Some thoughts about discussing the martial arts

[Steve]

Steve credibility comes from the value and integrity of your posts, not necessarily from expertise. For example there are several obviously young posters on MT with limited MA experience making great contributions to the forum. Sometimes they might get it a bit wrong, someone points out what that is, they take that on board and have benefitted from the experience.

As to whether Hanzou has expertise or not, I really don't know and I don't really care. What he says that seems to be credible loses credibility when he turns on some other style or person. That makes me ask, does he really know what he is talking about or is he just taking another cheap shot? I am not in any position to question his opinion on BJJ and I haven't. That is for others with more knowledge than me.

Is a BJJ purple belt an expert? Who knows? He might be a competent grappler but that doesn't mean a lot when it comes to expert opinion. Is a person with the same time in training in another style an expert? Obviously not if what has been posted is to be believed.

Expertise is relative.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[ballen0351]

Not talking about Hanzou, ballen. I only mentioned that he and I are (I think) the same rank. I was thinking more along the lines of drop bear's points on appeals to authority.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I wasnt speaking of him either in that portion of my post. But I have yet to see two similarly experienced people in the same topic disagreeing as strongly as some of these have. When you have 2 authorities giving different opinions the we are left to decide which side make more sense to us much like a jury would.

 

[Tez3]

I said that Wado Ryu is a combo of Karate and jujutsu. According to Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadō-ryū

The ancestor styles of Wado Ryu are Shindō Yōshin-ryū and Shotokan. Wouldn't that indicate that that is in their style?

Disingenuous. The discussion was about what was originally in karate ie Shotokan and the fact that Ohtsuka Sensei put back in what was taken out/diminished in, to him, modern karate.

 

[Steve]

I wasnt speaking of him either in that portion of my post. But I have yet to see two similarly experienced people in the same topic disagreeing as strongly as some of these have. When you have 2 authorities giving different opinions the we are left to decide which side make more sense to us much like a jury would.

I completely understand. We have an advantage, though, in that as a "jury" we are not bound to choose. In other words, we don't have to endorse one opinion over another. I look at Chris Parker's assertions regarding RBSD, and I then look at Drop Bear's, and I have the advantage of being able to say, "Don't know who is more "right" but they both make sense."
granted, It's only natural for people to lean in favor of one opinion over another. People will evaluate the statements of alleged experts and decide which one sounds... more correct.

That said, my opinion is that often, here on an informal discussion board, this is often little more than an emotional reaction. I believe in most cases, it has more to do with personality and homogeneous thought than any objective evaluation. Personality, in that I think people will tend to agree with those who most often agree with them. If I agree with you, you will likely agree with me, regardless of my position. It's a loyalty thing. If I have your back and support you in a thread, you will view me favorably and tend to give me the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how wacky my assertion.

Homogenous though in that we all come to the table with opinions, and will tend to agree with those people who already share our opinions. So, we will tend to endorse an "expert" who best fits what we want to hear, even when they are challenged by another "expert" who is providing a more reasonable, rational and objectively supportable position.

 

[ballen0351]

I completely understand. We have an advantage, though, in that as a "jury" we are not bound to choose. In other words, we don't have to endorse one opinion over another. I look at Chris Parker's assertions regarding RBSD, and I then look at Drop Bear's, and I have the advantage of being able to say, "Don't know who is more "right" but they both make sense."
granted, It's only natural for people to lean in favor of one opinion over another. People will evaluate the statements of alleged experts and decide which one sounds... more correct.

That said, my opinion is that often, here on an informal discussion board, this is often little more than an emotional reaction. I believe in most cases, it has more to do with personality and homogeneous thought than any objective evaluation. Personality, in that I think people will tend to agree with those who most often agree with them. If I agree with you, you will likely agree with me, regardless of my position.

Homogenous though in that we all come to the table with opinions, and will tend to agree with those people who already share our opinions. So, we will tend to endorse an "expert" who best fits what we want to hear, even when they are challenged by another "expert" who is providing a more reasonable, rational and objectively supportable position.

I dont know about that at lest not for me Ill agree with people I dont generally get along with if what they are saying makes sense. You and I have had heated disagreement but when you agree with me your right...............

 

[cloud dancing]

On another forum someone attacked me with "You just BELIEVE-You see there's no such thing as KNOWLEDGE./You need to stop saying that YOU KNOW.I simply said BIGOT /IDIOT and left him to his own world.When you KNOW, fact your ability to break is
4- 1x 4's or 4- 2x 4's /and someone says Naww you just BELIEVE you can do that.tis simple action of breaking and showing see=not BELIEF is called KNOWLEDGE.WHAT AMAZES ME is after 42 years practising and teaching tai chi/ introduction to understanding raja yoga- someone who has zippity do dah for KNOWLEDGE says well gee I like how I'm doing it now.I allow him his stupidity but that person's energy/ I try like Hell to stay away from.Was one ?insane?brain damaged tai chi person.Simply 2 minutes near him and took me about 45 minutes to rid myself of his weird weird energy.so when differing often I'll simply stay away from any any interactions with that person.ie Sober 11 years now and avoid all contact with AA cause I like being happy and not ANGRY.I like what my raja yoga master Prem Rawat said decades ago.
"If I waste my time with arrogant people who simply want to argue then I've wasted time when I could have been teaching those who are actually interested in KNOWING, in learning."
So much of argument is arrogance.Ahunk kharr in hindi/ ego. Species has many who simply want to feel some worthless superficial superiority to others.so they debate/ argue no you only BELIEVE you can brrrr-ache/break 4 --2x4's.see there is no such thing as KNOWLEDGE. anyways tis good to learn and to ahve some inspiration {latin: in-spire= to breathe in } as I do get my lazy, depressed days and need to breathe in some inspiration to keep training. keep practising what I KNOW,what I have learned correctly.What amazes me is how some techniques over time become transformed into new techniques;while others over decades stay {unchanged INSIDE} BUT OUTSIDE changed/ adjusted to my age and different aches and pains.Sadness over opportunities wasted,but old saying " On two crosses left and to right of Jesu were Yesterday and Tomorrow -those two will crucify anyone."
.Even a small candle, WHEN LIT, will cause the darkness to leave.Unlit candle can not shine nor can it light other candles.

 

[elder999]

[

On another forum someone attacked me with "You just BELIEVE-You see there's no such thing as KNOWLEDGE./You need to stop saying that YOU KNOW.I simply said BIGOT /IDIOT and left him to his own world.When you KNOW, fact your ability to break is
4- 1x 4's or 4- 2x 4's /and someone says Naww you just BELIEVE you can do that.tis simple action of breaking and showing see=not BELIEF is called KNOWLEDGE.WHAT AMAZES ME is after 42 years practising and teaching tai chi/ introduction to understanding raja yoga- someone who has zippity do dah for KNOWLEDGE says well gee I like how I'm doing it now.I allow him his stupidity but that person's energy/ I try like Hell to stay away from.Was one ?insane?brain damaged tai chi person.Simply 2 minutes near him and took me about 45 minutes to rid myself of his weird weird energy.so when differing often I'll simply stay away from any any interactions with that person.ie Sober 11 years now and avoid all contact with AA cause I like being happy and not ANGRY.I like what my raja yoga master Prem Rawat said decades ago.
"If I waste my time with arrogant people who simply want to argue then I've wasted time when I could have been teaching those who are actually interested in KNOWING, in learning."
So much of argument is arrogance.Ahunk kharr in hindi/ ego. Species has many who simply want to feel some worthless superficial superiority to others.so they debate/ argue no you only BELIEVE you can brrrr-ache/break 4 --2x4's.see there is no such thing as KNOWLEDGE. anyways tis good to learn and to ahve some inspiration {latin: in-spire= to breathe in } as I do get my lazy, depressed days and need to breathe in some inspiration to keep training. keep practising what I KNOW,what I have learned correctly.What amazes me is how some techniques over time become transformed into new techniques;while others over decades stay {unchanged INSIDE} BUT OUTSIDE changed/ adjusted to my age and different aches and pains.Sadness over opportunities wasted,but old saying " On two crosses left and to right of Jesu were Yesterday and Tomorrow -those two will crucify anyone."
.Even a small candle, WHEN LIT, will cause the darkness to leave.Unlit candle can not shine nor can it light other candles.

 

[Danny T]

On another forum someone attacked me with "You just BELIEVE-You see there's no such thing as KNOWLEDGE./You need to stop saying that YOU KNOW.I simply said BIGOT /IDIOT and left him to his own world.When you KNOW, fact your ability to break is
4- 1x 4's or 4- 2x 4's /and someone says Naww you just BELIEVE you can do that.tis simple action of breaking and showing see=not BELIEF is called KNOWLEDGE.WHAT AMAZES ME is after 42 years practising and teaching tai chi/ introduction to understanding raja yoga- someone who has zippity do dah for KNOWLEDGE says well gee I like how I'm doing it now.I allow him his stupidity but that person's energy/ I try like Hell to stay away from.Was one ?insane?brain damaged tai chi person.Simply 2 minutes near him and took me about 45 minutes to rid myself of his weird weird energy.so when differing often I'll simply stay away from any any interactions with that person.ie Sober 11 years now and avoid all contact with AA cause I like being happy and not ANGRY.I like what my raja yoga master Prem Rawat said decades ago.
"If I waste my time with arrogant people who simply want to argue then I've wasted time when I could have been teaching those who are actually interested in KNOWING, in learning."
So much of argument is arrogance.Ahunk kharr in hindi/ ego. Species has many who simply want to feel some worthless superficial superiority to others.so they debate/ argue no you only BELIEVE you can brrrr-ache/break 4 --2x4's.see there is no such thing as KNOWLEDGE. anyways tis good to learn and to ahve some inspiration {latin: in-spire= to breathe in } as I do get my lazy, depressed days and need to breathe in some inspiration to keep training. keep practising what I KNOW,what I have learned correctly.What amazes me is how some techniques over time become transformed into new techniques;while others over decades stay {unchanged INSIDE} BUT OUTSIDE changed/ adjusted to my age and different aches and pains.Sadness over opportunities wasted,but old saying " On two crosses left and to right of Jesu were Yesterday and Tomorrow -those two will crucify anyone."
.Even a small candle, WHEN LIT, will cause the darkness to leave.Unlit candle can not shine nor can it light other candles.

