Keysi Fighting Method/Defence Lab

[Tony Dismukes]

I haven't experienced DL, so I won't make any blanket judgments regarding the art.

As far as these claims ...

I thinK bjj,and dl, are as bad as each other, one doesn't stress test and the other doesn't teach you to actually fight someone, so both rubish, if I had to pick on it would be dl, as if you did test it, it would be a much more rounded set of skills

bjj has only been tested against other bjjers and not at all fir self defence,

I could go on and on. BJJ made its reputation originally through challenge matches against practitioners of other martial artists, street fighters, and generally anybody who was willing. A big selling point was the repeatedly demonstrated ability of BJJ practitioners to defeat bigger, stronger opponents. The whole blending of BJJ with other arts in MMA didn't happen until after that reputation was well established.

Personally, I've tested my BJJ against a wide range of opponents with backgrounds other than BJJ. I'm certainly not the only BJJ practitioner I know to do the same.

(Now if you wanted to complain that many

As far as the "scientifically tested" claim ... meh. It's really hard to do high-quality scientific studies on the effectiveness of any martial art due to the practical and moral difficulties in controlling all the relevant variables. However - the idea that having an art be "scientifically tested" means that practitioners of that art would win every fight? That's just silly and displays no understanding of science.

 

[Deleted member 39489]

I haven't experienced DL, so I won't make any blanket judgments regarding the art.

As far as these claims ...

I could go on and on. BJJ made its reputation originally through challenge matches against practitioners of other martial artists, street fighters, and generally anybody who was willing. A big selling point was the repeatedly demonstrated ability of BJJ practitioners to defeat bigger, stronger opponents. The whole blending of BJJ with other arts in MMA didn't happen until after that reputation was well established.

Personally, I've tested my BJJ against a wide range of opponents with backgrounds other than BJJ. I'm certainly not the only BJJ practitioner I know to do the same.

(Now if you wanted to complain that many

As far as the "scientifically tested" claim ... meh. It's really hard to do high-quality scientific studies on the effectiveness of any martial art due to the practical and moral difficulties in controlling all the relevant variables. However - the idea that having an art be "scientifically tested" means that practitioners of that art would win every fight? That's just silly and displays no understanding of science.

Hilariously the catchphrase of defence lab is the science of defence

 

[jobo]

I haven't experienced DL, so I won't make any blanket judgments regarding the art.

As far as these claims ...

I could go on and on. BJJ made its reputation originally through challenge matches against practitioners of other martial artists, street fighters, and generally anybody who was willing. A big selling point was the repeatedly demonstrated ability of BJJ practitioners to defeat bigger, stronger opponents. The whole blending of BJJ with other arts in MMA didn't happen until after that reputation was well established.

Personally, I've tested my BJJ against a wide range of opponents with backgrounds other than BJJ. I'm certainly not the only BJJ practitioner I know to do the same.

(Now if you wanted to complain that many

As far as the "scientifically tested" claim ... meh. It's really hard to do high-quality scientific studies on the effectiveness of any martial art due to the practical and moral difficulties in controlling all the relevant variables. However - the idea that having an art be "scientifically tested" means that practitioners of that art would win every fight? That's just silly and displays no understanding of science.

I'm not doubting. The graces and a few other are very very good,but that like me claiming kung fi is good because Bruce lee did it, for people to claim its good for self defence, then it has to be good for all bjjers, not just a few, if they can't all beat a 300lbs monster, then a vids of a few people doing so are meaningless as proof of its effectiveness.

yes i. Know it's impossible to prove scientific ,which makes peoples claims, that its been scientifically proven to work compl

I haven't experienced DL, so I won't make any blanket judgments regarding the art.

As far as these claims ...







I could go on and on. BJJ made its reputation originally through challenge matches against practitioners of other martial artists, street fighters, and generally anybody who was willing. A big selling point was the repeatedly demonstrated ability of BJJ practitioners to defeat bigger, stronger opponents. The whole blending of BJJ with other arts in MMA didn't happen until after that reputation was well established.

