Opinions on Russian Systema

[drop bear]

That depends on what's being put forth as "geared specifically towards self defence", honestly. It can certainly be geared towards self defence very accurately and effectively… or it might be pure lip service because the person saying it doesn't get the difference between "I hit people when they attack, that's self defence, and I hit people in my martial arts, therefore they're the same thing"…

Yes, but of course the technical has to match the tactical… and the contextual realities.

How so? Are you simply assuming that a martial art class that has a focus on self defence doesn't really have one, because you can't see how it can happen?

Have you ever had to engage in self defence? Do you know anything at all about it?

How many fights. Weapon attacks have you been in? How many have you deescalated?

Is it fun to be routinely dismissed as a novice without engaging any of your actual arguments?

 

[Chris Parker]

Have you ever had to engage in self defence?

Yes.

Do you know anything at all about it?

Yes.

How many fights. Weapon attacks have you been in?

Depends on how you count it, but if we're limiting to physical encounters only (hardly the only definition that could be applied), about half a dozen, including group situations.

How many have you deescalated?

That's harder to tell… I can think of a couple of dozen situations off the top of my head, I would think it's a lot more taking everything into account.

Is it fun to be routinely dismissed as a novice without engaging any of your actual arguments?

Ah, so you were trolling… cute.

Here's the thing… I answer the questions when asked. And your answers have always shown a very limited, single-sided, blinkered view which doesn't take into account what self defence is actually recognised as (in training forms and reality) by the many experts in the field. So, until you show some understanding, you may find that you keep getting questioned… of course, you are always free to question back, but I do recommend you actually listen to the answers.

Oh, and you may want to look to who has backing from whom as well… that's a bit of an indication as to who actually does know what they're talking about…

 

[drop bear]

Yes.



Yes.



Depends on how you count it, but if we're limiting to physical encounters only (hardly the only definition that could be applied), about half a dozen, including group situations.



That's harder to tell… I can think of a couple of dozen situations off the top of my head, I would think it's a lot more taking everything into account.



Ah, so you were trolling… cute.

Here's the thing… I answer the questions when asked. And your answers have always shown a very limited, single-sided, blinkered view which doesn't take into account what self defence is actually recognised as (in training forms and reality) by the many experts in the field. So, until you show some understanding, you may find that you keep getting questioned… of course, you are always free to question back, but I do recommend you actually listen to the answers.

Oh, and you may want to look to who has backing from whom as well… that's a bit of an indication as to who actually does know what they're talking about…

Ok come back to me when you have done hundreds. Then you can be the definition of what self defence is.

Ok. Geared specificaly for self defence is not an endorsement in itself. You can be geared towards anything you like. Fighting martians on the moon if you like but it does not determine the best tool for the job. There is no criteria that geared for self defence ever has to work anywhere. Anyone can say it and nobody ever has to prove it.

The technical only has to achieve the tactical which is a bit different. So tactically you may want to escape a grab and run away. Should i hit the guy with a boxing left hook. Which is not designed as a grab release in boxing, but will work quite well to release a grab. Rather than a specific grab release which may not work very well at all.(and there are quite a few of those out there.)

A martial art that focuses on self defence does not determine whether it is any good at it. It has to be good at self defence based on its own merits.

And i could care less who has the backing of what. To be honest that is your hang up. Not mine.

 

[Chris Parker]

Ok come back to me when you have done hundreds. Then you can be the definition of what self defence is.

No, then I'd be experienced in fighting… and likely only in a fairly limited context.

Ok. Geared specificaly for self defence is not an endorsement in itself.

Agreed. Which is why I said it can be either genuinely (and accurately) geared towards it, or it can be lip service. Figuring out which is which isn't easy, particularly for a beginner, which is the real catch… those paying lip service can often be more convincing than those who are genuinely understanding of the situation and reality.

You can be geared towards anything you like.

Sure.

Fighting martians on the moon if you like but it does not determine the best tool for the job.

Which is why you need some education, and the ability to critically assess. Both the person presenting, and the one looking.

There is no criteria that geared for self defence ever has to work anywhere.

Really? I'd disagree with that… but the problem you (and others, such as Steve) have is that you only accept a single form of "proof"… one that has little providence in this area.

Anyone can say it and nobody ever has to prove it.

Frankly, that's garbage. It's just that you don't understand how the proof actually works.

The technical only has to achieve the tactical which is a bit different.

Not really. I think we're both actually saying the same thing there. It's the same as when I talk about the (specific) techniques not being important.

