Thoughts on the "what martial art should I take for self-defense" question

[Gweilo]

Byron Jacobs isn't my instructor he is a Chinese kung fu guy.

And yeah. Airlie beach is a very good holiday destination.you should make the trip.

Superb, I will see what I can do.

 

[drop bear]

because you seem to eant to take issue, with things you dont understand, micj as rats explains things he doesnt understand.

somewhere some where on earth is the mythical dojo, that teaches magic to th3 delisional, if you track it down il jo8n you in condeming it.

the rest of us are just doing out best with what we have available what we want to do, what we enjoy,

it may or may not be as effective as what you do, we may ir may not be able to take you in a fight, that not realky the issue, to be better than steve, is it ?

You can't condemn it if you haven't done the art. You would be laughed of you car forum.

 

[drop bear]

no 8 average it out and then see where i am in the average, ! its what they did if you ever took a qualification.

if my admittedly slightly subjective assement is anywhere near correct, then there id greater than a three to one chance, that any attacker is physical inferior to myself, thers an extremly high but not determined % chance, that he is untrainibg in the ary of fighting, so all in all im doing ok

Slightly subjective?

Your average puts everyone at 50% that is where you are in the average. Like everyone.

 

[jobo]

Slightly subjective?

Your average puts everyone at 50% that is where you are in the average. Like everyone.

no my average doesnt put every one at 50 % , just if you randomly select two people then its 50 50 as to which one will win

 

[jobo]

You can't condemn it if you haven't done the art. You would be laughed of you car forum.

thats not what i said, you can condem away its a free coumtry . its just your not being rational condeming it for beibg different than you think it should be, when the peolke who do it think its what they want it to be, id get rid if that ausi rules football right away, , its not how i thibk foitball should be played,, you see irrational

 

[drop bear]

thats not what i said, you can condem away its a free coumtry . its just your not being rational condeming it for beibg different than you think it should be, when the peolke who do it think its what they want it to be, id get rid if that ausi rules football right away, , its not how i thibk foitball should be played,, you see irrational

No. You could very easily play Aussie rules and not have your opinion changed though.

 

[jobo]

No. You could very easily play Aussie rules and not have your opinion changed though.

i have played it and american football, i spent a bemused time not understand why i had fouled

 

[drop bear]

no my average doesnt put every one at 50 % , just if you randomly select two people then its 50 50 as to which one will win

Not after the first fight. Mark hunt vs Steven Hawkins over 10 fights won't be 50/50.

You randomly selected people to get your 50/50 then you can't factor individual stats. As soon as we factor individual stats Mark hunt will sit well above 50 and Steven Hawkins will sit well below.

 

[jobo]

Not after the first fight. Mark hunt vs Steven Hawkins over 10 fights won't be 50/50.

You randomly selected people to get your 50/50 then you can't factor individual stats. As soon as we factor individual stats Mark hunt will sit well above 50 and Steven Hawkins will sit well below.

but youve not used a random selection method, the chances of drawing either, let alone both of those are billions to one

 

[drop bear]

but youve not used a random selection method

Neither have you by adding yourself.

 

[jobo]

Neither have you by adding yourself.

we have two separate, but associated discussions going on

one about a bell curve and one about random selection, it seems unfortunately you dont under stand either to the point you can differentiate between them

or to simplify for you, you confusing jam and Vegemite

 

[drop bear]

we have two separate, but associated discussions going on

one about a bell curve and one about random selection, it seems unfortunately you dont under stand either to the point you can differentiate between them

or to simplify for you, you confusing jam and Vegemite

That you have made up a bunch of statistics to say in your opinion you rate yourself in a fight?

It doesn't matter if you are above average. You still have the same 50/50 shot. That is how you got the 50/50 in the first place.

The 50/50 basically relies on the whole population. So below average still has a 50/50 because they might fight another below average. And above average has a 50/50 because they might fight someone above average.

You can't increase your 50/50 by saying you are above average.

 

[Gweilo]

It doesn't matter if you are above average. You still have the same 50/50 shot. That is how you got the 50/50 in the first place.

The 50/50 basically relies on the whole population. So below average still has a 50/50 because they might fight another below average. And above average has a 50/50 because they might fight someone above average.

Disagree, someone not very good at fighting will cave in, or avoid the fight, an above average fighter will either avoid, or access and adapt, the random selection of people is being used to support an opinion, fighting is not accidental, a below average v an above average the % will change, wether thats 40/60 or 30/70 or greater, is a debate, sure the below average fighter may have a punchers chance, or a lucky strike, yes you can increase your 50/50 by being above average, and confidence or beleif plays its role, they say most fighters become 10% better when they become a champion. But in real terms, the more you fight the better you get (for most), but phyche is a vital part of the aquation, same as training, its a spiral, you can go up, or down, work hard get results, the better the results, the better you feel, the better you feel, the harder you work, the harder you work the better the results, and it works on the down, this is the part you have not factored in to your accessment. Then you need to factor in skill levels, a below average on the way up v an above fighter on the way down, this would change the % to perhaps 45/55 or 35/65, its not ramdom enough to call itv50/50 IMO.