One has to Want Knowledge and be receptive to what the knowledge is vs what wants the knowledge to be. When dealing with what is perceived as an arrogant, egotistical person be certain to take a view of yourself also. If the other is truly as you perceived then move on vs wasting time and energy debating useless matter for the argument only provides a worthless sense of superiority. Continue to research and educate yourself constantly refining your knowledge and skills. Help enlighten others but don’t smother your flame or burn yourself out over what others won’t see regardless if it is belief or knowledge. Keep the flame of knowledge bright, keep your energy strong. Help others when possible.

 

[K-man]

"If I waste my time with arrogant people who simply want to argue then I've wasted time when I could have been teaching those who are actually interested in KNOWING, in learning."

So much of argument is arrogance.Ahunk kharr in hindi/ ego. Species has many who simply want to feel some worthless superficial superiority to others.so they debate/ argue no you only BELIEVE you can brrrr-ache/break 4 --2x4's.see there is no such thing as KNOWLEDGE.

Mmm! I thought I understood a bit more of this but seems I was mistaken. The only bits that make sense are these. I think the first applies perfectly to the OP. The second applies to some posters if they are not careful as to how they put their thoughts forward.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay. Back now… let's see what we have here…

Well just look at Kman's post. In the other thread I was the most evil s.o.b. on MT for pointing out a lack of grappling in karate. Some of that came from Kman himself. Now in this thread pointing that out is not only not disparaging, but it's the truth. Awesome!

Okay, thanks for clarifying… so, in essence, you "disliked" my post, which was almost entirely about someone else, and responses to them, because, at the very end, I agreed with K-man's post about you? Lovely. But let's look at what you think was 'completely wrong from the outset'…

As for the videos of traditional stylists doing weird grappling things, if you go over to the Hapkido forum, we had a really good discussion about a Hapkido group doing a bad armbar and then proceeding to counter said bad armbar. A couple of posters tried to hop in that thread and derail it, but they were ignored and the great conversation continued. We had a similar (mostly) positive discussion in the Wing Chun forum about anti-grappling, though it got heated in some spots. So I disagree that posting those videos make me a "jerk", or that such vids troll the forum. On the contrary, I feel that they spark a great conversation.

I watched that thread… you started with a video chosen to highlight what you think is a lack, completely ignoring the art you were looking at itself, and choosing such a badly done version that it immediately came across that you were primarily starting the thread to, once more, put over the idea of BJJ being the superior art, as it's got the best ground work. The "good" discussion largely ignored your impetus, and the "derailing" was all an attempt to get you to clarify why you posted that video, and what your intentions were. There were a number of posts of yours there that I personally wanted to call you on, but didn't feel you'd understand what I was asking (such as when you claimed that they were doing their art "wrong"… how on earth would you know that? You might say the technique is ineffective, in your understanding, flawed, inefficient, or anything similar… but "wrong"? Nope, you wouldn't have the first notion of whether or not it was).

So no, they don't "spark" a great conversation… if anything it might be said that good conversation can come about in spite of your postings such things. You don't actually deserve credit for that… that's on the membership of the board.

Good discussion from posting random videos of people not performing well #1:

Help me out Hapkido folks... MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Again, let's look at that "good discussion" you prompted…

It started with you posting a video that you found questionable, and asking the "Hapkido peeps" to explain it… ignoring the fact that Hapkido has a very wide variety of "flavours" and iterations. Your next post (number 4 in the thread) was a couple of snide digs at the technique, with a sarcastic comment on the viability of the method shown. On the second page (after using someone's posting of a Stephen Kesting video to point out everything that you found wrong with the Hapkido video, despite both showing similar concepts, just at very differing levels of understanding and applicability), you basically admitted that this was all a way of pointing and laughing at someone (the instructor in the video, potentially Hapkido itself by extension, possibly even anyone not BJJ doing anything to do with ground work), by stating "Relax. This is just like a car accident and we've all slowed down to point and gawk at the accident scene."

Any good discussion did not come from such poisoned attitude in posting.

Good discussion from posting random videos of people not performing well #2:

Some more thoughts on anti grappling . MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Again, you started snide, and degenerated within your first two posts to posting something you think is below par, ignoring everything but the idea that BJJ is the best ever, by pointing out that the second clip is what you would normally put up, and what you think of when you talk about "anti-grappling", and that you "normally laugh at that, but that upsets some people here".

Again, any good conversation did not come from you.

I do believe that the only thing that happened in the previous thread is that you posted some vids of Wado Ryu guys doing grappling within the Bunkai, and me saying that Wado is a combination of Karate and Jujutsu, and then you and some other posters began making bizarre posts about drinking.

Please note again, that spawned from one post of me stating that Wado is a combo of Karate and Jujutsu.

Yes, and you completely failed to recognise what you were being told… or the larger list of other karate systems used to support the statements being made for a grappling methodology in karate systems.

I was talking about the Hapkido thread. If you read that thread you'll see quite a few derail attempts in an otherwise fruitful conversation.