So tactically you may want to escape a grab and run away. Should i hit the guy with a boxing left hook. Which is not designed as a grab release in boxing, but will work quite well to release a grab. Rather than a specific grab release which may not work very well at all.(and there are quite a few of those out there.)

Are you under the impression that a "self defence system" would rely on your hypothetical "grab release" over a straight left? Really? As with everything, it would depend entirely on the context… personally, I'd be more likely to apply both… the strike to begin with… followed by the release if they haven't let go already… but this is getting into a different area.

A martial art that focuses on self defence does not determine whether it is any good at it. It has to be good at self defence based on its own merits.

Once again, you're not exactly saying anything I haven't said many times before… in fact, I've gone so far as to say that there are no martial arts that are designed (specifically) for self defence (today)… and yes, the "self defence" curriculum does have to have it's own merits to stand on. This hasn't ever been disputed. But, and here's where it gets into complex relationships between them, the martial art is often a very good technical and physical (mechanical) basis for the self defence approach…

And i could care less who has the backing of what. To be honest that is your hang up. Not mine.

Not a hang up, mate. Simply a recognition of the reality.

 

[drop bear]

No, then I'd be experienced in fighting… and likely only in a fairly limited context.

Self defence is fighting. By pretty much every definition of the term.

self-defence
noun

1. the defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
   "he claimed self-defence in the attempted murder charge"

There are softer more liberal definitions. But that is the heart of it.

Really? I'd disagree with that… but the problem you (and others, such as Steve) have is that you only accept a single form of "proof"… one that has little providence in this area.

The single form of proof is it has to work somewhere other than in tales of grandeur. So if I say a a move works. I have to make it work. Or show somebody else making it work. There is no in the street,on the battlefield,my linage,you should trust me because i have a black belt proof.

That is not proof. And never will be

Frankly, that's garbage. It's just that you don't understand how the proof actually works.

Which is convenient as you don't understand how self defence actually works.

Are you under the impression that a "self defence system" would rely on your hypothetical "grab release" over a straight left? Really? As with everything, it would depend entirely on the context… personally, I'd be more likely to apply both… the strike to begin with… followed by the release if they haven't let go already… but this is getting into a different area.

Not the point. It dosent Matter if a self defence system uses a punch or not. A system that never used a grab release is still training an effective grab release. This is important when we discuss specificity of training.

Once again, you're not exactly saying anything I haven't said many times before… in fact, I've gone so far as to say that there are no martial arts that are designed (specifically) for self defence (today)… and yes, the "self defence" curriculum does have to have it's own merits to stand on. This hasn't ever been disputed. But, and here's where it gets into complex relationships between them, the martial art is often a very good technical and physical (mechanical) basis for the self defence approach…

But again we come across this idea of technically sound. Which in my opinion falls under the idea of has to work somewhere other than tales of grandeur.

Not a hang up, mate. Simply a recognition of the reality.

Why is that important to you?

And largely the rest I agree with.

 

[Natitude]

Iaido.
Kyudo.
Kendo.

Just three of a very long list that have nothing to do with self defence at all… for the record…



Actually, quite the opposite is true, mainly because there's only so many ways to move a human body, the techniques themselves (individual punches, kicks, blocks etc) are rather meaningless and unimportant. What is far more important is the training methodology. Simply learning kicks and punches is like learning individual notes on a piano and nothing else… you need to learn how to put them together.



Visit the schools, and see which one gels with you. It's honestly the only real, practical advice that can be given… with the caveat that not all arts/systems are what they seem to be, or claim to be… if it was me, there's one on that list that immediately gets tossed out the window…



That depends on what's being put forth as "geared specifically towards self defence", honestly. It can certainly be geared towards self defence very accurately and effectively… or it might be pure lip service because the person saying it doesn't get the difference between "I hit people when they attack, that's self defence, and I hit people in my martial arts, therefore they're the same thing"…



Yes, but of course the technical has to match the tactical… and the contextual realities.



How so? Are you simply assuming that a martial art class that has a focus on self defence doesn't really have one, because you can't see how it can happen?



Cool. I'm going to head over to your thread on Kindai Ryu in a moment to give my thoughts there… one thing that intrigued me, though was the line at the end of your posts:


Is there a meaning to that? This is just me being curious, of course…. and I'll also offer some advice. If you want to end each of your posts that way, you may consider going into your user profile and making it your signature… saves typing it out each time!

Thanks for the feedback. One question for you... Which on the list would you toss out? And my signature "protected by shield", I carry a smith & wesson shield for my edc gun, that's where I got that. Thanks again!


"Protected by Shield"

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Nearby I have access to Systema, kindai-ryu jiu-jitsu, bjj, mma, and Muay Thai. Any thoughts on those?

