purpose which is to get people to sign up.

Given that demos are flyffy, intended to show an art in the best possible light, aren't evidence of anything and frequently overstate what the art actually teaches (fighting blind fold or fending off multiple crazed pcp addicts in a dark alley or whateved)

Not any demo I have been a part of. Our demos usually just show examples of what is learned in class. We tend to try not to do anything so spectacular that potential students might think 'I could never learn to do that'.

 

[Steve]

Not any demo I have been a part of. Our demos usually just show examples of what is learned in class. We tend to try not to do anything so spectacular that potential students might think 'I could never learn to do that'.

im pretty sure that, if asked, these guys would say they learned these skills in class, too.

yiu believe what you're leaning works because that is what you've been told. And your demos are only superficially different from any other.

 

[Steve]

If you are only discussing entirely about demos you see on you tube then are only looking at half the evidence. There is also all the evidence you cant see on YouTube. Because only a small percentage of evidence is you tube.

You would also have to accept the OPs rirst hand evidence.

Which is Vibravision works.

I believed she even used science to support her claim.

Absolutely. Who are we to suggest it's not real? Sounds like a bunch of elitist nuthuggers around here.

That doesn't stop some people from using YouTube as the sole source of 'evidence' for the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a martial art they have never studied.

Like what you're doing now? Have you ever trained in any Silat, much less this flavor of It? If you're not an expert in it, you just don't know.

 

[RTKDCMB]

yiu believe what you're leaning works because that is what you've been told.

Am I to infer from this that you believe that the only way to know what I am learning works is to use it in a competition?

 

[RTKDCMB]

Like what you're doing now?

And in which of my comments exactly do you feel gives you that impression?

Have you ever trained in any Silat, much less this flavor of It? If you're not an expert in it, you just don't know.

And where have I said or implied that I have trained in it or know enough about it to judge the system as a whole?

 

[drop bear]

That doesn't stop some people from using YouTube as the sole source of 'evidence' for the efficacy (or lack thereof) of a martial art they have never studied.

I know what you mean. It i is basically disrespectful to people who have studied vibravision not to believe their first hand accounts

 

[Ironbear24]

Way to be obtuse about it.

 

[oftheherd1]

Okay, so let's forget Randi, though your reply sounds like rationalization to me. If these techniques worked as demonstrated, we'd almost certainly read about them in scientific journals. Scientists get a lot of notoriety and build a great reputation (which can actually help them make more money) if they publish studies that put forth evidence contrary to what other scientists think they know. If this worked, I'd expect some ambitious scientist to be testing it. If those tests showed even a little promise, they would be published in journals. And sensational results like that would certainly be picked up by the media.

I also believe seeing scientific proofs are useful in supporting beliefs. I think there are two problems with this approach in regard to the OP's belief and support as it has been expressed.

First, in order to get the study you wish, a professor or scientist would have to get funding. Just based on the reactions here in this thread, and other threads which speak of the use of Gi, where do you suppose the money for a study would come from? And how much control over the outcome would anyone providing the funding require.

Second, if the use of Gi is from a faith foundation, how do you scientifically study that? Then if you believe there are good and bad influences in the world, would you also wish to scientifically study from which influence that ability came, and how would you conduct such studies?

My personal belief is that the OP believes what she is posting (assuming that the OP is female from the avatar photo only). I am not prepared to believe what she posts until I can personally learn, or test the abilities of practitioners.

This is where my doubt comes into play. What I see is "earth shattering" but the response to it being done isn't "earth shattering" I don't hear anything about scientific studies being done, or scientist trying to figure out how the body is able to do perform the feat.

I would be more comfortable with reading scientific studies than seeing a demo. I'm not calling anyone a liar, it's just that my brain goes into caution overload with stuff like this. Something so big lands in the ocean but doesn't make a splash.

Scientific studies are indeed useful. One just needs to research the funding, methodology, and the statement at its beginning to see if any bias is detected.

And on the others side, one needs to be observant for attempts by charlatans to deny participation, or methodology as an excuse not to participate in a study or in an attempt to debunk a study.

I don't think it would be an easy thing for a scientific study by believers or detractors