The "derail attempts" weren't derailing attempts. They were attempts to get some clarification from you.

How ironic...

Personally, I find it rather sad that you feel that. I'm not surprised, of course.

Not the point. I was saying that the craziness began just from me saying that Wado is a combo of Karate and jujutsu in one post.

I also notice that you're not saying anything about the good/great discussions that spawned from posting random videos of people not performing well.

No, the "craziness" came from you not listening to the responses you were getting. And, as for Tez not saying anything about your "good discussions"… see above.

In your opinion.

Besides, the argument was that no good or great discussions could come from that source with or without my input. Clearly that isn't the case.

That was not the argument. The argument was that you were not the reason for good conversation, and neither were the videos you were posting. Not that good conversation didn't come from them… but that was more to the credit of the other posters than in anything you did.

yeah but you don't spar.

You don't do the listening thing much, do you? No, I don't spar… I consider it little more than a kids game, bluntly… largely ineffective compared to the methods I utilise… but that's besides the point. It's not like I don't have a sparring background, and an understanding of exactly what sparring is, and what it entails. I also haven't ridden a bike in years… but that doesn't mean I can't point out the differences between riding a bike and baking a cake.

and you cant accept that there may be conflict in your life.

Where the hell do you get these delusions from?!?! What basis on earth do you have to suggest that I can't accept there might be conflict in my life?!?! And what in Sam Hill does that have to do with you saying that conversation here is like sparring, and you go into it aiming to "smash people"?!?!?!

Dude, get a grip.

so it is probably not a concept you are going to understand.

You really don't have the first damn clue what I do or don't understand… but I'll make it simple for you. Assume I understand everything. Most of the time, you'll be right.

Lets look at this like a debate. An actual two team pre arranged meet up where people have trained and prepared to defend their ideas against a resisted opponent.

Do you know what debate actually is?

like sparring. See?

No. That's not like sparring.

not an echo chamber where we all just follow the leader.

Where are you pulling this from? Who's "following the leader" here? What are you talking about?!?!

we should be able to disagree. Nobody is such an expert that they cant face criticism.

We can disagree, yeah. And, here's the real kicker for you, you can be wrong. And that can be something that is not a matter of disagreement, but a matter of fact.

For the record, of course, I'm more than happy to face criticism… argument… debate. I welcome it. You haven't provided anything close.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

What does that have to do with anything here? I'm genuinely interested… do you think that that's what's happening?

and why i was resistant to just beat people over the head with my experience. It is effectively cheating in the context of argument.

Wow, you really are incredibly bad at this…

"Effectively cheating"?!?! Dude, no. It's the way you back up what you say.

But I have to say… "beat people over the head" with your experience?!?! You ain't that great, you know… and you don't have the tools you think you do.

an appeal to authority misused is a logical fallacy.

Did you actually read that? It's a logical fallacy when misused. Again, repeated for emphasis… when misused. Not in and of itself. In fact, appeal to authority is a very valid argumentative technique… it's the basis of the idea of expert testimony in court cases… hell, it's the basis of the idea of expert evidence in anything.

Where it gets sticky is when one expert tells another expert he doesn't know what he's talking about. While I know bjj, I would be reluctant to argue that I'm an expert on all things grappling. So, I wouldn't presume to speak about all of grappling without providing some context. We have people here who are comfortable speaking about all things martial arts, all things RBSD, all things everything, and who then tell other people, that they are not in fact experts, despite their extensive experience.

Hmm… this might be me being a little paranoid here, Steve, but it sounds an awful lot like you're describing me there… if you are, feel free to mention me by name… but, if you are, I would ask you to back up anything that contradicts, or denies my statements and observations. I talk about things I know about… and, after over 3 decades learning about as many different aspects, methodologies, approaches, and more, that covers quite a bit.

And, for the record, I haven't told any "expert" that they're not one…

Also, as a purple belt, Hanzou is as expert in bjj as I. If you guys consider me credible, he has as much authority as me, which is middling. Sure, I know more than most, but within bjj, I have a lot to learn.

No-one has questioned his BJJ knowledge, Steve. Nor yours…. or Tony's, or Drop Bears MMA understanding. It's everything else that both Hanzou and Drop Bear have tried to comment on, with little to no knowledge or understanding of that we've had these issues come up.

I said that Wado Ryu is a combo of Karate and jujutsu. According to Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadō-ryū

The ancestor styles of Wado Ryu are Shindō Yōshin-ryū and Shotokan. Wouldn't that indicate that that is in their style?

The ancestor schools of Takagi Yoshin Ryu are a couple of spear schools… but it's not a spear system, nor does it have spear in it, in the form of official techniques… an ancestor school for Katori Shinto Ryu was said to be Muso Jikiden Ryu Yawara… but it's not a Jujutsu system… Aikido was influenced by Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and Kukishin Ryu… but there's no Bojutsu, no Iai, no real sword (it's an expression of Aiki principles, rather than kenjutsu itself), no Naginata, no armoured component, no Shuriken, and more… so no, it wouldn't necessarily indicate anything of the kind.

Now, that said, yes, Wado Ryu is formulated from Ohtsuka's experience and training in both Shotokan (and other forms of karate, it must be said) and Shindo Yoshin Ryu… but the point was that Shindo Yoshin Ryu was not the sole source of any grappling within Wado Ryu… nor within any other karate systems.

I completely understand. We have an advantage, though, in that as a "jury" we are not bound to choose. In other words, we don't have to endorse one opinion over another. I look at Chris Parker's assertions regarding RBSD, and I then look at Drop Bear's, and I have the advantage of being able to say, "Don't know who is more "right" but they both make sense."
granted, It's only natural for people to lean in favor of one opinion over another. People will evaluate the statements of alleged experts and decide which one sounds... more correct.

The problem with this, Steve, is that we're not talking about opinion… we're talking about facts. And, frankly, when Drop Bear gives his examples of someone representing RBSD being either outright frauds and jokes who have no connection to the concept at all, and modern combatives systems that aren't RBSD, then no, he doesn't have the same credibility that I do. When you couple that with the fact that anyone else who has any knowledge of the subject have sided with me on my discussions of the topic, then you really don't need to know much about the subject to be able to judge who has the credibility in a discussion.

But, most importantly, when you have two opposing views of what something (factually) is, you can't say "well, you both sound like you might be right"… it's the same as saying you've never seen a calendar, and when I say that April is the fourth month, and comes before May, and someone else says that April is the last month of the year, both can sound plausible… but both aren't right. Peace-keeping just doesn't work in this instance… you can't have both be "right".

That said, my opinion is that often, here on an informal discussion board, this is often little more than an emotional reaction. I believe in most cases, it has more to do with personality and homogeneous thought than any objective evaluation. Personality, in that I think people will tend to agree with those who most often agree with them. If I agree with you, you will likely agree with me, regardless of my position. It's a loyalty thing. If I have your back and support you in a thread, you will view me favorably and tend to give me the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how wacky my assertion.

I'll be frank, and say that that's not a consideration for myself. I might alter the way I deal with someone, but I will just as quickly point out where a friend is wrong as anyone else. And I'll just as quickly accept someone as right when they are, regardless of my personal feelings about them.

Homogenous though in that we all come to the table with opinions, and will tend to agree with those people who already share our opinions. So, we will tend to endorse an "expert" who best fits what we want to hear, even when they are challenged by another "expert" who is providing a more reasonable, rational and objectively supportable position.

No. I endorse experts who know what they're talking about. That's what makes them experts.

 

[Steve]

Chris, I think some of your facts are actually opinions derived from facts. It happens often and is completely understandable.

For example, when you say that RBSD means something specific, it's like saying that TMA means something specific. It may mean something specific to you (fact), but that does not mean that everyone agrees or even should agree on the definition, even among experts. We need only look around, as Drop Bear has suggested, and we can see many examples of RBSD systems which do not precisely meet your definition. So,while it may be a fact that you have a very specific and reasonable definition of RBSD, it is your opinion that your definition is THE definition of the term.

Regarding the evaluation of credible opinions, people will naturally gravitate to the person with whom they have an established rapport or affinity. In matters of opinion, such as the specific meaning of the acronym "RBSD," it is absolutely possible for two experts to disagree and both also be "right" (or at least, neither be wrong, which isn't exactly the same thing).

 

[K-man]

Chris, I think some of your facts are actually opinions derived from facts. It happens often and is completely understandable.

For example, when you say that RBSD means something specific, it's like saying that TMA means something specific. It may mean something specific to you (fact), but that does not mean that everyone agrees or even should agree on the definition, even among experts. We need only look around, as Drop Bear has suggested, and we can see many examples of RBSD systems which do not precisely meet your definition. So,while it may be a fact that you have a very specific and reasonable definition of RBSD, it is your opinion that your definition is THE definition of the term.

Regarding the evaluation of credible opinions, people will naturally gravitate to the person with whom they have an established rapport or affinity. In matters of opinion, such as the specific meaning of the acronym "RBSD," it is absolutely possible for two experts to disagree and both also be "right" (or at least, neither be wrong, which isn't exactly the same thing).

I think there is no doubt as to the meaning of the terms RBSD orTMA. That is a given. TMA is a 'traditional martial art'. That is where the certainty stops and interpretation comes into the equation. The individual terms need to be defined to have a sensible discussion. Some posters have deliberately rejected defining the terms so they can take an obscure or misrepresentative example and pretend that that applies to the whole. If we are to discuss TMAs we have to define the terms clearly at the outset. There is nothing wrong with a number of interpretations as long as you define your terms. For example, to me, for a number of reasons, Shotokan karate is not a TMA. However, I am quite happy to have it included in a discussion of TMAs if you broaden the base. However if the terms of a discussion, if terms are not clearly defined you are going to have arguement rather than discussion, something some people obviously are striving to achieve.

 

[Steve]

I agree and disagree, K-man. I agree that defining terms is important. I disagree that some posters have deliberately rejected defining terms. I would, instead, suggest that other posters are as invested in their own definitions as you are in yours.

Simply put, there is a difference between understanding how you define a term and agreeing with your definition.