Systema
My only first hand exposure to Systema was with some low-level practitioners who were learning from seminars and practicing what they learned in a small local club. Most of what I've gleaned about the art comes from videos of senior instructors. From those videos, I see some good concepts, some useful body mechanics, some interesting drills, and definite skilled movement on the part of the senior instructors. I also see a lot of crappy training methods, unrealistic attacks by training partners, and flashy but impractical techniques demonstrated against those unrealistic attacks.

If I had a good Systema practitioner in the area who was interested in trading knowledge, I would probably give it a try to see what useful elements I could glean - but I have a lot of experience to work with. Most of the instruction I've seen online I wouldn't recommend to a beginner.

That said, I'd still recommend checking out your local school. Perhaps they have a more practical focus.

Kindai-Ryu
I listed a couple of concerns I had in your other thread.

BJJ
Depending on the school, the instruction may be focused on sportive competition, street application, or some combination of the two. Either way, you will get in shape and learn to protect yourself on the ground. If it's a pure sport school, you probably won't get much for stand-up self-defense purposes.

MMA
Assuming the instruction is competent, you'll get in shape and develop a solid foundation in unarmed fighting skills - both striking and grappling. A large percentage of MMA gyms are focused on competition, so you probably won't get much on the mindset or tactical requirements of applying those fighting skills in a self-defense context.

Muay Thai
Pretty much what I said for MMA, except the focus is entirely on stand-up striking (clinching included). You won't get any ground-fighting skills.

 

[marques]

Self defence is fighting. By pretty much every definition of the term.

Rory Miller says they are opposite, even if they look similar. Fighting is illegal. Self-defence, by definition, is legal.
Fighting is a voluntary engagement. Self-defence is the last resource, after you have failed prevention, awareness, avoidance, de-escalation when applicable... and no chance to run away. Aaaaannnd you used reasonable force. (It seems like everything is against the distracted and good guy )

I understand self-defence as a pre-fight. That finishes the fight before it starts.

Just to give a different perspective and a bit of entropy. I don't know the context of your discussion.

 

[drop bear]

Rory Miller says they are opposite, even if they look similar. Fighting is illegal. Self-defence, by definition, is legal.
Fighting is a voluntary engagement. Self-defence is the last resource, after you have failed prevention, awareness, avoidance, de-escalation when applicable... and no chance to run away. Aaaaannnd you used reasonable force. (It seems like everything is against the distracted and good guy )

I understand self-defence as a pre-fight. That finishes the fight before it starts.

Just to give a different perspective and a bit of entropy. I don't know the context of your discussion.

I don't understand the fixation on self defence. It is a part of a concept called use of force.

Self defence is not the start and end of legal use of force. There are other motivations where force is acceptable.

And none of that covers basic personal safety. Like locking doors or not getting into fights in the first place.

So i just dont get why people have this issue with what is or isnt self defence. It is like fighting over a chocolate trophy.

Oh and fighting is legal. That is what all those sports guys do.

Amicable contest. A legal use of force that is not self defence.

 

[marques]

He doesn't consider combat sport a fight.
It is a endless (pointless?) discussion. I just don't like the mixture self-defence, fighting, sport... They overlap somewhat, but far from being the same if you want to be rigorous. As criquet is not baseball. But this is an endless, pointless discussions...

 

[Xue Sheng]

He doesn't consider combat sport a fight.

Neither does Chen Xiaowang

But this is an endless, pointless discussions...

agreed

 

[drop bear]

He doesn't consider combat sport a fight.
It is a endless (pointless?) discussion. I just don't like the mixture self-defence, fighting, sport... They overlap somewhat, but far from being the same if you want to be rigorous. As criquet is not baseball. But this is an endless, pointless discussions...

Rory miller isn't a dictionary.

Even a street fight is kinda sorta not assault if you have consented to it. Here you can still be done for affray though if you are two gimps on the street fighting.

And yeah the distinctions get misused by people quite a bit.

Here we go camels. Makes it easy to remember.




The defences to assault are

CAMELS Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence



CAMELS - Consent is
A person freely consents (you can not consent to serious injury)



CAMELS - amicable contest is
Generally associated with sports



CAMELS - Misadventure or accident
Pure accident



CAMELS - execution of law
police action



CAMELS - lawful correction or chastisement
smacking



CAMELS - self defence
Only if they feel threatened and only until the threat is over

Assault Flashcards | Quizlet

 

[Chris Parker]

Self defence is fighting. By pretty much every definition of the term.

No, it isn't. Not even in the single definition you present, actually.

self-defence
noun

1. the defence of one's person or interests, especially through the use of physical force, which is permitted in certain cases as an answer to a charge of violent crime.
   "he claimed self-defence in the attempted murder charge"

Well, that's a legal definition… which is actually different from a contextually based training paradigm definition (one is after the event, one is before… which changes things)… and is only saying that that particular definition states "especially through the use of physical force", not "explicitly" or "exclusively"… so… you know… reading and all…

There are softer more liberal definitions. But that is the heart of it.

No, it's the heart of a legally applied definition within court cases etc… so, no.

The single form of proof is it has to work somewhere other than in tales of grandeur. So if I say a a move works. I have to make it work. Or show somebody else making it work. There is no in the street,on the battlefield,my linage,you should trust me because i have a black belt proof.

That is not proof. And never will be

We've covered this again and again, but no, that is not the definition of proof. Proof is evidence presented to support and validate a claim, and can be anything from anecdotal, to expert testimony, to expressions of previously validated principles, to thought experiments, to reasoned arguments, to witnessed accounts, to secondary sourced evidence, to corroborating evidence, to, well, about another dozen or two forms that you consistently ignore at best, and remain wilfully ignorant of at worst, due to your inability to see anything that you don't already think.

Which is convenient as you don't understand how self defence actually works.

Please. The day you show anything beyond a base level, superficial grip on a single aspect I'll start listening to comments you make about what you think my understanding is.

Not the point. It dosent Matter if a self defence system uses a punch or not. A system that never used a grab release is still training an effective grab release. This is important when we discuss specificity of training.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, with the double talk of "it doesn't matter if they don't train in grab release, they still use grab releases" (?), but maybe, just maybe, you could try answering my question before you get into your non-sequiteurs again?

The question was, were you under the impression that "fancy grip releases" are what is relied upon in "self defence training", as that is the implication in your post.

But again we come across this idea of technically sound. Which in my opinion falls under the idea of has to work somewhere other than tales of grandeur.

Technically sound is important, tactically sound is more important (but both are necessary)… and, as far as evidence, it really doesn't matter if you accept it or not, evidence is more than you seem to want to recognise. Additionally, it might be important to realise that the only person bringing up "tales of grandeur" as any form of evidence is you, you understand… mainly due to your lack of ability to recognise the vast majority of the forms that evidence can take…

Why is that important to you?

"And you shall know them by the company they keep"…

In other words, when the subject matter experts all tend to agree with my take on things, when I use said subject matter experts to check against my own understanding, and find it matching, when my education has been in line with said subject matter experts, then it's important as a form of corroborating evidence as to what is actually genuine and correct… and, when those same persons do not agree with someone else, and the only people who do agree tend to have a similarly limited grasp, it also shows the understanding on that side.

You do get what corroborating evidence is, yeah?

And largely the rest I agree with.

Sure.

I don't understand the fixation on self defence. It is a part of a concept called use of force.

Firstly, you don't understand the fixation on the concepts of self defence? On a martial arts forum? Seriously?

Secondly, no, self defence is part of the legal concepts of use of force (and vice versa), but that is only in application to the usage of the term as a legal definition, and not what is meant when talking about training, teaching, and practicing self defence methods (part of it, yeah, but that's not the context and definition here).

Self defence is not the start and end of legal use of force. There are other motivations where force is acceptable.

You're looking at things backwards here.

And none of that covers basic personal safety. Like locking doors or not getting into fights in the first place.

What doesn't cover that? The legal definitions of self defence as applied to a use of force application? Or self defence training methods and systems? Do you really think it's the latter? That no self defence system deals with things such as "avoiding conflict" in the first place…?

So i just dont get why people have this issue with what is or isnt self defence. It is like fighting over a chocolate trophy.

Er… you do know that we are pretty fine with what is or isn't self defence… it's when false ideas, and limited understandings try to insist on their own views being the correct ones… especially when the people insisting on those views also profess to not be overly interested in the topic themselves, or have it as part of their training paradigm…

Oh and fighting is legal. That is what all those sports guys do.

Amicable contest. A legal use of force that is not self defence.

What's your point? There's lots of things that are related to one area, but are different things… I mean… basketball is a ball game, but it's not football… which is where the issue comes up with you having things backwards earlier…

Rory miller isn't a dictionary.

No, he's a subject matter expert.

Even a street fight is kinda sorta not assault if you have consented to it. Here you can still be done for affray though if you are two gimps on the street fighting.

Which is relevant because…?

Look, you're hung up on a single context definition, without grasping that what is meant by self defence training takes into account the legal definition, but is not the same thing at all.

