Most bad techniques are bad because you're bad at them

[Buka]

Not if I have my big toe raised they don't.

I got special shoes for that. I'm practically invincible now.

I found that really funny. I'm picturing the shoes. Still laughing.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Not if I have my big toe raised they don't.

I got special shoes for that. I'm practically invincible now.

How much for the shoes?

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, but you have to define both "works" and what you mean by "random chance". See, nobody is actually cuffed by random chance. Someone cuffs them. Does the wrist lock help? Dunno, and that's not a claim I made (which is why your whole dowsing and random chance statements are so funny).

As for the hand stand kicks, your confirmation bias is adorable.

So you used "works" as a weasel word. And can now use the vague definition to try to be sneaky.

Where I defined what I mean by "works" in my second post.

QUOTE="drop bear, post: 1969491, member: 32080"]And I think the science of this post is incorrect.

You observe a thing working it works. In martial arts you observe a thing working consistently against resistance it works.

There really is no. It should work or why is it in a martial art if it doesn't work or it works in a situation we can't recreate for you just now. That is all pretty much irrelevant.

And we can see the issue when science is used to determine if magic is real.[/QUOTE]

The handstand kick works consistently. Where intuitively it kind of shouldn't. Which is the opposite of a conformation bias.

So the meaning of a conformation bias is.


confirmation bias
noun

1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

 

[drop bear]

Perhaps. He seemed to execute them reasonably well. Can't really tell if he did that by good mimicry or actually understood the principles. We can't tell in those videos if he's actually teaching the principles or not.

In any case, it comes down to the same problem as previously: the person trying to do the thing doesn't seem to understand it, so they don't get to see if the technique would work or not.

To be clear, these can work, but most aren't likely to be available once someone starts dragging you. If you get a chance to create slack, they work nicely. But with the tension of the pulling, you need an entry...or just a different solution. I see them as solutions in the middle of grappling, not during dragging - reasonable hand-fighting tools.

Ok good. Because that probably wasn't the video OP was referring to. I just wanted to determine if people thought dewey understood the concepts.

I imagine it was this.

Which is two trained guys who probably do understand the concepts.

Or weasely "seem to execute them reasonably well" (And i assume the response will be "when I said that what I really meant was")

Now of course when you say these can work. We now know you mean as in about the same as any sort of random chance could work.

Which is unhelpful in a martial skills building exercise as we would want works better than random chance.

 

[drop bear]

Honestly the whole thread was made worth it because I found that video.

 

[skribs]

Ok good. Because that probably wasn't the video OP was referring to. I just wanted to determine if people thought dewey understood the concepts.

I imagine it was this.

Which is two trained guys who probably do understand the concepts.

Or weasely "seem to execute them reasonably well" (And i assume the response will be "when I said that what I really meant was")

Now of course when you say these can work. We now know you mean as in about the same as any sort of random chance could work.

Which is unhelpful in a martial skills building exercise as we would want works better than random chance.

Nope, that wasn't it.

 

[drop bear]

Nope, that wasn't it.

It was Ramsey Dewey though?

 

[skribs]

So you used "works" as a weasel word. And can now use the vague definition to try to be sneaky.
View attachment 22380



Where I defined what I mean by "works" in my second post.

And I think the science of this post is incorrect.

You observe a thing working it works. In martial arts you observe a thing working consistently against resistance it works.

There really is no. It should work or why is it in a martial art if it doesn't work or it works in a situation we can't recreate for you just now. That is all pretty much irrelevant.

And we can see the issue when science is used to determine if magic is real.

The handstand kick works consistently. Where intuitively it kind of shouldn't. Which is the opposite of a conformation bias.

So the meaning of a conformation bias is.


confirmation bias
noun

1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

By your definition, no martial arts technique "works". For example, if you want to prove that a hook punch works, then the person you're going up against can either:

1. Use a guard and strategy to counter hook punches, so the hook punches all fail
2. Purposefully not use that guard or strategy, so that you can see how hook punches work

The options are always failure or compliance when you set it up that way.

The reason you've been called dogmatic, is because you only accept data that supports your hypotheses. Any data that goes against what you believe, is rejected, because it's easier to dismiss evidence than it is to change your point of view. This is where the dogma comes in. Confirmation bias certainly applies, because your analysis of the evidence is tainted by the point you're trying to make. You reject any evidence that doesn't support your point of view.

 

[skribs]

It was Ramsey Dewey though?

I think so. He also wasn't as arrogant in the video I watched. I may try and find it if I have time.

He's mocking women for training against the "poisonous wrist grab" (dripping with sarcasm). But being grabbed by the arm and dragged somewhere, while not really dangerous by itself, usually leads to something far worse. A woman being dragged to a secure location by an attacker is probably going to be raped and murdered. Which means either he doesn't realize that an arm grab can lead to you being dragged somewhere, or that being dragged somewhere is dangerous.

