Keysi Fighting Method/Defence Lab

[pdg]

Is this like having to prove Santa clause doesn't exist?

Don't be silly, that'd be like trying to prove water isn't wet.

Who else sends out all the elves?

 

[jobo]

Structurally compliant. The arm bar forces a position. And it hurts.

Pain compliance would be where there is no structural compliance. So you grab my arm and I nipple cripple you until you let go.

No pain compliance is why there is both pain and compliance,

 

[jobo]

Don't be silly, that'd be like trying to prove water isn't wet.

Who else sends out all the elves?

You do not that wAter isn't wet don't you? It WETs your coat, but it's self is dry

 

[Deleted member 39489]

Well there bottle hitting knifes, pool cues, Multiple attackers and throwing brick.

You've only achieved that on other bjj, ers,, so that's all you can prove

I've never had a brick thrown at me, therefore by your logic it doesn't happen.

 

[jobo]

Yes, it does not work outside of complaint drills against a skilled opponent. Its theoretically flawed, any good boxer will f&ck you up.

So your just bITTeR as you couldNt understand it

 

[jobo]

I've never had a brick thrown at me, therefore by your logic it doesn't happen.

Pop down to Manchester .

How do you know onE hadn't been thrown at you and it missed ?

 

[drop bear]

Don't be silly, that'd be like trying to prove water isn't wet.

Who else sends out all the elves?

Thranduil.

 

[drop bear]

No pain compliance is why there is both pain and compliance,

Lol. No. Pain is what causes compliance. When we use that term.

 

[drop bear]

Well there bottle hitting knifes, pool cues, Multiple attackers and throwing brick.

You've only achieved that on other bjj, ers,, so that's all you can prove

But we still can prove some stuff. Which is still more than no stuff.

If you are trying to argue that any system can be built on being unable to prove anything. You can't have a viable system.

Everything would have equal merit.

But if we can process data properly. We can take the stuff we can prove and make theory's on stuff we can't prove.

And that takes us back to scientific method.

 

[jobo]

But we still can prove some stuff. Which is still more than no stuff.

If you are trying to argue that any system can be built on being unable to prove anything. You can't have a viable system.

Everything would have equal merit.

But if we can process data properly. We can take the stuff we can prove and make theory's on stuff we can't prove.

And that takes us back to scientific method.

So what theory do you have for what you can't prove, which for Bjj,and self defence is everything, so you would need a theory of everything,

 

[drop bear]

So what theory do you have for what you can't prove, which for Bjj,and self defence is everything, so you would need a theory of everything,

Not at all.

If I can change levels and hit a double leg. If I can do that reliably then that is viable self defence. Should I get grappled by a BJJ guy.

OK so from BJJ against bjj I have one technique I can practice. And I can practice it to a proficiency level that says I can rely on that technique to give me the best chance.

Now I can watch UFC and notice that the same double leg works as defence against punches.

I can theorise why. In that if a punch is coming at my head. And my head isn't there they can't punch my head.

I can take that information and apply double leg to defend punches.

Now I can also theorise that anything that follows that ark will miss my head. A chair, a pool cue, a fish. It doesn't matter. Because if that ark remains consistent. The takedown will stop it.

So instead of having a defence for a chair, a pool cue and a fish. I have a decent theory based on evidence.

So the big trick is developing that killer takedown. Not trying to identify exactly what sort of attack I am faced with.

Now I can specialize with situations. But that is the smallest and easiest to fix part of self defence.

The hardest part is having anything that actually works in the first place.

 

[drop bear]

Not at all.

If I can change levels and hit a double leg. If I can do that reliably then that is viable self defence. Should I get grappled by a BJJ guy.

OK so from BJJ against bjj I have one technique I can practice. And I can practice it to a proficiency level that says I can rely on that technique to give me the best chance.

Now I can watch UFC and notice that the same double leg works as defence against punches.

I can theorise why. In that if a punch is coming at my head. And my head isn't there they can't punch my head.

I can take that information and apply double leg to defend punches.

Now I can also theorise that anything that follows that ark will miss my head. A chair, a pool cue, a fish. It doesn't matter. Because if that ark remains consistent. The takedown will stop it.

So instead of having a defence for a chair, a pool cue and a fish. I have a decent theory based on evidence.

So the big trick is developing that killer takedown. Not trying to identify exactly what sort of attack I am faced with.

Now I can specialize with situations. But that is the smallest and easiest to fix part of self defence.

The hardest part is having anything that actually works in the first place.

This is also consistent with BJJ vs BJJ. So if you find yourself in an unfamiliar position. (Which happens during live training) you are required to apply concepts you know to solve situations you are unfamiliar with.

Have you watched the movie the Martian?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Your making up your own rather silly definitions again, there are two qualifications to be pain compliance t
, one that he is in pain and two that he is compliant, if one or both of these is missing it's not pain compLiance , if both are present it clearly is,

Further it's impossible to cause enough pain to make someone complient, with out causing injury, someone with a broken arm, is going to be in quite a lot of pain and if you waddle his broken arm about will be reasonably compliant,

No, you are choosing to define a phrase by using the primary definitions of the component words. Language doesn't usually work that way.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's the pain alone that makes you complIent, and that the only thing Required to fit a reasonable definition,If pain compliance,

You are correct in that compliance with pain is the basis of what makes a pain compliance technique. You're incorrect in thinking (as you appear to) that anything that potentially involves pain is a pain compliance technique. A punch is not inherently a pain compliance technique, though it is possible for someone to comply simply because of the pain.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Another fantisT, that just knows he can defend against all commers no matter how big strong or many just coz he can roll with a blue belt

In what logic is that not a non sequitur?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But that doesn't make you complient, does it, it's pain that does that

you really don't understand, do you? Not even a little.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No pain compliance is why there is both pain and compliance,

Only if you ignore the generally accepted usage. Which you do when you have no basis for your argument. But you knew that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Pop down to Manchester .

How do you know onE hadn't been thrown at you and it missed ?

Never happened to me, either. So, by the logic you used earlier, nobody should ever worry about it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Thranduil.

Sometimes your posts (or even your screen name) make me go look stuff up. How do I not know that character?

 

[Jaeimseu]

Another fantisT, that just knows he can defend against all commers no matter how big strong or many just coz he can roll with a blue belt

I’m not sure what a fantistT is, but I think you might want to brush up on your reading comprehension and inferential skills. I’m not sure how anyone reading what I posted could infer that I believe I can take on “all comers no matter how big, strong, or many.” Are you seriously engaging in this argument or just deliberately trying to rile people up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk