Learning to take strikes

Gweilo said:
As per earlier posts, you are ignoring the facts of the op, 2 trained adults pounding an untrained minor, when the minor has little or no skill, you can twist the facts any way you wish, the video I shared is abuse, and if you agree with that, imho, your training and trainer are fundamentally flawed, there is no excuse for so called adults to pound a child to the head,neven if you or your trainer are a world champion.
I know sometimes you like to argue, thats fine, but have a valid point, that does not involve exploitation, you do have valid points, sometimes, but sonetimes you sound like a complete bell end, so I am not suprised you are not an instructor, as I have said before, knowledge is king, a little knowledge is dangerous.
Now I could be childish and put you on ignore, but I beleive eveyone has a point of veiw, wether it fits with my beleifs or not, you are entitled to them, but jeez you need to change your diet.
Click to expand...

Correct I don't think that drill is a good idea because it takes a concept to far. But as far as suggesting no head contact. Or no head contact for children it is a lot trickier.

The difference between your perspective and mine is it does not matter if your martial arts doesn't work. Plain and simple. You don't have to take risks because there are no consequences. So this idea of a child being punched is unnecessary.

If results did matter then you are constantly treading a fine line between realism and abuse. And it is hard to do.

In this specific case though it looks over the top.

You can train so nobody ever needs to risk concussion or a bruise, martial arts doesn't need to be hard or unpleasant. We absolutely train people in that manner.

But you can't prepare someone for a fight in that manner because the ethics changes.

When you are looking down the barrel of someone beating your unprepared child to a pulp suddenly that line between training and abuse becomes harder to define.

To make the training too easy also becomes unethical. As then all you are doing is selling snake oil. And putting an unprepared person in to a situation where they will get hurt.

Any sport you send your child in to subjects them to unnecessary danger. Any contact sports more so. So the ethics of how much to subject your child to becomes really hard to gauge.
 
drop bear said:
When you are looking down the barrel of someone beating your unprepared child to a pulp suddenly that line between training and abuse becomes harder to define.
Click to expand...

You actually feel it is ok to say this? Man oh man.

Yes, I read the rest of your post and somewhat get what you are saying but this sentence negates any of the mild logic in your next sentence.

So what do you do with the powder-puffs who need more time that others to get up to speed? Beat them until they leave or toughen up? That is very old school thinking.
 
skribs said:
Those head strikes don't have the same power as one from an adult.

I hope you're not allowed around children.
Click to expand...

But it is still risk of head trauma. Especially as the kids are not as braced to take shots. And it went for longer.

And as I said I think that was the wrong way to go.

The problem you have is that violence isn't very nice. Those full contact punches may be what that kid is actually training to stop in real life. Now lying to that kid about how ferocious an attack can be whether it is from inexperience or self interest may seem ok. But in the end you are using that child.


I hope nobody needs to rely on your training.
 
Last edited:
dvcochran said:
You actually feel it is ok to say this? Man oh man.

Yes, I read the rest of your post and somewhat get what you are saying but this sentence negates any of the mild logic in your next sentence.

So what do you do with the powder-puffs who need more time that others to get up to speed? Beat them until they leave or toughen up? That is very old school thinking.
Click to expand...

You give the powder puffs more time or you don't let them fight. People can train at their own pace.

It is like the choice of a two week self defense course. You don't admit that is not enough time to prepare, compromise your principles, develop a terrible product lie to the students, take the money and do the course anyway.

You don't put the person in that position who is not going to benefit from that sort of training.
 
drop bear said:
Which that video was not an example of.
Let's compare it to say this.


That is more head strikes over a longer period of time.
Click to expand...


Of course you read every one of those reports before you commented.
 
drop bear said:
I play the ball though not the man. Which is the difference.

And this emotional outrage rather that just refuting where the claim is wrong. This Iis why there is a lack of critical thinking in martial arts. Which allows instructors with no credibility to rip of unsuspecting students.

I mean Tez has now raised the bar with the comment that no head contact is acceptable for children.

Which then paints most boxing clubs in the same light as that video. Hell I even took some decent head contact playing football as a kid. So I assume those clubs would have to self reflect on their behavior.

No sparring for children at all?
Click to expand...

My perspective on this is (and also not taking into account laws) Under 18's get killed by both under 18's and over 18's, if where ever you live is that bad its a issue doing toughness drills like say take X amount of punishment in X amount of time, would probbly be the least of their problems. Given most people dont do them every lesson and can introduce diffrent rules eg light contact only, wear a red man suit etc. Morally spekaing it is only pending on the morales of said parties there, and if both the child and the parent (if they need to consent) consented, then there isnt much of a argument other than "i wouldnt". Also martial arts practice/training is inhernetly dangerous, there is only so much you can do to mitigate injury.

Child in above means under 18, at about 15-16 most people let them consent to their own things.


And as i mentioned earlier, each school has its own tradtions and culture for this sort of thing which is infulenced by where they live and how they grew up etc.

This is again, probbly the least partisan i have gone on a issue here and looking at it neutrally. :p

Tez3 said:
DB is arguing because that's what he does, he picks a point that people agree on and will argue the opposite to get a reaction.
Click to expand...

He is fully allowed to argue, and taking a contary view to prevent a echo chamber is actually quite important, even if its just for the sake of being devils advocate to present a opposition.
 
Rat said:
He is fully allowed to argue, and taking a contary view to prevent a echo chamber is actually quite important, even if its just for the sake of being devils advocate to present a opposition.
Click to expand...