 

[Hanzou]

I watched that thread… you started with a video chosen to highlight what you think is a lack, completely ignoring the art you were looking at itself, and choosing such a badly done version that it immediately came across that you were primarily starting the thread to, once more, put over the idea of BJJ being the superior art, as it's got the best ground work. The "good" discussion largely ignored your impetus, and the "derailing" was all an attempt to get you to clarify why you posted that video, and what your intentions were. There were a number of posts of yours there that I personally wanted to call you on, but didn't feel you'd understand what I was asking (such as when you claimed that they were doing their art "wrong"… how on earth would you know that? You might say the technique is ineffective, in your understanding, flawed, inefficient, or anything similar… but "wrong"? Nope, you wouldn't have the first notion of whether or not it was).

If their goal was to counter an armbar, they failed miserably at it. We even had Hapkido practitioners in that thread stating that the entire technique was done wrong. It would be interesting to see what you believe they did correctly outside of posting a video online. There's plenty of things I don't know how to do in the martial arts. Fortunately, the armbar from mount isn't one of them.

So no, they don't "spark" a great conversation… if anything it might be said that good conversation can come about in spite of your postings such things. You don't actually deserve credit for that… that's on the membership of the board.

Whether or not you feel my post was negative, the fact that it sparked a good discussion is beyond doubt.

Again, let's look at that "good discussion" you prompted…

It started with you posting a video that you found questionable, and asking the "Hapkido peeps" to explain it… ignoring the fact that Hapkido has a very wide variety of "flavours" and iterations. Your next post (number 4 in the thread) was a couple of snide digs at the technique, with a sarcastic comment on the viability of the method shown. On the second page (after using someone's posting of a Stephen Kesting video to point out everything that you found wrong with the Hapkido video, despite both showing similar concepts, just at very differing levels of understanding and applicability), you basically admitted that this was all a way of pointing and laughing at someone (the instructor in the video, potentially Hapkido itself by extension, possibly even anyone not BJJ doing anything to do with ground work), by stating "Relax. This is just like a car accident and we've all slowed down to point and gawk at the accident scene."

That's quite a leap. For starters, the sarcastic comment came after a series of sarcastic comments. Everyone was just joking around before we got to the nitty gritty of the vid. Interestingly, no Hapkido stylist that posted found anything in that thread negative or offensive, and offered some excellent analysis and input. All seemingly from a horribly toxic opening post.

Incredible that non-Hapkido stylists who posted were more offended than Hapkido stylists who posted.

Again, you started snide, and degenerated within your first two posts to posting something you think is below par, ignoring everything but the idea that BJJ is the best ever, by pointing out that the second clip is what you would normally put up, and what you think of when you talk about "anti-grappling", and that you "normally laugh at that, but that upsets some people here".

I was far from the only person who felt it was below par, and a good discussion emerged from that consensus. Sorry you disagree. The Hapkido guys and grapplers who participated seemed to enjoy it.

Again, any good conversation did not come from you.

Who started the conversation?

The "derail attempts" weren't derailing attempts. They were attempts to get some clarification from you.

Considering the poster, they were certainly derail attempts. Additionally, I wasn't the only poster who pointed out that he was attempting to derail the thread.

 

[K-man]

I agree and disagree, K-man. I agree that defining terms is important. I disagree that some posters have deliberately rejected defining terms. I would, instead, suggest that other posters are as invested in their own definitions as you are in yours.

Simply put, there is a difference between understanding how you define a term and agreeing with your definition.

Here is where it occurred ...

K-man said:
"Then perhaps you should discuss TKD as a single example rather than lump everything together as TMAs or MAs."

Hanzou said:
"Nah."

Now if that doesn't stop discussion dead in it's tracks what does?

 

[Steve]

Here is where it occurred ...


Now if that doesn't stop discussion dead in it's tracks what does?

That might actually hold some water if we ignore the entire context of your relationship with Hanzou. Sure, that's flippant and insincere. Was it nice? No. Was it helpful? No. Did it in any way further the conversation? No.

However, it was written in the context of an overtly hostile relationship you have helped to create. You and Hanzou have been going after each other for weeks, picking and poking and jabbing at each other. Just accept that you and Hanzou bring out the worst in each other and let it go, but for Pete's sake, take a little responsibility.

 

[K-man]

That might actually hold some water if we ignore the entire context of your relationship with Hanzou. Sure, that's flippant and insincere. Was it nice? No. Was it helpful? No. Did it in any way further the conversation? No.

However, it was written in the context of an overtly hostile relationship you have helped to create. You and Hanzou have been going after each other for weeks, picking and poking and jabbing at each other. Just accept that you and Hanzou bring out the worst in each other and let it go, but for Pete's sake, take a little responsibility.

Steve, you have a strange attitude. Perhaps you should go back and read the thread, I did. What you will find is a generalised sledging across TMAs. Applying the same criteria to Kyudo as TKD was never going to lead to reasonable discussion. I actually left the thread after this post.

 

[Steve]

Steve, you have a strange attitude. Perhaps you should go back and read the thread, I did. What you will find is a generalised sledging across TMAs. Applying the same criteria to Kyudo as TKD was never going to lead to reasonable discussion. I actually left the thread after this post.

