Martial arts as defense on the streets

[Deleted member 34973]

Great discussion though, but it's my Friday and I have some training to do.

Gpseymour- enjoyed your rhetoric, you are quite intelligent. And, I mean that in a complimentary way.

You sir, are a Master Debater....yuk yuk...pun is not intended, but it was funny nevertheless.

Might get back on later, have a good night.

 

[drop bear]

No. You just like to say people do that. It's your way of baiting people, trying to get them away from actual discussion into your attempts at verbal traps. It's not terribly productive, especially when you continue to prosecute it over several threads.

I never said that.

 

[drop bear]

I said we never had to use specific terms. See, you're once again trying to make weasling out of your poor communication skills.

So, you think we don't lose anything by never talking about responding to non-consensual physical violence outside of agreed-upon fights, except insofar as we discuss them individually...never as an overall group? Really?

Yes. Unless there are specific requirements at play consensual vs non consensual is a false distinction.

Also a marketing ploy.

It is basically women's deodorant.

And we see this all the time. Does boxing work in the street. And you can take a situation where someone boxes 3 guys then moves on to wreck everyone else in the room.

And so instead of looking at the specifics you can turn around and discount all those examples because he didn't disengage or whatever the personal definitions are.

And it is kind of dumb. If you can wade your way through 5 guys. Compliant, non compliant is basically a post note. Not a real critique.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I never said that.

Okay. Go with that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes. Unless there are specific requirements at play consensual vs non consensual is a false distinction.

Also a marketing ploy.

It is basically women's deodorant.

And we see this all the time. Does boxing work in the street. And you can take a situation where someone boxes 3 guys then moves on to wreck everyone else in the room.

And so instead of looking at the specifics you can turn around and discount all those examples because he didn't disengage or whatever the personal definitions are.

And it is kind of dumb. If you can wade your way through 5 guys. Compliant, non compliant is basically a post note. Not a real critique.

So here's where your dogma gets in the way. You confuse an attempt to discuss with marketing, because you don't like the idea of training that's focused on self-defense.

I can't think of anything useful that can come from this discussion, since you appear to be be entirely incapable of discussing anything that gets near that word without bringing out all the worst possible kinds of strawmen and other attempts to divert discussion.

You used to be capable of actual discussion, even when we disagreed. I'm not sure what happened.

 

[jobo]

So here's where your dogma gets in the way. You confuse an attempt to discuss with marketing, because you don't like the idea of training that's focused on self-defense.

I can't think of anything useful that can come from this discussion, since you appear to be be entirely incapable of discussing anything that gets near that word without bringing out all the worst possible kinds of strawmen and other attempts to divert discussion.

You used to be capable of actual discussion, even when we disagreed. I'm not sure what happened.

its you that's being dogmatic with YOUR DEFINTION.

you can call any sort of training self defence f you wish, but it's meaningless. if you use that training, the law and only the law decades of what you did was self defence or not. there's no other judge. what you need to train them is to fight and when the law allows you to and when it requires you to stop. there may be certain techniques that are more useful for an unexpected attack, but does alter that they are fighting techniques not some magical " self defence"

if your charging them money, to tell them common sense things there mother should have told them and calling that " self defence" then your taking money under false pretences. if your teaching them conflict resolution, that fine, but it's conflict resolution and no use at all it someone grabs you b the throat

 

[Gerry Seymour]

its you that's being dogmatic with YOUR DEFINTION.

You keep making claims like that, but there's a problem with your claim: I don't ask anyone to use my definition, nor even insist I have to use it in any given discussion. I'm happy to use any reasonable definition presented - I'm more interested in the communication.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

you can call any sort of training self defence f you wish, but it's meaningless. if you use that training, the law and only the law decades of what you did was self defence or not. there's no other judge. what you need to train them is to fight and when the law allows you to and when it requires you to stop. there may be certain techniques that are more useful for an unexpected attack, but does alter that they are fighting techniques not some magical " self defence"

if your charging them money, to tell them common sense things there mother should have told them and calling that " self defence" then your taking money under false pretences. if your teaching them conflict resolution, that fine, but it's conflict resolution and no use at all it someone grabs you b the throat

I might point out again here that you're actually comical. You're trying really hard to impugn my definition....without haven any idea (apparently) what my definition is.

 

[jobo]

I might point out again here that you're actually comical. You're trying really hard to impugn my definition....without haven any idea (apparently) what my definition is.

well your definition seems to vary by the hours, I've read it many times and it's never the same as last time and won't be the same tomorrow, this intentional vagueness allows you to say " I didn't say that " if someone pulls you up on ivia

so for the sake of fair exchange, my definition is,, what ever the legal definition is in what ever jurisdiction is being discussed.

in no more than 20 words, what's your definition of the day ?

