Pressure testing self-defence techniques

[Flatlander]

Yeah, we do chi sao at a higher level.

I think that the flaw in this entire discussion is the idea of "techniques". If anybody is suggesting that a specific technique will work in self defense, they're deluded. It won't, and you'll get creamed while you're thinking about it.

Martial arts is about attribute development. People don't fight with techniques, people fight with attributes. People don't plan to use a technique, people let their bodies react according to how they've trained themselves to react to various physical stimuli. Anybody doing otherwise is probably going to get beaten down by an aggressive attacker.

So, when we talk about pressure testing self defense techniques, we're looking at things in a flawed fashion. It's impossible to really test them - all we can test is the development of our attributes, reflexes, awareness, and the form of our movement - i.e. our balance, the structure and power of our strikes, our mobility, targetting, sensitivity, etc.

Again, if you think that techniques are the core of martial arts, you don't understand the arts at all. Techniques are a finger pointing to the moon. Look at the moon, not the finger.

 

[Rich Parsons]

. . . Except perhaps, I don't think MMA comps have a significantly higher level of contact than Muay Thai or Boxing comps.

Pesonally for self-defense, I would put Muay Thai and Box over MMA comps because they are on their feet and able to run away.

I have no disrespect for MMA comps. I enjoy watching them and it takes a great athlete. Those guys are tough, no question about it. But I am talking about those taht are the tops and on TV and competing and winning the regionals and doing well nationally.

That is why I asked my questions, becuase I am obviously missing something?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Chi sao and forms or kata are among those topics frequently misunderstood and incorrectly dismissed as methodologies for developing certain attributes or techniques. They aren't just misunderstood by people with little or no experience with them, either -- they're frequently misunderstood by practitioners of the arts teaching them.

 

[MSUTKD]

How long have you practiced kata,forms, xiang?

ron

 

[Xue Sheng]

So basically, without the data to back up the chart it is fairly meaningless and becomes a matter of personal preferrence as to where something belongs on that chart.

I would place Chi Sau higher, I would place some Aikido higher, and I would place Judo much lower, it is all; at this point a matter of preferrence and the chart is meaningless, unless more information is given about how it was constructed.

I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I need more information before I support it or deny its accuracy

 

[bydand]

When I first started reading this thread I thought that the chart was fairly subjective, and that it would depend on someones views of the particular art they were placing on it. For it to be usefull to any degree the person placing each art on it would have to be VERY familar with each art. By familer I mean a lot more in depth than either a few classes (less that a couple of years) or what they have witnessed. I mean if I were to place the arts on the chart; Xue Sheng, Flying Crane, Bob Hubbard, (names I remember, the only reason I used them) and anybody else on this forum would probably laugh themselves silly and comment how little I understand, and vice-versa. Way too many variables to place the MA's, or even competitions on something like this. Look at the difference between schools and teachers doing the "same" art in a 25 mile radius from where you are right now.

My 2 cents only, take it for what it is worth - 2 cents IMHO

 

[Adept]

Chi sao can be done gently, or fiercely with high contact, and you can certainly get beaten up black and blue doing it.

So praticing Chi-sao will leave you looking like you've just done ten rounds with Mike Tyson? I don't think so.

It can include elbows, knees, and kicks as well as hand strikes and trapping. And these strikes can certainly be landed. It depends on the level to which the players wish to take it.

If you're taking it to this level, the exercise can no longer really be defined as Chi-sao. It becomes a form of sparring, instead.

Pesonally for self-defense, I would put Muay Thai and Box over MMA comps because they are on their feet and able to run away.

Thats one of the reasons why it's near impossible to draw any conclusions from the chart. MMA deserves it's spot. It's a similar level of contact to boxing, and the participants are not restricted as much as in either Muay Thai or Boxing. Thats all the chart measures, level of contact and limitations on techniques.

That is why I asked my questions, becuase I am obviously missing something?

I think everyone, the opening poster included, is simply incorrect in making assumptions based on this chart. I'm not going to argue with where the various activities have been placed on it, but I will argue what an activities place on the chart really means.

 

[Flying Crane]

So praticing Chi-sao will leave you looking like you've just done ten rounds with Mike Tyson? I don't think so.

If you're taking it to this level, the exercise can no longer really be defined as Chi-sao. It becomes a form of sparring, instead.

Sorry dude, you just do not know what you are talking about.

 

[Flying Crane]

So praticing Chi-sao will leave you looking like you've just done ten rounds with Mike Tyson? I don't think so.

The only thing that leaves you looking like you've gone ten rounds with Mike Tyson is: Going ten rounds with Mike Tyson. That is called Fighting, not Training. While there is nothing wrong with getting roughed-up in your training, there is something wrong with getting beaten up in your training. It is irresponsible and myopic to train this way. Your body cannot sustain that on a regular basis for long. You will inevitably get injuries that will end your martial career.

Training is not combat. Training can only go so far in approximating and preparing you for combat. Nothing recreates combat except combat itself. Combat is dangerous and if done often enough will guarantee debilitating injuries. Real combat will always be a step up from any kind of responsible training. You are foolish if you think otherwise.

 

[Adept]

That is called Fighting, not Training.

Which would be why the activity known as boxing (which, funnily enough, incorporates actual fights) is rated much higher than chi-sao in terms of contact.

Training is not combat. Training can only go so far in approximating and preparing you for combat. Nothing recreates combat except combat itself. Combat is dangerous and if done often enough will guarantee debilitating injuries. Real combat will always be a step up from any kind of responsible training. You are foolish if you think otherwise.