Surely, were I reasonable, I would agree with you. Because, after all, your perspective is the only reasonable perspective. We're I'm to simply read more carefully, I would of course agree completely.

But, there is another alternative.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris, I think some of your facts are actually opinions derived from facts. It happens often and is completely understandable.

Steve, I think perhaps you should refrain from telling me what my understanding is based on, especially when dealing with a field you have claimed no knowledge, experience, or interest in at all.

In other words, no. My facts are just that. Facts. Based on knowledge, experience, observation, understanding, and education, and backed up by, well, all other knowledgable sources.

For example, when you say that RBSD means something specific, it's like saying that TMA means something specific.

It does, though. That's the point. Is there a single iteration of RBSD, or TMA? No. But a TMA isn't just what anyone decides to call a TMA… there are a range of hallmarks, points of distinction, and so on. Same with RBSD… that's how classification works. Are all animals the same? Nope. But there are certain traits that gain them that classification… and, within the classification of "animal", we can further look at reptiles, or mammals, or fish, or birds… and even further down into snakes and lizards, bovine and canine, fresh and salt water, and so on.

TMA is specifically Traditional Martial Arts. If someone creates a new art, and attempts to be "traditional", but doesn't have the traits of an actual traditional system, it's not traditional… therefore not a TMA. It really doesn't matter if someone thinks it should be or not, it either is, or it isn't.

It may mean something specific to you (fact), but that does not mean that everyone agrees or even should agree on the definition, even among experts.

There can be some slight quibbling over a few aspects, sure… but no, there really isn't the disagreement you're suggesting here.

We need only look around, as Drop Bear has suggested, and we can see many examples of RBSD systems which do not precisely meet your definition.

And here's the problem… none of the systems that Drop Bear has suggested have actually been RBSD systems. At all. He's picked combatives systems, military systems, and the delusional ravings of an idiot. Those not fitting my definition doesn't really have any effect, you realise…

So,while it may be a fact that you have a very specific and reasonable definition of RBSD, it is your opinion that your definition is THE definition of the term.

No, Steve, it is the definition of the term. You might as well tell me that, if I wanted, I could class swordsmanship as BJJ, because, well, it's just people's opinions as to what BJJ really is.

Regarding the evaluation of credible opinions, people will naturally gravitate to the person with whom they have an established rapport or affinity. In matters of opinion, such as the specific meaning of the acronym "RBSD," it is absolutely possible for two experts to disagree and both also be "right" (or at least, neither be wrong, which isn't exactly the same thing).

For that, you'd need two experts. You only have one in this debate right now.

I agree and disagree, K-man. I agree that defining terms is important. I disagree that some posters have deliberately rejected defining terms. I would, instead, suggest that other posters are as invested in their own definitions as you are in yours.

I seem to remember some saying that you couldn't define TMA previously… that'd be an example of deliberately rejecting defining terms… or we could look at your idea of it being about "self identification", which has nothing to do with any actual classification or definition…

Simply put, there is a difference between understanding how you define a term and agreeing with your definition.

Here's the thing with definitions, Steve… they are how we can communicate. Agreeing with definitions or not is really kinda besides the point… the definition is the definition… it's kinda definite… that's what the term refers to… you don't have to agree that this segmented fruit is an orange for it to be an orange, rather than an apple…

If their goal was to counter an armbar, they failed miserably at it. We even had Hapkido practitioners in that thread stating that the entire technique was done wrong. It would be interesting to see what you believe they did correctly outside of posting a video online. There's plenty of things I don't know how to do in the martial arts. Fortunately, the armbar from mount isn't one of them.

Yeah… as I said, you wouldn't understand what I was saying.

I'll try to elaborate here… the idea of something being "wrong" is entirely within the context of the art itself. A technique can be ineffective, impractical, flawed, poor, or anything else… but still not "wrong". But here's the important part… "wrong" can only be seen from the inside. You don't know that Hapkido system… you don't know their syllabus… you don't know how it was supposed to be done in that art… you cannot possibly know if it was being done "wrong" or not. You can say that it's flawed, poor, or anything of that ilk… but the idea that you can know whether a technique is right or wrong from another system is frankly beyond your ken.

To put it another way, in my time in BJJ, I was taught a number of things that would be "wrong" from the perspective of my other arts… and some of the things from my other art would be considered "wrong" in BJJ… but, within the systems themselves, they were both completely "right"… even despite the fact that they were almost completely opposite to each other.

Whether or not you feel my post was negative, the fact that it sparked a good discussion is beyond doubt.

You really are missing the point.

That's quite a leap. For starters, the sarcastic comment came after a series of sarcastic comments. Everyone was just joking around before we got to the nitty gritty of the vid. Interestingly, no Hapkido stylist that posted found anything in that thread negative or offensive, and offered some excellent analysis and input. All seemingly from a horribly toxic opening post.

Incredible that non-Hapkido stylists who posted were more offended than Hapkido stylists who posted.

Er… talking about a different thread there… do try to keep up…

And, for the record, it was the membership, particularly the established ones, who were offended… or, at least, concerned over the tendencies you've been showing.