And yeah the distinctions get misused by people quite a bit.

Yes, we're seeing that…

Here we go camels. Makes it easy to remember.




The defences to assault are

CAMELS Consent, amicable contest, misadventure or accident, execution of law, lawful correction or chastisement, self defence



CAMELS - Consent is
A person freely consents (you can not consent to serious injury)



CAMELS - amicable contest is
Generally associated with sports



CAMELS - Misadventure or accident
Pure accident



CAMELS - execution of law
police action



CAMELS - lawful correction or chastisement
smacking



CAMELS - self defence
Only if they feel threatened and only until the threat is over

Assault Flashcards | Quizlet

One more time, this only applies to a legal definition, and, while certainly part of the understanding and basis for any reasonable self defence system, it's hardly the entirety of the concept, and is not the definition of self defence training. That's where you're still completely off base.

Okay, now that that's done...

Thanks for the feedback. One question for you... Which on the list would you toss out?

I'm quite often described as somewhat of a purist, particularly when it comes to Japanese arts… and anything that shows such an overt lack of understanding, or (more often) an overt co-opting of the image of something they have no business being associated with, I'm not going to be overly generous towards… again, I'd direct you to my comments in your "Kindai Ryu" thread… 'cause it's that one…

And my signature "protected by shield", I carry a smith & wesson shield for my edc gun, that's where I got that. Thanks again!

Okay.

 

[drop bear]

Ok. So more multiquote mayhem.

No, it isn't. Not even in the single definition you present, actually

When you just say stuff and expect people to just accept it. Makes you really hard to converse with.

Defence against assult. Or fighting.

Pretty simple.

Well, that's a legal definition… which is actually different from a contextually based training paradigm definition (one is after the event, one is before… which changes things)… and is only saying that that particular definition states "especially through the use of physical force", not "explicitly" or "exclusively"… so… you know… reading and all…

Ok. But that is your made up definition. When you say contextually based training. That is your training yeah?

So when you are suggesting that someone does not understand self defence. You mean they don't understand the Chris parker version of it. Not any sort of universal version.

Of course nobody understands that.

No, it's the heart of a legally applied definition within court cases etc… so, no.

It is the only definitive version. You either have your own version and then have to accept another version is as legitimate or go to the defined version.

We've covered this again and again, but no, that is not the definition of proof. Proof is evidence presented to support and validate a claim, and can be anything from anecdotal, to expert testimony, to expressions of previously validated principles, to thought experiments, to reasoned arguments, to witnessed accounts, to secondary sourced evidence, to corroborating evidence, to, well, about another dozen or two forms that you consistently ignore at best, and remain wilfully ignorant of at worst, due to your inability to see anything that you don't already think.

Again no. You have taken this as to mean you are some self affirming source.

So you say it. You say you are an expert so therefore an expert has validated what you said. Thefore merely by saying something you have provided proof.

(it is a bit nuts dude)

Please. The day you show anything beyond a base level, superficial grip on a single aspect I'll start listening to comments you make about what you think my understanding is.

Unlikely you are your own proof. You dont need external justification.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, with the double talk of "it doesn't matter if they don't train in grab release, they still use grab releases" (?), but maybe, just maybe, you could try answering my question before you get into your non-sequiteurs again?

The question was, were you under the impression that "fancy grip releases" are what is relied upon in "self defence training", as that is the implication in your post.

It wasn't the implication of my post. I did not imply anything. I said outright that a method not trained for a specific purpose can be better at that purpose than one that is.

And as self defence training is a great big fuzzy concept the answer is yes. No. Sometimes.
(exept in the chris parker definition. And god knows what that entails)

Technically sound is important, tactically sound is more important (but both are necessary)… and, as far as evidence, it really doesn't matter if you accept it or not, evidence is more than you seem to want to recognise. Additionally, it might be important to realise that the only person bringing up "tales of grandeur" as any form of evidence is you, you understand… mainly due to your lack of ability to recognise the vast majority of the forms that evidence can take…

Ok and this is back to you being your own proof. Otherwise as technically sound and tactically sound are fuzzy concepts. Yes. No. Sometimes.

"And you shall know them by the company they keep"…

In other words, when the subject matter experts all tend to agree with my take on things, when I use said subject matter experts to check against my own understanding, and find it matching, when my education has been in line with said subject matter experts, then it's important as a form of corroborating evidence as to what is actually genuine and correct… and, when those same persons do not agree with someone else, and the only people who do agree tend to have a similarly limited grasp, it also shows the understanding on that side.

You do get what corroborating evidence is, yeah?