Personally, I've tested my BJJ against a wide range of opponents with backgrounds other than BJJ. I'm certainly not the only BJJ practitioner I know to do the same.

(Now if you wanted to complain that many

As far as the "scientifically tested" claim ... meh. It's really hard to do high-quality scientific studies on the effectiveness of any martial art due to the practical and moral difficulties in controlling all the relevant variables. However - the idea that having an art be "scientifically tested" means that practitioners of that art would win every fight? That's just silly and displays no understanding of science.

they would have to win more than the stastictical averages to show bjj, was better than nothing, a good untrained fighter will won close to a100% of street alterccationsif they arnt better than that?

 

[Deleted member 39489]

I'm not doubting. The graces and a few other are very very good,but that like me claiming kung fi is good because Bruce lee did it, for people to claim its good for self defence, then it has to be good for all bjjers, not just a few, if they can't all beat a 300lbs monster, then a vids of a few people doing so are meaningless as proof of its effectiveness.

yes i. Know it's impossible to prove scientific ,which makes peoples claims, that its been scientifically proven to work compl

they would have to win more than the stastictical averages to show bjj, was better than nothing, a good untrained fighter will won close to a100% of street alterccationsif they arnt better than that?

Does the man on the street know how to get to and apply chokes and arm bars?

 

[Deleted member 39489]

Does he know how to escape them too? Because the average person usually get away with just hitting as hard as they can with their right in wide haymakers.

Is that effective when i can stop that and get into an arm bar using bjj?

A normal car is effective until it comes up against a NASCAR then i cant compete.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

no, let's not get involve in your anacdotes as being scientific proof.

ok, every days close to a 100% of fights that happen all over the world are won by people with no formal training, to show bjj is more effective than no formal training, you'd need to show that bjj had a better, ie more or less 100% success rate in self defence, can you do that

That's just getting really silly. Using the same logic, we could argue that every day close to 100% of fights are lost by people with no formal training. Therefore to show BJJ is more effective than no formal training, you would only need to show that BJJ practitioners lose less than 100% of the time.

Let's try to propose a more reasonable test for whether a given course of training (whether in BJJ, DL, or anything else) is more effective than another approach (no training, a different martial art, weightlifting, whatever) for developing fighting ability.

(We'll leave aside the issue of "self-defense" until we can decide what exactly that means. Does it mean fending off a gang of armed attackers? Does it mean knowing not to mouth off to the gang and so avoiding the attack in the first place? There's a huge amount which could fall under that category.)

To simplify matters we'll postulate an unarmed fight between two people which progresses to the point where there is a clear winner. We can expand the test later to cover other scenarios once we have the basic outline down.

Given this fight between two people, if we assigned opponents randomly and know nothing about the matchups ahead of time, then a given individual has a 50% chance to be victorious going into a particular fight. That victory could be determined by a number of factors - size, strength, speed, mental toughness, killer instinct, experience, skill, age, health, tactical advantages (surprise, etc), or just dumb luck. If you want to reduce severe mismatches, you could pair up opponents based on rough equality in one or more of those factors (weight classes, age groups, etc).

To test whether a certain course of training is an improvement over no training, you would need to take a group of individuals (preferably assigned at random), give them the training, and then put them through a series of fights with opponents who have no training and see whether they win more than 50% of the time against those non-trained opponents. To be absolutely confident that the results aren't a statistical fluke, you'll need to a fair number of tests and run a statistical analysis.

You could reduce the potential confounding effects of non-training factors by matching opponents up by weight class, age, gender, etc. Alternatively, if you wanted to test your trained fighters against untrained opponents who have a significant advantage in some other factor (such as size), you could establish that the effect size of your training is impressively large.

Of course, laying this all out begins to show why high-quality scientific testing of martial arts training is difficult. We don't get to randomly assign subjects to a training protocol - we get the students who decide to sign up and train on their own accord. We don't get to randomly assign opponents - we get whoever is available and willing.

