TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?

[drop bear]

Nope. Your experience didn't show any loss of learning by the short time spent outside. You've claimed that spending time training on grass actually takes away from functional learning. That's a claim your quick experience on grass doesn't seem to support in any meaningful way.

Furthermore, if it DID support it, that's a single instance. That, brother, is what "anecdotal evidence" is - a single data point that can't be used to draw statistical inferences without additional data to work with.

Yeah there is this really depressing factor to self defence that people don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. And that is the ability to crack skulls is pretty much the most important factor in winning or loosing a fight. And it is by a pretty big margin. And this is from my experience. And hey ask around see if other street fighters disagree.

So if you spend time learning to fight in different environments that is good. But you will probably get bashed by a guy who dedicated the same time to learning to crack skulls.

And look people think there should be more to it. But there really isn't if you are looking at the bare essentials of winning street fights. The other stuff is on top of this basic function.

And if you don't understand that. You won't understand self defence.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=837157759796618

 

[Steve]

Much of BJJ doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter. That's not a problem with BJJ, it's just a natural limitation of the tools in question.

Err.. that’s not true at all. There are entire technical areas of BJJ that center around attacking a standing person. De la riva guard, for example. And vice versa.

 

[DaveB]

Err.. that’s not true at all. There are entire technical areas of BJJ that center around attacking a standing person. De la riva guard, for example. And vice versa.

Which would mean the other bits not aimed at the standing guy, would be the "much of" he mentioned.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What you are suggesting there is nothing like bjj being ground focused. BJJ will actually fight people on the ground. You are making an Aikido guy pretend to punch like a drunk person might.

Nope. That's your delusion of it. I've shown you video of actual people actually attacking in ways that make those things available. It actually happens, and there's actual proof. You just don't like it, so you ignore it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Err.. that’s not true at all. There are entire technical areas of BJJ that center around attacking a standing person. De la riva guard, for example. And vice versa.

I didn't say all of it, Steve. I said much of it. My point is that there's nothing wrong with something that is situational. Good ground work will include a fair amount of stuff that's only available when the guy is on the ground.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah there is this really depressing factor to self defence that people don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. And that is the ability to crack skulls is pretty much the most important factor in winning or loosing a fight. And it is by a pretty big margin. And this is from my experience. And hey ask around see if other street fighters disagree.

So if you spend time learning to fight in different environments that is good. But you will probably get bashed by a guy who dedicated the same time to learning to crack skulls.

And look people think there should be more to it. But there really isn't if you are looking at the bare essentials of winning street fights. The other stuff is on top of this basic function.

And if you don't understand that. You won't understand self defence.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=837157759796618

So, if the ability to crack skulls is paramount, we should stop all grappling study?

 

[Steve]

Which would mean the other bits not aimed at the standing guy, would be the "much of" he mentioned.

You're a pugnacious dude. Would you say that much of aikido as well? Seem like an odd statement.

I didn't say all of it, Steve. I said much of it. My point is that there's nothing wrong with something that is situational. Good ground work will include a fair amount of stuff that's only available when the guy is on the ground.

okay. Sorry. Much is like... How much? More than a lot? Less than some? Abiut the same as a little bit?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You're a pugnacious dude. Would you say that much of aikido as well? Seem like an odd statement.
okay. Sorry. Much is like... How much? More than a lot? Less than some? Abiut the same as a little bit?

Given that I don't know the full spectrum of what's in BJJ, I purposely used a vague term. Much = some. Sorta.

 

[DaveB]

You're a pugnacious dude. Would you say that much of aikido as well? Seem like an odd statement.
okay. Sorry. Much is like... How much? More than a lot? Less than some? Abiut the same as a little bit?

You're a pugnacious dude. Would you say that much of aikido as well? Seem like an odd statement.
okay. Sorry. Much is like... How much? More than a lot? Less than some? Abiut the same as a little bit?

Just continuing my quest to help you understand sentences.

 

[Steve]

Just continuing my quest to help you understand sentences.

Okay. So, help me out.

Can we say that much of judo doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter? Can we say that much of Aikido doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter?

Given that I don't know the full spectrum of what's in BJJ, I purposely used a vague term. Much = some. Sorta.

Saying something from a position of ignorance and then saying, "Yeah, well, I was intentionally vague because, dude, I don't know what I'm talking about," just doesn't work for me.

 

[drop bear]

Nope. That's your delusion of it. I've shown you video of actual people actually attacking in ways that make those things available. It actually happens, and there's actual proof. You just don't like it, so you ignore it.

And you are training with those people you see in those fights?

I mean I act like a really impressive girl for when I train rape defence. My mate barry can pretend to be an Aikido black belt like nobodies buisness.

And when we do gun defence we are all being marines.

Look we have watched the videos so it is not like we havent done our research.

 

[drop bear]

So, if the ability to crack skulls is paramount, we should stop all grappling study?

No. It is part of this ability to crack skulls. They choke mofo's out which is essentually the same thing.

This goes back to TKD as a self defence and my origional point. If a TKDer can kick you in the face hard enough to knock you out and you cant deal with that. He is better at self defence than you are. This almost negates every other bit of self defence training you have done.

Lets look at this again. MMA guy did not exibit amazing skill here. There were no cool moves and even his punching wasn't all that crisp. Do you think tai chi guy had not trained to defend sloppy round punches?

These are the same sloppy round punches that you have trained specifically to defend. So why did he win?

 

[DaveB]

Okay. So, help me out.

Can we say that much of judo doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter? Can we say that much of Aikido doesn't work if the other guy is standing up, or if you are for that matter?
.

I don't train either art so not the best person to ask. My advice though is simply to look at what was written and puzzle out the meaning yourself. If you stop worrying about the subjective and concentrate on the broader context I'm sure you will get it.

