Sport Fighter

[skribs]

You can teach self defense without street fights but you would need to reference facts or qualified experts.

That's what we're saying, but @Guthrie is saying you can't reference facts or qualified experts - you HAVE to have the first-hand knowledge.

 

[skribs]

The kind of standards that are put on medicine would be a fantastic benchmark to put on martial arts.

I think that it takes a lot more schooling to know how to properly heal a person than to properly destroy a person.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

I've never personally performed a kidney transplant. But I know for a fact that they work.

Depends on the individual.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

No, you'd have either A) made a mistake or B) simply been incompetent.

I would only consider it to be a con-job or a lie in the events that:

1. You gave me credentials which were untrue
2. You purposefully cut corners in order to build the house cheaper
3. You took the money and did not build the house

Everyone who has ever built a house, has built a house at one point with no prior experience. The fact you have not built a house and think you can, is not a con job or a lie. If you know you don't know how, then it's a con job.

Similarly, if I say a technique will work on the street, it is based on a combination of my experience in class, along with my trust in my Master's experience in real life. If someone asks if I've personally used it, I will say "no". I won't lie and say I've used it. But I have enough understanding of the mechanics of the techniques, and enough trust in my Master's credentials, that I believe it to be true.

That is exactly what an Instructor does when he says something works, without personal proof.

 

[drop bear]

I think that it takes a lot more schooling to know how to properly heal a person than to properly destroy a person.

Not at all.
Faith healers have no formal training at all.

 

[drop bear]

That's what we're saying, but @Guthrie is saying you can't reference facts or qualified experts - you HAVE to have the first-hand knowledge.

I don't think Trent from punchy technically counts as a qualified expert.

(I would post a video but super sweary)

 

[skribs]

I don't think Trent from punchy technically counts as a qualified expert.

(I would post a video but super sweary)

Now you're just trying to argue. I'd reference qualified sources, not unqualified sources.

 

[Mitlov]

Do you teach people to transplant kidneys?

The kind of standards that are put on medicine would be a fantastic benchmark to put on martial arts.

And if we did that, an hour of karate instruction would cost as much as an hour of an orthopedic surgeon's time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not necessarily a technique, but personal skill, should be tested.

That still leaves the same question. What level of "real life" is required, and how many times? And against whom?

See, if I get in tussles with a few gumbies (thanks @drop bear for introducing me to that word!), we can't really tell much about my skill. If I get stomped by some absolute monsters, we still can't tell much about my skill. This is why I think the sport folks make a good point about the value of hard sparring and competition. Even moderate sparring, I get a chance to see how my overall skill level holds up against people of various levels. Take that to actual competition (which I haven't) and you get more levels of input, with more control over the variables (you actually know something about the skill of the opponent).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

My personal bias is when I hear someone say, "It will work in the street" but then admits that they have never been in a real situation.

To me that is a con-artist hard at work.

If the "it" is a given technique, then isn't it enough to see evidence of it being used in the wild by some folks? We wouldn't know if a specific person's skill with that technique is sufficient to those same situations, but we'd be able to see that the technique can have an effect.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How can you claim something as personally legitimate, when it came from another's personal experience.

We have two types of knowledge, assumed knowledge and actual knowledge.

Example- I assume that the earth is round, as to available information. But, I have no personal individual experience to say that it is.

If you trust your instructor and his "credentials, and he tells you it does work and has shown that to you...that is still assumed knowledge. Until you yourself test it, it will remain assumed knowledge.

None of us are hopefully going to get to test our whole range of techniques in the wild. Finding folks who have depended upon certain tactics and techniques at least points us to something that's more likely to be worth developing skill at.

Otherwise, we'd all have to go out and get in more fights all the time, to keep finding out if our current skill level is still sufficient. And the only safe-ish way I know to do that would be back to sport...and that's still just an approximation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends on the individual.

That's equally true of many fighting techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not at all.
Faith healers have no formal training at all.

I think you missed the term "properly". Unless I missed your point.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

@Guthrie you've been asked this by a few people in different words, but haven't answered. Based on your view, is anyone qualified to teach self defense? Or is everyone just screwed?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Do you teach people to transplant kidneys?

No. But there are plenty of examples. I have never personally performed a lateral canthotomy. But I know they work, and I know I am capable of performing one if it was necessary. I also have no doubt that I could teach someone with the proper background to perform one, even though I've never done one. That procedure is, when you get down to it, about as difficult as executing most self defense techniques, so it's probably a better analogy than transplantation.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Not at all.
Faith healers have no formal training at all.

They also are not healing anybody.

 

[skribs]

That still leaves the same question. What level of "real life" is required, and how many times? And against whom?

See, if I get in tussles with a few gumbies (thanks @drop bear for introducing me to that word!), we can't really tell much about my skill. If I get stomped by some absolute monsters, we still can't tell much about my skill. This is why I think the sport folks make a good point about the value of hard sparring and competition. Even moderate sparring, I get a chance to see how my overall skill level holds up against people of various levels. Take that to actual competition (which I haven't) and you get more levels of input, with more control over the variables (you actually know something about the skill of the opponent).

First off, I've found the secret to your post count. Reply to every individual post as its own individual reply.

Second, I think it's funny that me and you were both arguing against the gung-ho sports guys in another thread, and we're both applying their logic to this thread. (To be clear - I agree with the logic of why sport fighting works, but not the gung-ho logic that nothing else works).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

First off, I've found the secret to your post count. Reply to every individual post as its own individual reply.

Second, I think it's funny that me and you were both arguing against the gung-ho sports guys in another thread, and we're both applying their logic to this thread. (To be clear - I agree with the logic of why sport fighting works, but not the gung-ho logic that nothing else works).

I'm just too scatter-brained to gather posts into a single reply. I see, I reply. I'm just naturally gifted at posting.

And, yep, I think the sport angle gets overstated at times, but I came up through some training that lacked resistance much of the time, and I see a problem with that. I think having competition is a good way to ensure compliant practice doesn't lead people astray. For folks who don't want to actually enter competitions, doing the thing (setting up some rules and going at each other at varying levels of intensity) outside of organized competition is also effective.

 

[Deleted member 34973]

@Guthrie you've been asked this by a few people in different words, but haven't answered. Based on your view, is anyone qualified to teach self defense? Or is everyone just screwed?

I believe a lot of people are qualified..do I believe everyone is. If they have no personal experience, I would see it as sketchy at best.

Let me ask you this, what makes a person qualified in any area of expertise?

What separates the apprentice stonemason, from a master stonemason.

What separates all Instructors, from video instruction in the martial Arts.

By a majority of logic, watching and practicing is enough, which would even negate the need for resistance training and sparring.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I believe a lot of people are qualified..do I believe everyone is. If they have no personal experience, I would see it as sketchy at best.

So here's the issue with your logic.
Here is your logic

1: You believe that you need to have personal experience using a technique to defend yourself, in order to be qualified to teach it.
2: You believe the only way to get that experience is in a real life situation, as the person needs to use the technique in a specific situation to be able to use it.
3: You've acknowledged that each situation is different, and something being effective in one situation might not be effective in another. Or by another person.

Point 1/2 were directly stated by you. Point 3 I've gathered from my own experience in fights, and you agreed on it.

Here is the issue that comes from your logic.

4: Based on those three things, it is impossible to be qualified to teach a technique for self defense, as you cannot know that what you are teaching will be effective.
5: If it is impossible to be qualified to teach a single technique for self-defense, then it stands to reason that being qualified to teach a system (composed of techniques) would also be impossible.
6: If no one is qualified to teach...what then? Can no one learn self-defense? Do we have to all discover it on our own? Is there a solution to this?