Now, the particular video he's mocking (that you posted), the technique isn't great and the execution is horrible. This looks like a demonstration being done by white belts, or a video made by someone who took a seminar and learned a few things, not someone who is trained in the art. With proper footwork, their entry would be much faster, and they would need to control the arm better as they pass through. Most white belts (and even yellow and purple belts) at my school tend to do those shuffle steps when they're first learning. It takes a while to break that habit and use proper footwork, and it also takes a while to learn how to manipulate the arm as you transition your techniques. These women have shown neither of those skills in the video.

And this brings me back to my point - the video (of the girls showing self defense) is bad. It's not bad because of the technique itself, it's bad because they don't know how to properly execute the technique. Where previously my problem with the guys is that they did not understand the concept, in this case they do. However, they are doing the technique as it is being done in the video, which is being done poorly.

I am confident that if I tried the same thing against them with the same level of resistance, I would get much further into the technique than they did, by applying concepts I know about hapkido that are not present in either the women's video or their video.

The other thing to consider, is that even though there is mild resistance - these guys know what is coming. If you're properly applying the principles of Hapkido (like many Asian arts) it's not just about the entry, but the setup before the entry. If your attacker is expecting you to pull back (or even if you start by pulling back), it's easier to apply forward energy. Just like the footwork and the arm control I mentioned above, it's something that takes training to learn. If I can get you to pull back against me, then that helps me move forward and I'm going with your power instead of against it.

Now, could I get caught in the headlock or bear hug? Probably. But I could also get behind them, or at least break their grip and escape.

 

[skribs]

It was Ramsey Dewey though?

From about 1:21 to about 2:30 or 3:00. I misremembered it a little bit, but the effect is the same. The girl is grabbed with her arm hanging down, while the guys apply the grab up above. The result is the angle on the wrist is completely different, but they did not adjust the technique to account for that difference. (And now that I look at it again, the technique I would use is a lot simpler and quicker than the one the girl uses, but I'll come back to that).

As a simple analogy: let's say someone teaches me a defense against a right hook, by bringing up my left hand to my ear and letting my arm and elbow cover my jaw. Then someone throws a left hook, and I bring up my left arm, and they hit the right side of my face unimpeded. This is basically what they did - they applied a different grip and tried to use the same technique, and it just doesn't work like that.

I am going to say the same thing I said in my post above - there are better techniques than the one the girl used. I wouldn't turn like that unless I was going to use it (for example, to push my bicep into the elbow to throw them down). If I'm going to do an escape, I would just snap my hand out, which is surprisingly easy to do even against a strong grip, if you know how to do it correctly. Or I would step backwards with my right leg instead of through with my left leg, so that I'm on their side instead of in front of them.

However, my goal was to show: how not understanding a technique will make it not work. In this case, the male fighters could not make the technique work at all, because they did not understand the concept of going away from the wrist and palm, towards the weakest point in the fingers. They could have at least gotten further with the escape if they understood that piece.

Although, it does kind of go back to the original video. There are things about the technique that could be improved or modified. So even though I have problems with the technique as it was shown, does not mean the technique itself is bad. The teaching was bad (since the pro MMA fighters messed it up), and there are things I could do better, even as just a blue belt in Hapkido. So the video is mediocre at best, but the technique itself isn't bad. The execution is.

To take it back to a hook punch, I don't think anyone would disagree with me when I say the hook punch is a good technique. I also don't think you'd disagree that if I throw a hook punch by twisting my body away from the punch, with a loose fist and a bent wrist, that it would be a bad technique. Now, if that was the only hook punch you'd ever seen, it would be easy to criticize hooks as bad. But it's not because the hook is a bad punch, it's because that was a bad hook punch.

 

[drop bear]

By your definition, no martial arts technique "works". For example, if you want to prove that a hook punch works, then the person you're going up against can either:

1. Use a guard and strategy to counter hook punches, so the hook punches all fail
2. Purposefully not use that guard or strategy, so that you can see how hook punches work

No. A technique can work consistently even though someone is defending it.

This is a point i have been making is that martial arts isn't just rolling dice and hoping.

Otherwise fights would be decided randomly.

And that isn't the case.

 

[drop bear]

However, my goal was to show: how not understanding a technique will make it not work. In this case, the male fighters could not make the technique work at all, because they did not understand the concept of going away from the wrist and palm, towards the weakest point in the fingers. They could have at least gotten further with the escape if they understood that piece.

Ok. To prove a technique works. You have to prove it based on its own merits. Not negate evidence used to prove something else.

Speaking of dogma. People use that method to dogmatically support God.
(Abridged version you semantics)

So how was the big bang created?

I don't know

Then God created the universe.

Not knowing how the universe is created does not support God creating it any more than it supports me creating it.