 

[Gweilo]

well your definition seems to vary by the hours, I've read it many times and it's never the same as last time and won't be the same tomorrow, this intentional vagueness allows you to say " I didn't say that " if someone pulls you up on ivia

so for the sake of fair exchange, my definition is,, what ever the legal definition is in what ever jurisdiction is being discussed.

in no more than 20 words, what's your definition of the day ?

I can sum you up in one word, but just in case there are fragile people reading, I will change it to Obstinate. I mean was you born like it, or have you had to work very hard at it ?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well your definition seems to vary by the hours, I've read it many times and it's never the same as last time and won't be the same tomorrow, this intentional vagueness allows you to say " I didn't say that " if someone pulls you up on ivia

so for the sake of fair exchange, my definition is,, what ever the legal definition is in what ever jurisdiction is being discussed.

in no more than 20 words, what's your definition of the day ?

Yeah, except it doesn't vary. I've rarely been asked for mine, so rarely bothered to post it. It has some definite boundaries. What makes it look like I change mine is that I don't insist on using my own when another is in play already.

My definition is much closer to yours than to the most common usage on this forum. The main difference is that I'm not limited by a single jurisdiction, nor by the legal constraints. So, my definition doesn't depend upon whether a court in any given jurisdiction would recognize a self-defense defense. Otherwise, you and I use pretty much the same definition.

EDIT: Hit post too soon. So, pretty concisely, my definition of self-defense is physically defending against a physical attack (outside of consensual fights, war, etc.).

 

[drop bear]

So here's where your dogma gets in the way. You confuse an attempt to discuss with marketing, because you don't like the idea of training that's focused on self-defense.

I can't think of anything useful that can come from this discussion, since you appear to be be entirely incapable of discussing anything that gets near that word without bringing out all the worst possible kinds of strawmen and other attempts to divert discussion.

You used to be capable of actual discussion, even when we disagreed. I'm not sure what happened.

You diverted the discussion on about your first post. Unnecessarily trying to make the distinction between street fights and self defense. I gave been trying to bring it back.

The whole self defense industry is a mess of slogans and misinformation.

The argument We have is ultimately is you think they are true and I think they are suspect. And we use different methods to discern this. I try to use data and evidence. You use anecdotes.

This for me has been a years long progression that has come from comparing what has been said about fighting people in the street and actually fighting people in the street.

And if you want to make the distinction also what has been said about self defense and actual application of self defence.

And training self defense based system and training sport based systems.

And then seeing how the mind set changes between those two approaches (ultimately when they really shouldn't)

Using data and evidence means the weight is placed on scientific method. So I can place weight on a method that I can use consistently in the gym under controlled conditions. And observe equally effective but different methods. And I play around with best technique vs best fit for the person and so on. But it means I have to group martial arts in to a meta concept rather than a specific one. But I come up with a core set of principles.

So works becomes works consistently.
Street fighting becomes a distilled version of what works to be a conservative version of works.
And self defense isn't really a definition but a result.

Using anecdotes forces you to accept a lot of outlying ideas that you don't really test and can't quantify. You have been told the earth is flat. You believe it. You get upset when i demand for practical purposes it is round.

The issue is. From my experience. That your method of self defence is inefficient. And it does not equip you mentally and physically for the sort of engagements you are training specifically for. (See didn't need to say self defense there because it is not a real term)

 

[drop bear]

And because this is a similar but connected idea.

We can see this demonstrated really well with BJJ.

Where we have this connection from the mat to the ring to the street.

You can tell in real world aplication that BJJ players are pretty much doing the same thing they were learning in the gym.

You take them out in the park. It is still pretty much the same show.

You run up and sucker punch them. Same show.

And the reason BJJ is such a good example of this idea is they technically do so much that is wrong.

They take people to the ground, roll off top mount, don't get up when they should, don't strike when they should.

Yet even though self defense is supposed to be this specific beast people completely untrained in self defense But trained in fighting seem to be incredibly successful at it.

Now if someone who is untrained in self defense is better at self defense than self defense experts.

The distinction to a large extent is being used to hamper people's progress.

So this.
Log In or Sign Up to View

Is more self defense than this.

 

[jobo]

Yeah, except it doesn't vary. I've rarely been asked for mine, so rarely bothered to post it. It has some definite boundaries. What makes it look like I change mine is that I don't insist on using my own when another is in play already.

My definition is much closer to yours than to the most common usage on this forum. The main difference is that I'm not limited by a single jurisdiction, nor by the legal constraints. So, my definition doesn't depend upon whether a court in any given jurisdiction would recognize a self-defense defense. Otherwise, you and I use pretty much the same definition.

EDIT: Hit post too soon. So, pretty concisely, my definition of self-defense is physically defending against a physical attack (outside of consensual fights, war, etc.).

that's not at all like mine, as its not a definitive definition, which is the definition of definition.

all it does is leave further controversy on one the definition of physical, attack and defence is

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You diverted the discussion on about your first post. Unnecessarily trying to make the distinction between street fights and self defense. I gave been trying to bring it back.

