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

[drop bear]

What you've missed in your dogmatic approach is that an improper test doesn't disprove anything. Hitting a wall with a baseball bat and not breaking it doesn't prove a bat can't break a window. (Note that there's no claim that it proves anything - just your claim that it DISproves something.)

Ok. We have two videos as evidence. One where Skribs claims without evidence the technique was done wrong. And without evidence that he can do it right.

Another where they specifically addressed that argument and yet techniques still did not work live.

Your metaphors rely on the assumption the technique works. There is an open doorway and a window to be broken by a bat.

We could find out without experiment that someone could walk through a doorway or break a window. And so could easily discount a bad experiment by walking through a door or breaking a window.

But there is no evidence in this case that the technique works.

Which is the difference between assumption and reality pretty much.

 

[Martial D]

But what are we asking it to do?

Here's what I mean. A wrist lock does work, if applied well. What do I mean by "work"? It restrains movement at least for a bit, protects from a punch (and sometimes a grab) from the other side, helps break structure, etc.

Is it reliable? That's a different question. I consider them reliable against passive resistance, and only techniques of opportunity in most other cases. I'm more likely to find an opportunity for one grappling someone who's trying to grab (as with sleeve/hand grip fighting), or when struggling over a hand that's holding a weapon. From strikes? They're probably only useful as recovery from a screw-up in most cases. Do they help with cuffing? Dunno - I don't have to cuff people. I just know I see folks who cuff people actually manage to lock wrists (affecting structure and movement).

That brings us back to the question of what we are evaluating it about. If I'm expecting it to be an easy application against a jab, I'm going to take a lot of jabs to the face trying to prove that. If I expect it to stop someone who's fighting back hard, I'm probably going to get put on my butt while I'm trying to figure out how to get the lock on. If I expect it to buy some time and control, break structure, etc. when it's available, then I'm probably not going to be disappointed, except that I won't find it available as often as other techniques.

So, what work are we asking if it can do when we say, "Does it work?" I don't think that's the same question as, "Can I do it often?"

I'd settle for 'once in a while' even, but I can't even really give you that. Sure, once you get one you can break down someone's posture with it, but when does that ever happen? Maybe as often as a cartwheel kick ko, or flipping a coin and having it land on the edge?

If works=fluky 1 in a million shots can happen, then 'works' becomes fairly worthless term to describe anything coherent then doesn't it?

 

[drop bear]

I'd settle for 'once in a while' even, but I can't even really give you that. Sure, once you get one you can break down someone's posture with it, but when does that ever happen? Maybe as often as a cartwheel kick ko, or flipping a coin and having it land on the edge?

If works=fluky 1 in a million shots can happen, then 'works' becomes fairly worthless term to describe anything coherent then doesn't it?

 

[skribs]

Ok. We have two videos as evidence. One where Skribs claims without evidence the technique was done wrong. And without evidence that he can do it right.

Another where they specifically addressed that argument and yet techniques still did not work live.

Your metaphors rely on the assumption the technique works. There is an open doorway and a window to be broken by a bat.

We could find out without experiment that someone could walk through a doorway or break a window. And so could easily discount a bad experiment by walking through a door or breaking a window.

But there is no evidence in this case that the technique works.

Which is the difference between assumption and reality pretty much.

Sorry you can't accept my description as evidence. I'm still coming back to it being your lack of understanding on how it works.

 

[Martial D]

Sorry you can't accept my description as evidence. I'm still coming back to it being your lack of understanding on how it works.

Perhaps that is the case.Perhaps not.

If the people that have tried these techniques are just walking into walls, why not show the door instead of simply insisting it's there.(which is highly unpersuasive)

If you tell me armbars are crap, or straight punches don't work, I can easily disprove that with hours and hours of video or people getting smacked with straight punches and getting their arms stretched out while fully fighting back. If such evidence is not existent, questions need to be (rightly) asked.

 

[skribs]

If the people that have tried these techniques are just walking into walls, why not show the door instead of simply insisting it's there.(which is highly unpersuasive)

I did leave a comment on the video.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'd settle for 'once in a while' even, but I can't even really give you that. Sure, once you get one you can break down someone's posture with it, but when does that ever happen? Maybe as often as a cartwheel kick ko, or flipping a coin and having it land on the edge?

If works=fluky 1 in a million shots can happen, then 'works' becomes fairly worthless term to describe anything coherent then doesn't it?

I think I'm not making my point. "Works" and "is reliable/consistently available" aren't really the same thing. In full-resistance situations, most wristlocks aren't going to be very available (leaving out the gooseneck and the one Tony posted), but used early or as a transition (rather than the lock being the focus) or on the ground (where they are much harder to escape), they can work.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Perhaps that is the case.Perhaps not.

If the people that have tried these techniques are just walking into walls, why not show the door instead of simply insisting it's there.(which is highly unpersuasive)

If you tell me armbars are crap, or straight punches don't work, I can easily disprove that with hours and hours of video or people getting smacked with straight punches and getting their arms stretched out while fully fighting back. If such evidence is not existent, questions need to be (rightly) asked.

You can actually find variations of some of those wrist escapes in stand-up grappling competitions. Some of the grip-fighting principles are the same. But you won't find them often used, because the people in those competitions know how easy those grips are to escape, so they use grips that are much more dependable. So you what you see will usually be more advanced variations of the same principles.

 

[geezer]

At various times in the course of this thread people keep dissing "No-touch masters". Maybe you mean offensive no touch masters? I personally have offended many people without touching them. And enjoyed it! Jobo, Drop Bear... am I alone? But I digress. Back to the topic. Here's one authentic defensive no-touch master who's technique has inspired me ever since I was a kid:

 

[geezer]

Hey, as long as I'm rambling on, here's another idea for a thread: What defines a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial art?

...for example, in the Wing Chun I trained you might respond to a situation with several approaches, all of which might be effective, but they are not equally good from a WC perspective. Even techniques that work really well. For example WC (VT/WT?etc.) generally places very high value on efficiency and economy of motion. So if you end a fight with a big, massive haymayker punch or round kick, no matter how effective, that's not "good" Wing Chun.

So rather than derail this boring argu.. er thread! ...I'll start a new one.