A more practical approach is a longitudinal study. For a given individual who starts training, see how well they can handle fighting an opponents of a certain challenge level at the beginning of their training, then see how well they do against comparable opponents a couple of years in. The test here is not "training A is better than training B" but rather "individual A is better after having trained than they were beforehand." It's still not foolproof, because you can't prove that the later opponents are precisely equal in ability to the earlier ones, but you can make a reasonable estimate.

 

[pdg]

A normal car is effective until it comes up against a NASCAR then i cant compete.

Yes you can, just turn right

 

[drop bear]

yes i did, perhaps not as you wished,

its now gone full circle, bjj has only been tested against other bjjers and not at all fir self defence,
so both systems are untested for self defence, your anecdotes don't count as a scientific test

Tested for self defence is a red herring. As you can't test for self defence without anecdotes.

 

[drop bear]

If you train consistently, your gains will not Be consistant, they will vary week on week, some weeks you will make no gain at all,Some times you won't be as strong as last week, some times quite a lot, But it will always vary,until eventually you stop making gains at all, that is the very dDefinition of inconsistent,

You are not assessing gains properly. As week by week is not very accurate. Start looking longer term.

 

[drop bear]

But there's no evidence that bjj, is better than no training at all for self defence. , so that's a zero foR bjj,aswell

But there is evidence that BJJ is better than no training in competition.

And there is no evidence that anything is anything in self defence. Which is why people go there when they don't like the results of evidence that actually exists.

 

[drop bear]

I'm utterly befuddled, can someone assist please?

Is the argument that KFM/DL is no good, or is it good?

Is BJJ supposed to be good or bad?

For either system and either answer, how would one come up with a scientifically valid method of assessment and against what should it be measured?

All the almost incoherent babble about a Ford that only works half the time because it reinterprets the scientific principles it's designed around on a daily basis beating a Porsche has thrown me a bit and I'm completely lost.


Oh, and most importantly and intriguingly of all - what art does @jobo study that allows pseudo scientific debunking of other arts?

Seriously, you seem to think you talk a hard man game with stories of bottles and beating people up with no remorse, but I don't recall mention of any formal training...

The argument ultimately is there is no way of telling the practical capability of anything. Because he can't find a way to process data.

The concept taken to its extreme is nothing is proven until it is tested an infinite amount of times. Or like a school science experiment someone will always screw it up.

Of course people do process data. And make stuff work. And Jojo probably manages to function by relying on these concepts.

As do all of us.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

 

[jobo]

Does the man on the street know how to get to and apply chokes and arm bars?

everyone knows how to choke,someone, its not a ninja secret

 

[jobo]

The argument ultimately is there is no way of telling the practical capability of anything. Because he can't find a way to process data.

The concept taken to its extreme is nothing is proven until it is tested an infinite amount of times. Or like a school science experiment someone will always screw it up.

Of course people do process data. And make stuff work. And Jojo probably manages to function by relying on these concepts.

As do all of us.

give me some DATA and il process it,the issue is rather I'm not accepting wild claim with no data what so ever

 

[jobo]

But there is evidence that BJJ is better than no training in competition.

And there is no evidence that anything is anything in self defence. Which is why people go there when they don't like the results of evidence that actually exists.

but self defence is the topic under discussion,or rather defence lab and their self defence program and why or why not bjj is better or not, arguing its better in competition is irrelevant, unless they will let you have a broken bottle or one of Those. Dl rings

 

[drop bear]

give me some DATA and il process it,the issue is rather I'm not accepting wild claim with no data what so ever

Like you came up with your 50% result?

 

[jobo]

You are not assessing gains properly. As week by week is not very accurate. Start looking longer term.

to be consistent gains you need to gain consistently, the moment you don't gain then your gains are inconsistent??????

 

[Tony Dismukes]

The graces and a few other are very very good,but that like me claiming kung fi is good because Bruce lee did it, for people to claim its good for self defence, then it has to be good for all bjjers, not just a few, if they can't all beat a 300lbs monster, then a vids of a few people doing so are meaningless as proof of its effectiveness.

Let's rephrase that ...