I was far from the only person who felt it was below par, and a good discussion emerged from that consensus. Sorry you disagree. The Hapkido guys and grapplers who participated seemed to enjoy it.

The idea of that technique being less than optimal wasn't the issue… it was the way you introduced it, the way you set up the thread, the tone you began with, the fact that you had the primary aim of ridicule something that wasn't matching your standards… frankly, it was a cowardly and petty OP… and far below anything that is genuinely designed to generate good conversation.

You wanted a cheap laugh, and targeted a Hapkido school. Fortunately the membership was able to rise above your beginning.

Who started the conversation?

Really, really, really besides the point.

The tiny detail that you started the thread is bluntly just your ego railing against the wind, trying once again to paint yourself as the hero, despite actually being the villain of the piece. You're not the hero. You're the catalyst… but not in the way you think.

Considering the poster, they were certainly derail attempts. Additionally, I wasn't the only poster who pointed out that he was attempting to derail the thread.

You mean Steve butting heads with Ballen again? Really? Frankly, I was on Ballen's side… he was rightly calling you out, your own admissions backed that up, and Steve chose to try to call Ballen out on his calling you… Bluntly, Steve was in the wrong, in my opinion.

 

[drop bear]

Steve, I think perhaps you should refrain from telling me what my understanding is based on, especially when dealing with a field you have claimed no knowledge, experience, or interest in at all.

In other words, no. My facts are just that. Facts. Based on knowledge, experience, observation, understanding, and education, and backed up by, well, all other knowledgable sources.



It does, though. That's the point. Is there a single iteration of RBSD, or TMA? No. But a TMA isn't just what anyone decides to call a TMA… there are a range of hallmarks, points of distinction, and so on. Same with RBSD… that's how classification works. Are all animals the same? Nope. But there are certain traits that gain them that classification… and, within the classification of "animal", we can further look at reptiles, or mammals, or fish, or birds… and even further down into snakes and lizards, bovine and canine, fresh and salt water, and so on.

TMA is specifically Traditional Martial Arts. If someone creates a new art, and attempts to be "traditional", but doesn't have the traits of an actual traditional system, it's not traditional… therefore not a TMA. It really doesn't matter if someone thinks it should be or not, it either is, or it isn't.



There can be some slight quibbling over a few aspects, sure… but no, there really isn't the disagreement you're suggesting here.



And here's the problem… none of the systems that Drop Bear has suggested have actually been RBSD systems. At all. He's picked combatives systems, military systems, and the delusional ravings of an idiot. Those not fitting my definition doesn't really have any effect, you realise…



No, Steve, it is the definition of the term. You might as well tell me that, if I wanted, I could class swordsmanship as BJJ, because, well, it's just people's opinions as to what BJJ really is.



For that, you'd need two experts. You only have one in this debate right now.



I seem to remember some saying that you couldn't define TMA previously… that'd be an example of deliberately rejecting defining terms… or we could look at your idea of it being about "self identification", which has nothing to do with any actual classification or definition…



Here's the thing with definitions, Steve… they are how we can communicate. Agreeing with definitions or not is really kinda besides the point… the definition is the definition… it's kinda definite… that's what the term refers to… you don't have to agree that this segmented fruit is an orange for it to be an orange, rather than an apple…



Yeah… as I said, you wouldn't understand what I was saying.

I'll try to elaborate here… the idea of something being "wrong" is entirely within the context of the art itself. A technique can be ineffective, impractical, flawed, poor, or anything else… but still not "wrong". But here's the important part… "wrong" can only be seen from the inside. You don't know that Hapkido system… you don't know their syllabus… you don't know how it was supposed to be done in that art… you cannot possibly know if it was being done "wrong" or not. You can say that it's flawed, poor, or anything of that ilk… but the idea that you can know whether a technique is right or wrong from another system is frankly beyond your ken.

To put it another way, in my time in BJJ, I was taught a number of things that would be "wrong" from the perspective of my other arts… and some of the things from my other art would be considered "wrong" in BJJ… but, within the systems themselves, they were both completely "right"… even despite the fact that they were almost completely opposite to each other.



You really are missing the point.



Er… talking about a different thread there… do try to keep up…

And, for the record, it was the membership, particularly the established ones, who were offended… or, at least, concerned over the tendencies you've been showing.



The idea of that technique being less than optimal wasn't the issue… it was the way you introduced it, the way you set up the thread, the tone you began with, the fact that you had the primary aim of ridicule something that wasn't matching your standards… frankly, it was a cowardly and petty OP… and far below anything that is genuinely designed to generate good conversation.

You wanted a cheap laugh, and targeted a Hapkido school. Fortunately the membership was able to rise above your beginning.



Really, really, really besides the point.

The tiny detail that you started the thread is bluntly just your ego railing against the wind, trying once again to paint yourself as the hero, despite actually being the villain of the piece. You're not the hero. You're the catalyst… but not in the way you think.



You mean Steve butting heads with Ballen again? Really? Frankly, I was on Ballen's side… he was rightly calling you out, your own admissions backed that up, and Steve chose to try to call Ballen out on his calling you… Bluntly, Steve was in the wrong, in my opinion.

mabye re read what an appeal from authority actually is.

i don't think you have ever provided an external source.