Actually though, he's not arguing to present a different scenario or even play the devil's advocate. He has said in the past he likes to 'verbally spar' to wind up people and carry on arguments instead of intelligently debating an issue. He doesn't care about the issues at all, it's just basically trolling. People here present different views all the time, he's the only one that will disagree with all sides just so he can post up, often insulting, posts and attempt to make people bite.
 
Just have to but in, as it was listed as a initiation test/ritual, that means its probbly a one off. So the aclumative damage of brain strikes seems to be a 50/50 point. without more information for how precisely they do it, i can only go off what a inituation rite is, and thats either by joining a group or a certain sub group in that group. No age is also listed for the person in question. Its just presumption based on body. (i might have missed that one, tag me if anyone knows)

So, if we look at it like, in sparring they will do light contact etc, the aclulamtive effects probbly wont matter as much as it was only a 27 second beat down, he would be allowed to recover and wouldnt take full shots to the head. It also wasnt undefended shots. No injury report is given either, it could just be pain.
 
skribs said:
Those head strikes don't have the same power as one from an adult.

I hope you're not allowed around children.
Click to expand...
Yeah he once told me to break an over aggressive 15 year olds arm....
 
Rat said:
Just have to but in, as it was listed as a initiation test/ritual, that means its probbly a one off. So the aclumative damage of brain strikes seems to be a 50/50 point. without more information for how precisely they do it, i can only go off what a inituation rite is, and thats either by joining a group or a certain sub group in that group. No age is also listed for the person in question. Its just presumption based on body. (i might have missed that one, tag me if anyone knows)

So, if we look at it like, in sparring they will do light contact etc, the aclulamtive effects probbly wont matter as much as it was only a 27 second beat down, he would be allowed to recover and wouldnt take full shots to the head. It also wasnt undefended shots. No injury report is given either, it could just be pain.
Click to expand...
Stop you are embarassing yourself
 
pdg said:
Back on track though - what is the location of the training in the OP?
Click to expand...

No?



Based on the links previously, I'm kind of assuming it's in Singapore - any confirmation or otherwise?
 
Headhunter said:
there's literally no way to justify scummy actions like that. Not a single one
Click to expand...

I could think of a few, and presented a few. But i just left it to more based on your own morals and culture etc etc. what you do with children and what you should subject them to seems to be a individual/cultrual thing.

I am not taking into account laws, for example if the law is listed as "hitting a child is child abuse" then it is child abuse legally speaking.


What i wrote shouldnt be taken as support, i just get the logic of it being apt in some places to put a under 18 through that, as they arent immune to violence. this is obviously with the presumption it isnt going to cause permennt damage etc etc. But also not without acknowledging martial arts as being a inhernetly dangerous activity. Edit: they also were defended hits, i will rewatch just in case i mis saw anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rat said:
I could think of a few, and presented a few. But i just left it to more based on your own morals and culture etc etc. what you do with children and what you should subject them to seems to be a individual/cultrual thing.

I am not taking into account laws, for example if the law is listed as "hitting a child is child abuse" then it is child abuse legally speaking.


What i wrote shouldnt be taken as support, i just get the logic of it being apt in some places to put a under 18 through that, as they arent immune to violence. this is obviously with the presumption it isnt going to cause permennt damage etc etc. But also not without acknowledging martial arts as being a inhernetly dangerous activity.
Click to expand...
how would you be able to acknowledge anything about martial arts when you don't even do any martial arts
 
Headhunter said:
how would you be able to acknowledge anything about martial arts when you don't even do any martial arts
Click to expand...

the only thing about martial arts here is that it was at a "martial arts club/school". the arguments presented here are primarily about ethics and medicine.

We arent disputing if the child defended the hits correctly or the adults did their strikes correctly etc.


If you want a proper argument on this i will give you one, it just takes two to actually argue.



pdg said:
No?



Based on the links previously, I'm kind of assuming it's in Singapore - any confirmation or otherwise?
Click to expand...

I think they were speaking english? that might just be on the merits of the place in question, but i have no idea where. I would say it would be a english speaking place perhaps not a western one. Or one with a big english speaking populace thats not in the west.

I would say it was taken in a previous colony of a enlish speaking country or territory. I will have another scrummage and see what i can find.
 
Rat said:
the only thing about martial arts here is that it was at a "martial arts club/school". the arguments presented here are primarily about ethics and medicine.

We arent disputing if the child defended the hits correctly or the adults did their strikes correctly etc.


If you want a proper argument on this i will give you one, it just takes two to actually argue.





I think they were speaking english? that might just be on the merits of the place in question, but i have no idea where. I would say it would be a english speaking place perhaps not a western one. Or one with a big english speaking populace thats not in the west.

I would say it was taken in a previous colony of a enlish speaking country or territory. I will have another scrummage and see what i can find.
Click to expand...
There's nothing to argue about. This is a scummy thing to do. If you actually got off the couch and got into a gym you'd see this is completely wrong in a martial arts gym.

And if you are the kind of person who defends these actions then I have nothing to say to you
 
It is in Singapore. It even says who they are ..Kapap Singapore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

How good can you get alone ?

Previous Thread

'Returning to the root' of your martial art

Next Thread

Similar threads

S
Family training
Replies
16
Views
2K
tshadowchaser
tshadowchaser
CNida
Striking vs grappling
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
skribs
skribs
S
Lethal strikes video? Is it worth ordering?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Jonathan Randall
J
B
Nukite Spear hand strike
Replies
19
Views
12K
Field Cricket
F
P
LEarning to take strikes article
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
lonekimono10
L

Latest Discussions

Back
Top