Keysi Fighting Method/Defence Lab

[Gerry Seymour]

Example i can give is.

You are seated, a person attacks you, you respond i x technique, or a person grabs you, there is very little in the way of free form sparring in the war other arts I have done would describe it.

I'd call that an application that fits into the scenario of that kind of attack. If you do a few of those, you start to build a base of principles for responding to that kind of scenario. Only then (usually) do you go to the actual scenario, and say "go".

The same progression happens in all arts. BJJ early on teaches a simple sweep from inside mount. Then another. Then another. Then another. Along the way, there will be points where they work the scenario (okay, you're on the ground - Bob, you've got mount....go!). I'll point out that it's not uncommon for self-defense-oriented schools to forget to make the transition to scenario training to see what really happens there. Even limited scenarios (where the input/attacker is limited on his entry) is better than just stopping at the applications.

 

[veritasAequitas]

How's this deal with self defence,? You would need to be defending yourself from an attacker with a knife, let's see how well you escape works when he is repeatedly stabbing you.

Or test, three of his friends kick you repratedly, whilst you try to escape,

In none of the above instances did that happen.

The response is different stop goal posting

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Its reiterating my point, its all marketing, find me 1 video of defence lab being used on a non compliant partner.

1. The knife just flies out of the guys hand
2. Stick defence, you're transferring all of the force of that stick into your neck and that's not even addressing if the person attacking has a machete.
3. The "4 man box" core nucleus of their training methods, out a person at each.point of a compass and they attack the person in the middle.


No what's malicious about that you may say? You are not allowed to try to fight your way out the first time you do it, you are told you can defend however you like. The problem with this is that its setting you up to fail unless you use the defence lab covers.


Those are not marketing clips its how you are trained, I never ever in years applied anything on a resisting partner.

I've met Andy several times at seminars and the defence lab summer camps, hesa decent guy.

My issue is with the training

Videos meant for teaching (and demos for marketing) pretty much never include non-compliant partners. It's hard to teach something when the other guy knows what's coming and makes it a bad choice. The only times I can think of that I've seen non-compliant partners in training was when they were told to oppose a specific technique (I'm going to X - you stop me) to show how another technique is a good answer to that resistance.

EDIT: I thought of one other way non-compliance is used - and that's to show that certain kinds of resistance don't actually stop the technique from working, as long as you do X. There's a good sweep tutorial by one of the Gracies where he tells his partner basically, "Use your hand all you want, but don't use technique to resist", to show that his head position in the bridge makes that hand ineffective for resistance.

 

[jobo]

In none of the above instances did that happen.

The response is different stop goal posting

It's scientific data for its usefulness at self defence we need, your doing what you accuse dl, of, building an unlikely scenario to make it look more effective than it is

To get meaningful data, you need a real attacker, who wants to hurt you, and conversely the attacker must know if you do get hold of him he will be hurt, in other words a real fight, definitely not starting with you lay on the ground, That's not realistic,at least not Unless you are Sun bathing when the attack happens

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't understand why systems like these overcomplicate things, just teach people simply to punch and protect their heads and your on a right track I think.

I've done quite a bit of Kali the last couple of years and they do the same, overcomplicating things with a 1001 drills, maybe the drills will develop some attributes but still stickfighting on the street won't be like those drills, it will be "smack smack" and one will be still standing.

my 2 cents

Some of that happens because people want to train an art for a lot of years. Eventually, many of us start "fiddling" with things, to find new and interesting ways to make stuff happen. Often, the gains are minuscule, but it gives the long-timers something to do.

And a punch isn't always the right answer.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's no more meaningless than your claim you train for " quality fighters"

I don't think that's a meaningless claim. He trains at a gym where quality fighters train (taking MMA fights as a reasonable measuring system).

 

[veritasAequitas]

I'd call that an application that fits into the scenario of that kind of attack. If you do a few of those, you start to build a base of principles for responding to that kind of scenario. Only then (usually) do you go to the actual scenario, and say "go".

The same progression happens in all arts. BJJ early on teaches a simple sweep from inside mount. Then another. Then another. Then another. Along the way, there will be points where they work the scenario (okay, you're on the ground - Bob, you've got mount....go!). I'll point out that it's not uncommon for self-defense-oriented schools to forget to make the transition to scenario training to see what really happens there. Even limited scenarios (where the input/attacker is limited on his entry) is better than just stopping at the applications.

That's the issue there is no go

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But I'm make the same point I made earlier, that is equally true of many tma,

And some MA that arguably aren't very T.

 

[jobo]

I don't think that's a meaningless claim. He trains at a gym where quality fighters train (taking MMA fights as a reasonable measuring system).

It is unless he actually defines quality

 

[veritasAequitas]

It's scientific data for its usefulness at self defence we need, your doing what you accuse dl, of, building an unlikely scenario to make it look more effective than it is

To get meaningful data, you need a real attacker, who wants to hurt you, and conversely the attacker must know if you do get hold of him he will be hurt, in other words a real fight, definitely not starting with you lay on the ground, That's not realistic,at least not Unless you are Sun bathing when the attack happens

I can go from standing and with proper equipment we go roll hard

 

[veritasAequitas]

It is unless he actually defines quality

I don't accuse I know they don't use scientific method.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It maybe a new art,, but it has the same problem as all the old arts, you can't actually Poke people in the eyeFor real,
It's scenario based, anything scenario based already has the winner selected.

It shouldn't. Scenario training against a knife should have (in the free stages) failure as a probable outcome, unless someone gets that much better than the people around them. Structuring the scenario (limiting input options) should change the percentages, but probably shouldn't ever make it an always-win thing.

 

[jobo]

And some MA that arguably aren't very T.

?? Arnt, very what?

 

[jobo]

It shouldn't. Scenario training against a knife should have (in the free stages) failure as a probable outcome, unless someone gets that much better than the people around them. Structuring the scenario (limiting input options) should change the percentages, but probably shouldn't ever make it an always-win thing.

If it doesn't have a scripts, it's not a scenario, you fight for the knife, as scripted, he isn't allowed to head but you and then stab you, so you have the advantage and there an unconscious bias in such to prove the TEChnique works

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The 50% success rate for BJJ is incorrect. You are looking at every match one wins one looses. And therefore get your 50%.

In a BJJ match, BJJ has a 100% failure rate. And a 100% success rate. Go figure.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If bJj,was based on good science ever bJj,match would be a draw

Um...where did you get the ramp to make that leap?

 

[jobo]

In a BJJ match, BJJ has a 100% failure rate. And a 100% success rate. Go figure.

Or an average of 50%

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well no, gains in fitness will be inconsistent,

That depends what we consider "consistent". If we say gains every day, not gonna be consistent. If we say gains every month, with a decreasing curve, that's going to be a consistent trend until they either get injured, reach their current max at the current training level, or some such.

We can also say it won't be "every person will gain by the same curve", but we can say that every non-runner with the ability to improve will improve their running ability (consistently across the population) by practicing running.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sorry I'm talking about actual football here, wHere you use your feet

In fairness, he is talking about one of the three things they actually use their feet for in American "football".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But its not because your training isn't alive

Still useful practice. Non-live drills are part of every kind of MA and sports training I can think of.