Relevance? All I said was that boxing contains more 'contact' than chi-sao.

Sorry dude, you just do not know what you are talking about.

You are partaking of an activity where you, in a freestyle manner, throw kicks, elbows, knees, punches, and utilise trapping as well as some grappling techniques. You can call it chi-sao if you want, but in any other school it's called sparring.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Thats one of the reasons why it's near impossible to draw any conclusions from the chart. MMA deserves it's spot. It's a similar level of contact to boxing, and the participants are not restricted as much as in either Muay Thai or Boxing. Thats all the chart measures, level of contact and limitations on techniques.

Level of Contact?

Level of Contact.

It measures the level of contact? This has me really confused. For if I applied my self-defense, and walked across a street, or left a building, or gave someone my wallet, there is no contact. No Contact.

Or is this a level of contact after my first few levels of self-defense have failed and contact is a must? If so then why is kata in there at all? I thought this was training methods that were being rated, and could be used as common sense. While I agree that contct is good, and random is great, I am still very confused by this chart.

Was it published some place in a book? Maybe if I read the chapters before and after I could get the frame of reference.

 

[shesulsa]

I noticed that too, thanks, Rich. Not all self-defense requires contact and the intersection contact and limits is a very small part of what defense is all about.

 

[Flying Crane]

Which would be why the activity known as boxing (which, funnily enough, incorporates actual fights) is rated much higher than chi-sao in terms of contact.

Relevance? All I said was that boxing contains more 'contact' than chi-sao.

You are partaking of an activity where you, in a freestyle manner, throw kicks, elbows, knees, punches, and utilise trapping as well as some grappling techniques. You can call it chi-sao if you want, but in any other school it's called sparring.

OK, you are right, I would say that boxing has more contact than Chi Sau, but a boxer does not train by going ten rounds with Mike Tyson. A boxer trains on the heavy bag, with focus mits, skipping rope, running, speed bag, contact sparring, and probably other methods that I am not aware of. The ten rounds with another boxer is the culmination of his training for one specific event. This preparation may take months. If he trained every day with ten rounds of full contact boxing with a high caliber boxer, his body would not last long.

Chi sau is not freestyle. It can approach freestyle if the players wish to take it to that level but it is conducted within certain parameters that are flexible enough to change based on the desires of the players. I may be mistaken but I get the impression you do not have experience with chi sau. If you get the opportunity to witness and experience it with some talented individuals I think you will understand better what I am saying.

 

[Adept]

Level of Contact?

Level of Contact.

It measures the level of contact? This has me really confused. For if I applied my self-defense, and walked across a street, or left a building, or gave someone my wallet, there is no contact. No Contact.

Level of contact is probably not the best wording, in reflection. It's more a reflection of how badly bruised or injured you may be, or are likely to be after partaking of that activity.

I think the opening poster created the chart himself. It looks neat, but I don't think it really serves much of a purpose at all.

 

[kickcatcher]

There's a lot of misreading of the chart going on. It lists ACTIVITIES not arts. The Activities are placed approximately using the two axis.

Chi Sao for example is placed based on the typical chi sao training found in Wing Chun clubs. If you do Chi Sao FULL contact then by all means move it up the Contact level axis. The more 'free' you do it, the further along the Bandwidth axis you can move it also, although you probably cannot move it very far before it stops being what is commonly termed "chi sau".

However, self-honesty is important - if you don't do your Chi Sau to the same contact level as say boxing matches, don't move it up to that level because it could - plot it as it applies to your training.

MMA competition is placed where it is because it is "full" contact with thin gloves and allows a broader bandwidth of attacks (i.e. that you are likely to face) than the other ACTIVITIES plotted - but the exact placement would depend on the exact rules etc - and it is still 1:1 and unarmed, so it will never be as far to the right as the NOTIONAL "real" fight.

A lot of the points being made would be cleared up if people read the thread more carefully.

 

[Xue Sheng]

kickcatcher

I suppose I should have asked this question prior to my last post.

What data did you use to produce this chart and how was that data collected?

Also what controls were used?

Xue

kickcatcher

I suppose I should have asked this question prior to my last post.

What data did you use to produce this chart and how was that data collected?

Also what controls were used?

I have read the post throughly (a couple of times), but unless there is data to back it up it is not a valid chart of anything and it is simply a matter of opinion.

I am trying to understand the study, if you will, that produced the chart.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The chart, while very nicely rendered, is not intellectually supportable. What quantitative data could be used to create it? I don't believe there is such data. The chart attempts to quantify factors that are entirely subjective and imposes on the question the author's prejudices in judging other systems and methodologies. It is an attempt to render in "official" presentation the author's own preferences.

There's nothing wrong with graphically representing your preferences, but you cannot then present them as objective evaluations. Couching them in some sort of quasi-mathematical context only exacerbates this misrepresentation.

 

[Brother John]

The graph is pretty, but without solid data to back the placement of each point, is just a collection of dots.

I lean towards the "collection of dots" vote myself.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

The chart, while very nicely rendered, is not intellectually supportable. It attempts to quantify factors that are entirely subjective and imposes on the question the author's prejudices in judging other systems and methodologies. It is an attempt to render in "official" presentation the author's own preferences.

Dang it all Phil!!!
I was going to go into one of my LONG repliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiies again, when you come along and put it all so well. ...and without even an ounce of being snide....
where's the fun in THAT???



Your Brother
John

 

[kickcatcher]

Was my post deleted or am I going mad?