I thought corroborating evidence would have to exist though. I mean there is mention of your super team of experts but they haven't exactly surfaced.

Are you your own peer group as well as being your own source here?

Firstly, you don't understand the fixation on the concepts of self defence? On a martial arts forum? Seriously?

Secondly, no, self defence is part of the legal concepts of use of force (and vice versa), but that is only in application to the usage of the term as a legal definition, and not what is meant when talking about training, teaching, and practicing self defence methods (part of it, yeah, but that's not the context and definition here).

Yeah. You are welcome to come up with your own version of self defence as am i.

It is when you try to make your version the version that you come unstuck.

(is that fundementalism? Maybe that is the sticking point of the whole issue)

But because your friends agree with you does not make you right. That is silly.

You're looking at things backwards here.

What doesn't cover that? The legal definitions of self defence as applied to a use of force application? Or self defence training methods and systems? Do you really think it's the latter? That no self defence system deals with things such as "avoiding conflict" in the first place…?

They do. As do non self defence systems. It is not defined in that manner.

Er… you do know that we are pretty fine with what is or isn't self defence… it's when false ideas, and limited understandings try to insist on their own views being the correct ones… especially when the people insisting on those views also profess to not be overly interested in the topic themselves, or have it as part of their training paradigm…

False gods. I mean ideas. Ok. I see where you are heading.

What's your point? There's lots of things that are related to one area, but are different things… I mean… basketball is a ball game, but it's not football… which is where the issue comes up with you having things backwards earlier…

No, he's a subject matter expert.

He doesn't have to be a dictionary to be a subject matter expert. He doesn't even need to have the right terminology.

One more time, this only applies to a legal definition, and, while certainly part of the understanding and basis for any reasonable self defence system, it's hardly the entirety of the concept, and is not the definition of self defence training. That's where you're still completely off base.

Okay, now that that's done...

 

[Tired_Yeti]

Any martial art will help you with self defence anythings better than nothing that's how I always see it

Personally, I disagree a bit. Only because a false sense of security in some inadequate fighting skills is probably not better than simply running away scared. Trying to fight and getting killed is not better than realizing you don't know how to fight and just running away like a frightened gazelle.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk

 

[Tez3]

just running away like a frightened gazelle.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's good self defence.

 

[Chris Parker]

You really have an aversion to listening, don't you?

Ok. So more multiquote mayhem.

Not that I think it'll do much good, but sure…

When you just say stuff and expect people to just accept it. Makes you really hard to converse with.

Are you completely unable to follow an argument? I mean… not only do I point out that your definition isn't accurate (or, in your words, "in pretty much every definition of the term"), I then go on to demonstrate that your own example doesn't fit… how is that me just expecting people to accept it? I mean, I backed up my comment straight away…

Defence against assult. Or fighting.

Pretty simple.

Again, you're talking about a legal definition of self defence as an applied action and legal justification/claim. That's not what is meant when talking about training for self defence. And you seem unable to listen when you're informed of that, no matter how many times we try.

I mean, this line of conversation started when you said that "(training specifically) geared up for self defence (was) a misconception"… the concept of self defence being discussed is the training paradigm, not the application in the act. That's the concept you were addressing, and that you've consistently shown a lack of ability to grasp.

Ok. But that is your made up definition. When you say contextually based training. That is your training yeah?

My "made-up definition"?!? Dude, what exactly are you smoking? No, my definition of self defence (in the context of teaching and training the concept) is pretty much the same as anyone else's who actually knows about the topic. That includes people I would consider subject matter experts, such as Rory Miller, Geoff Thompson, Deane Lawler, Richard Dmitri, Dave Grossman and more, as well as (on this forum alone) JKS, Tony Dismukes, paul_d, marques, Brian R Van Cis, and more. Are we subject matter experts? That's up to others to decide for themselves… but we are certainly a hell of a lot more informed on this subject than you seem to be.

And no, it's not just my training… it's the same type of training in every self-defence oriented system around. It's the same methodology followed by those subject matter experts I mentioned, as well as many, many others.

So when you are suggesting that someone does not understand self defence. You mean they don't understand the Chris parker version of it. Not any sort of universal version.

No, I am saying that they don't understand the concepts involved, the training practices, the actual aims, the parameters, and so on, based upon the fact that they continually argue against it and demonstrate their ignorance time and time again.

Of course nobody understands that.

Well, maybe if you listened a bit more…

It is the only definitive version. You either have your own version and then have to accept another version is as legitimate or go to the defined version.

I'm going to try once more… the definition you gave is a legal definition. The definition that we are discussing on the forums is less about the act, and more about the training paradigm and concept. That's where the definitions split.