So them going too far up the arm doesn't mean that the wrist escapes works. Evidence that supports the wrist escape working in some sort of reasonable experiment does.

And informally the process could be as easy as this.

Which while not a bullet proof example is still so far better than anyone has presented as yet to support wrist grab escapes.

 

[skribs]

No. A technique can work consistently even though someone is defending it.

False. That's why you learn other techniques and strategies.

Ok. To prove a technique works. You have to prove it based on its own merits. Not negate evidence used to prove something else.

So them going too far up the arm doesn't mean that wrist lock works. Evidence that supports the wrist lock working in some sort of reasonable experiment does.

First off, it was an escape, not a lock. Second, my comments on them weren't proof that it works, but an explanation for why theirs didn't work. My own personal experience with the technique is how I know it works.

 

[drop bear]

False. That's why you learn other techniques and strategies.
.

Ok. And that is why I posed the link to statistics of the ADDC trials. To show that even though moves are being defended. There is consistentsy in successful attacks.

First off, it was an escape, not a lock. Second, my comments on them weren't proof that it works, but an explanation for why theirs didn't work. My own personal experience with the technique is how I know it works.

I know it works and they did it wrong does not support your argument. Their evidence is better than yours.

And read the rest of my post. I did an after market edit job.

 

[skribs]

I know it works and they did it wrong does not support your argument. Their evidence is better than yours.

The fact that they did it wrong proves their evidence is invalid.

 

[drop bear]

The fact that they did it wrong proves their evidence is invalid.

Not really.
To make that claim someone would have to do it right.

 

[geezer]

The fact that they did it wrong proves their evidence is invalid.

Naw. in spite of the technical shortcomings in Ramseys demos, I personally find his "evidence" convincing here.

Besides, I really enjoy Ramsey's stuff. For one thing, he's really funny. And yeah, he's not alway's careful to get the techniques precisely right, but that's not really his point. His point is that these techniques are often conceptually flawed since they do not presume a realistically violent and motivated attack by an attacker who will give full resistance.

In my style we teach various techniques to deal with wrist grabs, and I openly admit against heavy, unchoreographed resistance by a really strong and commited attacker, they aren't the best choice. In fact some are impractical as all heck. If your life depends on it, a much better choice is to immediately punch your attacker straight in the face ...not unlike what Ramsey's assisistant shows at one point.

In short, there are high percentage moves and low percentage moves. Some of those low percentage moves may be taught for legit reasons other than pure practicality, but it's important that a student understands the difference between the two. Attempting to apply a low percentage move in a real and desperate situation is definitely a "bad technique" in my book.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you used "works" as a weasel word. And can now use the vague definition to try to be sneaky.
View attachment 22380



Where I defined what I mean by "works" in my second post.

And I think the science of this post is incorrect.

You observe a thing working it works. In martial arts you observe a thing working consistently against resistance it works.

There really is no. It should work or why is it in a martial art if it doesn't work or it works in a situation we can't recreate for you just now. That is all pretty much irrelevant.

And we can see the issue when science is used to determine if magic is real.

The handstand kick works consistently. Where intuitively it kind of shouldn't. Which is the opposite of a conformation bias.

So the meaning of a conformation bias is.


confirmation bias
noun

1. the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.

Actually, I pointed out that we'd have to decide on a definition, because there's not a clear one implicit in the context. But go ahead and call it purposeful deceit. You know it's not, but you like doing that these days, so have fun with it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok good. Because that probably wasn't the video OP was referring to. I just wanted to determine if people thought dewey understood the concepts.

I imagine it was this.

Which is two trained guys who probably do understand the concepts.

Or weasely "seem to execute them reasonably well" (And i assume the response will be "when I said that what I really meant was")

Now of course when you say these can work. We now know you mean as in about the same as any sort of random chance could work.

Which is unhelpful in a martial skills building exercise as we would want works better than random chance.

So, you'd rather I answer a question "yes", rather than "I'm not sure" and give some actual observation? You really think life is all black-and-white, don't you?

You usually bring some sanity to discussions, but you've just lost it in this one, man.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. To prove a technique works. You have to prove it based on its own merits. Not negate evidence used to prove something else.

Speaking of dogma. People use that method to dogmatically support God.
(Abridged version you semantics)

So how was the big bang created?

I don't know

Then God created the universe.

Not knowing how the universe is created does not support God creating it any more than it supports me creating it.

So them going too far up the arm doesn't mean that the wrist escapes works. Evidence that supports the wrist escape working in some sort of reasonable experiment does.

And informally the process could be as easy as this.

Which while not a bullet proof example is still so far better than anyone has presented as yet to support wrist grab escapes.

Show where he ever once said their inability to do the technique/using a different grip proves it works. He didn't. I'm pretty sure you know he didn't, but are creating a strawman because you REALLY want to be right in this argument you've chosen, rather than actually contributing to a discussion.