A fairly common distinction, and I didn't really make a big deal about it. Most of the posts that resulted from my side comment (which I actually labeled as such) were about whether there was a legal exception for consensual fighting or not. A side discussion about a related topic...which wasn't really led by me, but by others' comments and questions. You see that as a purposeful diversion, because you are dogmatically unable to see clearly when anyone uses the term self-defense.

The whole self defense industry is a mess of slogans and misinformation.

Blatantly dogmatic" "the whole...industry". And then you'll reach for a few convenient confirmation-bias-supported points to say it is, in fact, the whole industry. And you'll ignore literally all evidence to the contrary.

The argument We have is ultimately is you think they are true and I think they are suspect. And we use different methods to discern this. I try to use data and evidence. You use anecdotes.

You're quite funny. You once again don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. Just as you usually make blatantly uninformed assumptions about how I train and teach, you now also make blatantly uninformed comments about what you think I think. And, as usual, you get it wrong.

You'd do much better if you ever asked a sincere question, with the intention of finding out. But you decided long ago that I'm unskeptical and must practice (and believe in) all the worst things you think of in your stereotyped view of self-defense training.

This for me has been a years long progression that has come from comparing what has been said about fighting people in the street and actually fighting people in the street.

And I've always looked at your input about what is and isn't useful as valuable, because of that (though your own suggestion would have me completely ignore it), then check it both with what others have experienced and with what I can manage against resisting opponents. But you'll have a problem with that entire process, because my focus happens to include the term "self-defense", which automatically blinds you to everything.

And if you want to make the distinction also what has been said about self defense and actual application of self defence.

And training self defense based system and training sport based systems.

And then seeing how the mind set changes between those two approaches (ultimately when they really shouldn't)

Except that I've said many times I think good sport training is an excellent base for SD preparation. I do believe (based on my experience in how folks train) that having a SD focus (either personally or as a group) adds some benefit. But you have never been able to have a reasonable discussion about that, because your bias against the term "self-defense" means everything about it must be wrong, whether you've examined it or not.

Using data and evidence means the weight is placed on scientific method. So I can place weight on a method that I can use consistently in the gym under controlled conditions. And observe equally effective but different methods. And I play around with best technique vs best fit for the person and so on. But it means I have to group martial arts in to a meta concept rather than a specific one. But I come up with a core set of principles.

Overall a reasonable approach, though less scientifically rigorous (by necessity) than you seem to believe it is. There are restrictions on what we can reasonably do to control variables, and we have to live with that.

So works becomes works consistently.

So, here you're saying your definition is the right one. The thing you accused me of doing. I'll mention that I don't have a problem with your usage here, but when you add a word to a word and say that's the meaning of the original word, that's clearly adjusting the definition to your purpose. A reasonable usage, as I said, but when you assert (as you seemed to) that leaving out "consistently" is not really "works", you're imposing your usage upon others.

Street fighting becomes a distilled version of what works to be a conservative version of works.
And self defense isn't really a definition but a result.

Wait. I thought you said that term was a "weasel word". Only when others use it?

Using anecdotes forces you to accept a lot of outlying ideas that you don't really test and can't quantify. You have been told the earth is flat. You believe it. You get upset when i demand for practical purposes it is round.

No, it really doesn't. Just because I use them, that doesn't mean I have to accept what they provide. They're input to the total process. You said you use your own experience. That's just anecdotes. That they are your anecdotes changes only that you know they're more or less true (memory is unreliable, but you likely remember the situation generally accurately). It doesn't change that they're still one-offs. Same for my own self-defense situations (dunno what term you prefer I use - they weren't really fights, so "street fights" seems a poor term).

The issue is. From my experience. That your method of self defence is inefficient. And it does not equip you mentally and physically for the sort of engagements you are training specifically for. (See didn't need to say self defense there because it is not a real term)

The issue is, you don't really know what my method of self-defense is. You've never really sincerely tried to find out. Because the term "aikido" (apparently as evil to you as "self-defense") is in the name, you've made continued (and often dramatically incorrect) assumptions about what it is I do.

Oh, and I'll point you you actually DID use the term "self defence" - right before you didn't. I highlighted it for you.

Thanks for again sharing your bias and assumptions.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yet even though self defense is supposed to be this specific beast people completely untrained in self defense But trained in fighting seem to be incredibly successful at it.

An assertion I've made, myself many times. But you won't remember that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

that's not at all like mine, as its not a definitive definition, which is the definition of definition.

all it does is leave further controversy on one the definition of physical, attack and defence is

You're hilarious.

 

[Gweilo]

that's not at all like mine, as its not a definitive definition, which is the definition of definition.

all it does is leave further controversy on one the definition of physical, attack and defence is

Is that your definate definitive definition of a definitive definition?

 

[jobo]

Is that your definate definitive definition of a definitive definition?

no its my definite definitive definition of a defintion''s definitive defintion