To act in self defence is one thing… but training for self defence is a different application of the concept again. And when you're asking for "proof" of "self defence" in what is taught, that's the context you're entering into… so your definition is out of place.

Again no. You have taken this as to mean you are some self affirming source.

So you say it. You say you are an expert so therefore an expert has validated what you said. Thefore merely by saying something you have provided proof.

(it is a bit nuts dude)

Garbage. What I'm saying is that you are so blinkered, so poorly educated in the very concept of what does and does not constitute evidence or proof that you are unable to identify evidence when it's planted in front of your nose.

Unlikely you are your own proof. You dont need external justification.

Er, what? Are you saying that you don't need to provide external proof to me that you know what you're talking about, or that I don't need external proof because I am my own evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, or… huh?

You know that lack of logical structure I was talking about in the other thread? Yeah… that…

It wasn't the implication of my post. I did not imply anything. I said outright that a method not trained for a specific purpose can be better at that purpose than one that is.

You can't even follow your own posts, can you?

You spoke about using a punch to get someone to release their grip… then went on to say talk about using it instead of "a specific grab release which may not work very well at all"… that's about a clear-cut an example of implying that a "self defence system" (which is what was being discussed) would rely on some kind of special technique that you feel is going to be ineffective just as a result of it being a self defence system… and now you're saying you weren't implying anything at all?

Dude, you invented a situation, invented a response, and decided that the invented response (trained) was not effective, based on nothing but your own imagination of the entire event…

And as self defence training is a great big fuzzy concept the answer is yes. No. Sometimes.
(exept in the chris parker definition. And god knows what that entails)

I have no idea what the hell you're on about. Self defence training is not a "great big fuzzy concept". You know how I can tell? Because, frankly, everyone else who knows what they're talking about can identify it pretty easily. The only ones who can't don't have an alternative, by the way, other than "sports work because they work in competition"… okay, but that's not what's being discussed… and is really besides the point.

Ok and this is back to you being your own proof. Otherwise as technically sound and tactically sound are fuzzy concepts. Yes. No. Sometimes.

None of that, son, none of it was in any way me being my own proof (which is, again, a concept you've remained wilfully ignorant of as well… it's not a matter of being your own proof, it's a matter of being your own source… but explaining that to you is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dog, it seems). But no, tactically sound and technically sound are not "fuzzy concepts" either… they aren't immutable, sure, and there is a lot of variation that can be found, as well as much of it being situationally particular, but that's it.

I thought corroborating evidence would have to exist though. I mean there is mention of your super team of experts but they haven't exactly surfaced.

Read a damn book. The corroborating evidence is absolutely there… I mean, it's been referenced a number of times in this thread alone… but it seems (again) that any form of evidence other than a sporting contest is simply not one you can get your head around.

Are you your own peer group as well as being your own source here?

You're kidding, right? No one can be this unable to follow what's being said… I mean, this is only two pages long, can you really need to go back and re-read it all again?

Yeah. You are welcome to come up with your own version of self defence as am i.

What on earth is that in reference to?

It is when you try to make your version the version that you come unstuck.

(is that fundementalism? Maybe that is the sticking point of the whole issue)

But because your friends agree with you does not make you right. That is silly.

No, mate, it's how you can tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.

They do. As do non self defence systems. It is not defined in that manner.

What? You talk about aspects of personal safety, including avoiding fights in the first place as not being, saying that "none of that covers (these ideas)"… I asked what doesn't cover those ideas, thinking you meant the concept/definition of self defence as you presented it, and went on to point out that self defence oriented systems do cover such things… asking if you thought they didn't… and you respond with "they do. As do non self defence systems". Honestly, none of this makes any sense as there is no context for what you're saying… I mean… what is not defined in "that manner"? What manner?

What are you talking about?

False gods. I mean ideas. Ok. I see where you are heading.

You do get that I was talking about you, yeah?

He doesn't have to be a dictionary to be a subject matter expert. He doesn't even need to have the right terminology.

What?

Dude. Make sense. Please.

 

[Tgace]

Multi Quote Mayhem....lol!

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

You really have an aversion to listening, don't you?



Not that I think it'll do much good, but sure…



Are you completely unable to follow an argument? I mean… not only do I point out that your definition isn't accurate (or, in your words, "in pretty much every definition of the term"), I then go on to demonstrate that your own example doesn't fit… how is that me just expecting people to accept it? I mean, I backed up my comment straight away…



Again, you're talking about a legal definition of self defence as an applied action and legal justification/claim. That's not what is meant when talking about training for self defence. And you seem unable to listen when you're informed of that, no matter how many times we try.