Assuming that a given course of training has any beneficial results at all, then it's a reasonable bet that the magnitude of the effect is roughly proportional to the time and effort put into that training. Mike Tyson could fight better than someone who had only boxed for a couple of years. Royce Gracie could fight better than a casual BJJ hobbyist.

The questions are:

1) How much output (in terms of improved fighting ability) does the average person get for a given amount of input (time and effort spent training in a given training regimen)?

2) How does that output to input ratio compare to other forms of investment in fighting ability (lifting weights, training a different martial art, walking into a rough bar and running your mouth towards the toughest guys there, etc)?

3) For someone who is only willing and able to put in hobbyist levels of time and effort, is the resulting improvement in fighting ability noticeable? If so, how much does it take to see the results?

I've mentioned the difficulty in making a high-quality scientific assessment of these questions, so I'll answer based on my own 37 years of experience in a wide variety of martial arts. Call it anecdotal if you will, but's it what I have to work with.

1) Most forms of martial arts training, done consistently - even those I would currently regard as low-quality - will provide some improvement to an individuals fighting ability, compared to doing nothing. It may not be a large improvement. It may not be as useful as dedicated strength training or actual experience in street fights, but eventually there is a noticeable improvement even for hobbyists.

2) Training which includes free-form working against resistance, significant contact, encountering failure, and operating under stress (for example, boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai, Kyokushin Karate, Sambo, etc) produces a much higher output to input ratio than training which does not. Most of the time I would also rate the results of this training as better than time spent just strength training, although I can list scenarios where I would suggest strength training as providing more bang for the buck.)

3) For a casual hobbyist (which I'll define for the moment as someone training maybe 3 hours per week at non-extreme levels of intensity), I would say that an individual with average natural ability studying an art which has a solid technical base with my preferred model of training (listed in #2 above) will normally start to see significant improvements inside of six months. That doesn't mean they'll be beating opponents twice their size or possessing remarkable natural attributes. It just means that their performance against someone who has the same physical attributes but no training will be reliably well above 50%. To defeat someone with significant physical advantages will take longer. For opponents above a certain level, the student may never get to that level with a casual hobbyist level of training. On the other hand, results are proportional, so they may be able to reach the point of beating someone 50% larger without devoting their whole lives to training like a Gracie.

For someone whose training regiment does not include the elements I mentioned, it will take longer to produce noticeable, reliable results in a real fight. Maybe after a couple of years you could tell the difference.

As a side note - you mentioned attributes as important to the outcome of a fight. I am of the opinion that while technique is important it is typically secondary to attributes. Good training should improve a student's attributes such as strength, endurance, flexibility, speed, balance, kinesthetic awareness, mental toughness, situational awareness, timing, calmness under pressure, controlled aggression, good tactical instincts, and more. Learning just the techniques of an art without developing those attributes will lead to subpar results.

 

[pdg]

Just as @Tony Dismukes did, I'll draw a conclusion based on my own experience (which could also be taken as anecdotal).

Since I'm not going to include a few schoolyard scraps, I'll start from age 16.

For almost 23 years, absolutely zero training served me perfectly well - anything that may resemble self defence never escalated past the point of no return, the couple of times an aggressive attitude may have led to physical fighting I defused/walked away and nothing happened.

For a little over 2 years now I've been training TKD, and nothing has happened.

On that basis and only using the available evidence (albeit skewed by an 11.5:1 elapsed time ratio) one could conclude that TKD is no more or less effective than no training at all...


See, that's the thing with evidence for or against proving or disproving efficacy of self defence techniques - it's essentially impossible to introduce any semblance of a control factor.

How can it be said that a person who used XYZ system to emerge victorious from an SD situation would not have prevailed without that training, or whether a different technique would have served just as well, or would maybe not have been in that situation in the first place?

 

[jobo]

Just as @Tony Dismukes did, I'll draw a conclusion based on my own experience (which could also be taken as anecdotal).

Since I'm not going to include a few schoolyard scraps, I'll start from age 16.