 

[jobo]

Disagree, someone not very good at fighting will cave in, or avoid the fight, an above average fighter will either avoid, or access and adapt, the random selection of people is being used to support an opinion, fighting is not accidental, a below average v an above average the % will change, wether thats 40/60 or 30/70 or greater, is a debate, sure the below average fighter may have a punchers chance, or a lucky strike, yes you can increase your 50/50 by being above average, and confidence or beleif plays its role, they say most fighters become 10% better when they become a champion. But in real terms, the more you fight the better you get (for most), but phyche is a vital part of the aquation, same as training, its a spiral, you can go up, or down, work hard get results, the better the results, the better you feel, the better you feel, the harder you work, the harder you work the better the results, and it works on the down, this is the part you have not factored in to your accessment. Then you need to factor in skill levels, a below average on the way up v an above fighter on the way down, this would change the % to perhaps 45/55 or 35/65, its not ramdom enough to call itv50/50 IMO.

your making much the same error as him, human attributes, all of them,including an ability to fight cluster around the mean average, that is fighting ability is not a steady progression across the population, rather most people are very much the same level ergo, if you raise your self above the average, then circa 80 % of the population has less ability than you

this is very much the 80-20 principal. for comparatively little effort you can get 80% of you goal ( your goal being to defend against all comers)

chasing down progression above that becomes increasingly difficult and ends up at the top end with full time fighters who can donate their waking hours to marginal improvements

any adult male of average size/ physical abilities who takes up a MA can reasonably expect that they can raise themselves to the 80% mark


that is they can beat 4 out of every five people who attack them at random, if they are below average physical abilities, its some what harder to predict and they need to focus on increasing their fitness to get in the frame

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Has this just become a thread about how to stage experiements using people and the natural issue in the variety of people and ability for making a control group and the like?

I have not read the foundation point but, take 1,000 men as a control group (average people), proceede to take a thousand for experience and another for none. Making sure they are all at least X fitness and in X health or noting down any potetional health issues, say if one sprains their ankle during the test.

Then come up with a series of tasks to do related to the point, and you should have some percentage that is reasonably accurate. Repeat as many times as you deem nessisary. Thats the best i can come up with here, if you want to judge fighting ability, then have one proffesional fight them from a few combat sports, or a few proffesionals and see how each group does, then you could break down a percentage from each group and how well they did.

this is where i find out i missed the mark completely.

 

[_Simon_]

In the same way Richard Dawkins can mesure the performance of dowsing without ever having been a dowser.

Haha... Dawkins is... not the best example. He frequently speaks of subjects in which he knows nothing at all about, rigorously applying his scientific method in places it simply isn't applicable. He's brilliant in his field of evolutionary biology, in which he needs to stay there and not try to disprove God with his methods (and rather arrogantly too) XD

That being said, there is INDEED alot of nonsense and delusion out there, but there's something to be said about misapplying methods and mixing domains

 

[jobo]

Haha... Dawkins is... not the best example. He frequently speaks of subjects in which he knows nothing at all about, rigorously applying his scientific method in places it simply isn't applicable. He's brilliant in his field of evolutionary biology, in which he needs to stay there and not try to disprove God with his methods (and rather arrogantly too) XD

That being said, there is INDEED alot of nonsense and delusion out there, but there's something to be said about misapplying methods and mixing domains

but evolutionary biology disproves god or rather those religious book supposedly written by or on behalf of god so he is bang on his topic
and anyway
there are not any topics where the scientific method is not applicable, just some times really hard to apply, so your left only with scientific logic to go on

 

[jobo]

That you have made up a bunch of statistics to say in your opinion you rate yourself in a fight?

It doesn't matter if you are above average. You still have the same 50/50 shot. That is how you got the 50/50 in the first place.

The 50/50 basically relies on the whole population. So below average still has a 50/50 because they might fight another below average. And above average has a 50/50 because they might fight someone above average.

You can't increase your 50/50 by saying you are above average.

ive not made up any statics, ive used data and methods that are in the public domain to make a prediction, you can test the prediction if you wish, but only if you also use data to do so other wise all we are getting is your biased opinion based on no data or defined method at all, a bit like them water diviners you keep warning us about

that you are incapable of making the distinction between separate topics...... , it really isn't my job to make up for the failure of the Australian education system

 

[drop bear]

Haha... Dawkins is... not the best example. He frequently speaks of subjects in which he knows nothing at all about, rigorously applying his scientific method in places it simply isn't applicable. He's brilliant in his field of evolutionary biology, in which he needs to stay there and not try to disprove God with his methods (and rather arrogantly too) XD

That being said, there is INDEED alot of nonsense and delusion out there, but there's something to be said about misapplying methods and mixing domains

It is a very good example of how anecdotal evidence can be misleading. And in martial arts anecdotes is quite often all there is.

 

[_Simon_]

but evolutionary biology disproves god or rather those religious book supposedly written by or on behalf of god so he is bang on his topic
and anyway
there are not any topics where the scientific method is not applicable, just some times really hard to apply, so your left only with scientific logic to go on

Sigh... it doesn't disprove divinity. The bible was indeed written by people, the issue is that he then leapt to therefore concluding it disproves divinity.

Scientific method is certainly not applicable to any topic. Can you prove the beauty of art or even predict the emotional reaction someone will have to a painting using the scientific method?