I mean, this line of conversation started when you said that "(training specifically) geared up for self defence (was) a misconception"… the concept of self defence being discussed is the training paradigm, not the application in the act. That's the concept you were addressing, and that you've consistently shown a lack of ability to grasp.



My "made-up definition"?!? Dude, what exactly are you smoking? No, my definition of self defence (in the context of teaching and training the concept) is pretty much the same as anyone else's who actually knows about the topic. That includes people I would consider subject matter experts, such as Rory Miller, Geoff Thompson, Deane Lawler, Richard Dmitri, Dave Grossman and more, as well as (on this forum alone) JKS, Tony Dismukes, paul_d, marques, Brian R Van Cis, and more. Are we subject matter experts? That's up to others to decide for themselves… but we are certainly a hell of a lot more informed on this subject than you seem to be.

And no, it's not just my training… it's the same type of training in every self-defence oriented system around. It's the same methodology followed by those subject matter experts I mentioned, as well as many, many others.



No, I am saying that they don't understand the concepts involved, the training practices, the actual aims, the parameters, and so on, based upon the fact that they continually argue against it and demonstrate their ignorance time and time again.



Well, maybe if you listened a bit more…



I'm going to try once more… the definition you gave is a legal definition. The definition that we are discussing on the forums is less about the act, and more about the training paradigm and concept. That's where the definitions split.

To act in self defence is one thing… but training for self defence is a different application of the concept again. And when you're asking for "proof" of "self defence" in what is taught, that's the context you're entering into… so your definition is out of place.



Garbage. What I'm saying is that you are so blinkered, so poorly educated in the very concept of what does and does not constitute evidence or proof that you are unable to identify evidence when it's planted in front of your nose.



Er, what? Are you saying that you don't need to provide external proof to me that you know what you're talking about, or that I don't need external proof because I am my own evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, or… huh?

You know that lack of logical structure I was talking about in the other thread? Yeah… that…



You can't even follow your own posts, can you?

You spoke about using a punch to get someone to release their grip… then went on to say talk about using it instead of "a specific grab release which may not work very well at all"… that's about a clear-cut an example of implying that a "self defence system" (which is what was being discussed) would rely on some kind of special technique that you feel is going to be ineffective just as a result of it being a self defence system… and now you're saying you weren't implying anything at all?

Dude, you invented a situation, invented a response, and decided that the invented response (trained) was not effective, based on nothing but your own imagination of the entire event…



I have no idea what the hell you're on about. Self defence training is not a "great big fuzzy concept". You know how I can tell? Because, frankly, everyone else who knows what they're talking about can identify it pretty easily. The only ones who can't don't have an alternative, by the way, other than "sports work because they work in competition"… okay, but that's not what's being discussed… and is really besides the point.



None of that, son, none of it was in any way me being my own proof (which is, again, a concept you've remained wilfully ignorant of as well… it's not a matter of being your own proof, it's a matter of being your own source… but explaining that to you is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dog, it seems). But no, tactically sound and technically sound are not "fuzzy concepts" either… they aren't immutable, sure, and there is a lot of variation that can be found, as well as much of it being situationally particular, but that's it.



Read a damn book. The corroborating evidence is absolutely there… I mean, it's been referenced a number of times in this thread alone… but it seems (again) that any form of evidence other than a sporting contest is simply not one you can get your head around.



You're kidding, right? No one can be this unable to follow what's being said… I mean, this is only two pages long, can you really need to go back and re-read it all again?



What on earth is that in reference to?



No, mate, it's how you can tell who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't.



What? You talk about aspects of personal safety, including avoiding fights in the first place as not being, saying that "none of that covers (these ideas)"… I asked what doesn't cover those ideas, thinking you meant the concept/definition of self defence as you presented it, and went on to point out that self defence oriented systems do cover such things… asking if you thought they didn't… and you respond with "they do. As do non self defence systems". Honestly, none of this makes any sense as there is no context for what you're saying… I mean… what is not defined in "that manner"? What manner?

What are you talking about?



You do get that I was talking about you, yeah?



What?

Dude. Make sense. Please.

So you don't understand almost half of what I am trying to say and are still trying Io say am the one that is limited.

Sorry. The concepts you raise get more complicated and less defined the closer you look at them. So if you want to have a massive broken down conversation about every aspect of something you have to think more laterally about the subject.

I can't give you dogmatic rules to follow just conflicting ideas.

 

[jks9199]

Gentlemen,
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what the last page or two has to do with "opinions about Russian Systema." Perhaps we can bring things back on track, and take the other stuff to a more relevant thread?