For almost 23 years, absolutely zero training served me perfectly well - anything that may resemble self defence never escalated past the point of no return, the couple of times an aggressive attitude may have led to physical fighting I defused/walked away and nothing happened.

For a little over 2 years now I've been training TKD, and nothing has happened.

On that basis and only using the available evidence (albeit skewed by an 11.5:1 elapsed time ratio) one could conclude that TKD is no more or less effective than no training at all...


See, that's the thing with evidence for or against proving or disproving efficacy of self defence techniques - it's essentially impossible to introduce any semblance of a control factor.

How can it be said that a person who used XYZ system to emerge victorious from an SD situation would not have prevailed without that training, or whether a different technique would have served just as well, or would maybe not have been in that situation in the first place?

Right ok, so why are the bjj, folk claiming their is scientific evidence that bjj, improves your self defence,

You've bought in to tkw, and are assuming it has improved yourself defence abilitirs, it could just as easily have made you worse, with luck you will never find out

 

[jobo]

Let's rephrase that ...

Assuming that a given course of training has any beneficial results at all, then it's a reasonable bet that the magnitude of the effect is roughly proportional to the time and effort put into that training. Mike Tyson could fight better than someone who had only boxed for a couple of years. Royce Gracie could fight better than a casual BJJ hobbyist.

The questions are:

1) How much output (in terms of improved fighting ability) does the average person get for a given amount of input (time and effort spent training in a given training regimen)?

2) How does that output to input ratio compare to other forms of investment in fighting ability (lifting weights, training a different martial art, walking into a rough bar and running your mouth towards the toughest guys there, etc)?

3) For someone who is only willing and able to put in hobbyist levels of time and effort, is the resulting improvement in fighting ability noticeable? If so, how much does it take to see the results?

I've mentioned the difficulty in making a high-quality scientific assessment of these questions, so I'll answer based on my own 37 years of experience in a wide variety of martial arts. Call it anecdotal if you will, but's it what I have to work with.

1) Most forms of martial arts training, done consistently - even those I would currently regard as low-quality - will provide some improvement to an individuals fighting ability, compared to doing nothing. It may not be a large improvement. It may not be as useful as dedicated strength training or actual experience in street fights, but eventually there is a noticeable improvement even for hobbyists.

2) Training which includes free-form working against resistance, significant contact, encountering failure, and operating under stress (for example, boxing, wrestling, BJJ, Muay Thai, Kyokushin Karate, Sambo, etc) produces a much higher output to input ratio than training which does not. Most of the time I would also rate the results of this training as better than time spent just strength training, although I can list scenarios where I would suggest strength training as providing more bang for the buck.)

3) For a casual hobbyist (which I'll define for the moment as someone training maybe 3 hours per week at non-extreme levels of intensity), I would say that an individual with average natural ability studying an art which has a solid technical base with my preferred model of training (listed in #2 above) will normally start to see significant improvements inside of six months. That doesn't mean they'll be beating opponents twice their size or possessing remarkable natural attributes. It just means that their performance against someone who has the same physical attributes but no training will be reliably well above 50%. To defeat someone with significant physical advantages will take longer. For opponents above a certain level, the student may never get to that level with a casual hobbyist level of training. On the other hand, results are proportional, so they may be able to reach the point of beating someone 50% larger without devoting their whole lives to training like a Gracie.

For someone whose training regiment does not include the elements I mentioned, it will take longer to produce noticeable, reliable results in a real fight. Maybe after a couple of years you could tell the difference.

As a side note - you mentioned attributes as important to the outcome of a fight. I am of the opinion that while technique is important it is typically secondary to attributes. Good training should improve a student's attributes such as strength, endurance, flexibility, speed, balance, kinesthetic awareness, mental toughness, situational awareness, timing, calmness under pressure, controlled aggression, good tactical instincts, and more. Learning just the techniques of an art without developing those attributes will lead to subpar results.

Fine words butter no parsnips, DATA For self defence use? I've beaten people 50% larger with no bjj, but I'm not using that to sell the benefits of jofu