Its the internet I didn't know I needed to spell out the use of force scale to you. So sorry.
Which CaCC? U.S. based Collar and Elbow (it continued on the ground after a non-decisive throw)? Lose Wrestling? Carnival Wrestling? 19th C. "Pro" wrestling? Gotch style (I like it because of his "Famous Toe Holds")? Hackenschmidt style (kinda meh)? Toombs and Hitchcock style?
Again, I'm not your enemy here. I didn't piss in your wheaties.
OK, I get ya. I digress.Ouch!
Yame!
You are the good guys!
Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound. While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable. I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it. There's room for kata and drills.
This really depends upon one's goals in training. Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense. I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context. In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you. I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply. I don't get into fights. As I said earlier, I am boring. I don't drink to excess. I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang. I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.
As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this. There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport. My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS." Yeah? Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly. Are you? If you've never done it, how do you know?
I'd like to see it get back there. A much more constructive conversation in my mind.
While the knife technique was questionable, you guys do understand that the multiple attacker video was tongue in cheek. Right?
Unless it's the dreaded Land Shark.
I was hoping that that might be part of the other thread. Anything of value will be lost in this train wreck.
I was hoping that that might be part of the other thread. Anything of value will be lost in this train wreck.
Mate you've hijacked three threads so far. Why do you think so many people are upset with you? I have called literally dozens of your posts. If you settled down and stopped posting opinions as facts, stopped telling us that BJJ was the answer to everything and if you don't study BJJ you may as well pack up your toys and go home, you would find a whole different ball game like we enjoyed before you joined MT. If you have a day to spare, reread your posts. You will find what I have described not far in, say page 2, then 3,4,5,6 etc up to and including page 50. Now, I must admit I might be a bit down on the grey matter having been belted across the ears too many times over too many years but I don't often need to be told something twice let alone twenty five times, especially when we agree with your main point.
And it is in context we should all be training. Whether that is a sporting context or a RB context is up to the individual.Aliveness has become kind of a trigger word in the MA community, but the ideas behind it are mostly sound. While the "four I" model applies to most decent training (intentionally or not), the idea that EVERY SINGLE thing you do in training MUST BE ALIVE is debatable. I'd say that most of the training should be "alive," but not necessarily all of it. There's room for kata and drills.
Once again, it depends on the purpose for which you train kata. In terms of karate, if you are into sport and competition then that is what kata is for you. If you are into RBSD then kata is an integral part of your practical training.
This really depends upon one's goals in training. Somehow, the thread turned from Sport and TMA to BJJ for Self Defense. I've said before, I question the value of training purely for self defense, unless one is in a position to apply the skills in context. In other words, unless you are routinely defending yourself, your "self defense" training is questionable... for you. I believe that one should practice skills that one can apply. I don't get into fights. As I said earlier, I am boring. I don't drink to excess. I don't hang out in bars or ride a Harley with a biker gang. I go home each night, play video games with my teenagers and watch cartoons with my five year old.
If I'm REALLY interested in self defense, I'll buy a 12 ga shotgun and get the entire family (minus the 5 year old) trained in safe handling and use of force training.
All my training is directed at self defence, not that I expect to use it that way. When I read about the kata being fighting systems I am absolutely hooked on exploring what that means. I have started way too late in life to explore all the Goju kata but the ones I am immersed in are incredible. The understanding of the men that constructed those systems is beyond my imagination. Some people enjoy cryptic crosswords, some people play chess. I'm happy tinkering with kata.
For me, and I believe for most people, training for sport is a great way to train for application. Even if one chooses not to compete, training with competitors keeps the training focused, maintains consistency from school to school and allows students to apply the techniques in context.
When you are young and strong, training for sport and competition is fine. As you get older that is far less attractive. Most of my friends from years ago have stopped training because sport is not an option and because all their training was in the sporting direction, they gave it away. Reality based training does all the sporting stuff but so much more. Obviously that is a little different for BJJ as you really just have the techniques.
As long as everyone understands that there are ALWAYS rules, I agree with this. There are ways to pressure test different techniques, but I cringe when someone says, "Yeah, but I train FOR REAL SELF DEFENSE and not sport. My techniques are designed to END FIGHTS." Yeah? Sure, the technique is deadly, but the question is whether YOU are deadly. Are you? If you've never done it, how do you know?
I think we all know in reality. If you are pressure testing your techniques and your partner taps out you can be pretty sure that that technique will work in the real world. The difference is not if the techniques are effective but if you have more techniques at your disposal in the TMAs than in the sport based systems.
Rickson Gracie (or Bruce Lee or whoever) is a badass. He does the same armbar technique I do. Am I a badass? I'd say, without a trace of false modesty, that I am not a badass. And, on the scale of badassery, even though I execute many of the same techniques Rickson Gracie does, I'm not even close. Point being that, just because he can execute a technique doesn't mean that I can execute that same technique. The technique is sound. It is effective. The question is, AM I EFFECTIVE?
Surely that is why we all keep training.
And how can one answer that question? By executing technique in context. Am I able to defend myself against a ninja horde? I don't know. Am I able to defend myself against a single, knife wielding meth addict? I don't know. I've never done any of these things, and so regardless of knowing academically that the techniques are effective, I do not know whether I am effective.
But if someone tries to give you a hard time, are you confident in your ability to handle that situation? If so your training has been invaluable.
Can I force an average guy with no training to submit in one of several ways? Yes. I know that I can. Am I confident that I can disengage and return to my feet if taken down by the average guy? Yes. I am confident because I do these things in context against people trying very hard to stop me.