 

[Steve]

I don't train either art so not the best person to ask. My advice though is simply to look at what was written and puzzle out the meaning yourself. If you stop worrying about the subjective and concentrate on the broader context I'm sure you will get it.

I will take that advice. I want to believe you have something worthwhile to offer. I will assume for now it’s me. Time will tell.

 

[DaveB]

I will take that advice. I want to believe you have something worthwhile to offer. I will assume for now it’s me. Time will tell.

Here's what I offer:

When you look at gpseymore's post, he's not trashing bjj, he's pointing out that every technique has a time and a place. If used in the wrong way a technique won't work.

To me this is a pretty simple uncontroversial point, but if you disagree, have at it.

But if that is the essence of his point, what is gained from a focus on the minutiae of Bjj's syllabus and the precise proportion attributed to the word "much"?

If we stay on that track, then just like the tkd thread we'd end up 6 pages later with everyone talking at cross purposes because some people are trying to get back to the point and some are, intentionally or not, clinging to the nonsense that has arisen.

I'm not the boss of you, please ignore me if I am wrong, but I do think we will all gain more from discussing the points raised rather than the details imprecisely conveyed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Saying something from a position of ignorance and then saying, "Yeah, well, I was intentionally vague because, dude, I don't know what I'm talking about," just doesn't work for me.

Not from a point of ignorance. I know some of what's in BJJ - have a smattering of training, and enough to know there's a solid amount with little application to a standing opponent. I've pointed out before that I've also seen enough of BJJ to know it's not all about the ground. Put those together, and though I don't know the proportions, I know there's much that doesn't have direct application to a standing opponent (I added "direct" because at least some of the principles aren't greatly dissimilar from other arts, where said principles are applied to standing work).

Okay, so maybe a point of ignorance about "how much is much".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And you are training with those people you see in those fights?

I mean I act like a really impressive girl for when I train rape defence. My mate barry can pretend to be an Aikido black belt like nobodies buisness.

And when we do gun defence we are all being marines.

Look we have watched the videos so it is not like we havent done our research.

You know, I'd think you were being serious if I didn't know you actually know how to train with a specific kind of attack. How do I konw that? Because literally every art and system does it. When you train a single leg as a counter to something, the person feeding the attack to be countered has to replicate the attack that you're working on. If they decide to use what they'd use against you (knowing you have a good single-leg), then you don't get to practice that single-leg.

See, this is what I was pointing out earlier. You'd never think having someone feed a drill properly was a problem, but the second it has do to with Aikido (or something that smells like it to you), you lose your mind. You have a tremendous double-standard problem, and top it off with a huge helping of confirmation bias.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Here's what I offer:

When you look at gpseymore's post, he's not trashing bjj, he's pointing out that every technique has a time and a place. If used in the wrong way a technique won't work.

To me this is a pretty simple uncontroversial point, but if you disagree, have at it.

But if that is the essence of his point, what is gained from a focus on the minutiae of Bjj's syllabus and the precise proportion attributed to the word "much"?

If we stay on that track, then just like the tkd thread we'd end up 6 pages later with everyone talking at cross purposes because some people are trying to get back to the point and some are, intentionally or not, clinging to the nonsense that has arisen.

I'm not the boss of you, please ignore me if I am wrong, but I do think we will all gain more from discussing the points raised rather than the details imprecisely conveyed.

@Steve, if you thought I was taking a shot at BJJ, I missed making my point. I chose BJJ because not only is it something DB is very familiar with, but it's also an easy model to point at as something that works. As Dave said, everything has its place, and the fact that a given BJJ technique perhaps only works when the other guy is on the ground (or, more specifically even, in mount) isn't a weakness of the technique or the art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No. It is part of this ability to crack skulls. They choke mofo's out which is essentually the same thing.

We're pretty much on the same page on that, then. I'd only add that avoiding getting one's own skull cracked is equally important.

This goes back to TKD as a self defence and my origional point. If a TKDer can kick you in the face hard enough to knock you out and you cant deal with that. He is better at self defence than you are. This almost negates every other bit of self defence training you have done.

Agreed. Nothing in that is contrary to anything I've said (in fact, that's the point I make in my first part of this reply).

Lets look at this again. MMA guy did not exibit amazing skill here. There were no cool moves and even his punching wasn't all that crisp. Do you think tai chi guy had not trained to defend sloppy round punches?

These are the same sloppy round punches that you have trained specifically to defend. So why did he win?

Training to defend ONLY sloppy punches is a problem. Learning to use a technique or principle against over-committed punches (which can actually be either sloppy or compact - it's the body that matters, though many students mistake the looping punch as the point) doesn't make one unable to also practice it against other kinds of attacks.

 

[drop bear]

You know, I'd think you were being serious if I didn't know you actually know how to train with a specific kind of attack. How do I konw that? Because literally every art and system does it. When you train a single leg as a counter to something, the person feeding the attack to be countered has to replicate the attack that you're working on. If they decide to use what they'd use against you (knowing you have a good single-leg), then you don't get to practice that single-leg.

See, this is what I was pointing out earlier. You'd never think having someone feed a drill properly was a problem, but the second it has do to with Aikido (or something that smells like it to you), you lose your mind. You have a tremendous double-standard problem, and top it off with a huge helping of confirmation bias.

Not really. We execute a working attack that may have a single leg counter.

Look at it this way. If you don't strike like intoxicated street brawlers. I wouldn't spend all that much time learning to strike like intoxicated street brawlers just so you can effectively feed someone that style of strike so their defence works.

It is a big messy way of justifying a defence that probably doesn't work very well.

Now because you are suggesting self defence here. You have plenty of options for defending good punches that also defends bad punches.

This will save you a lot of time learning to effectively punch badly. Learning to defend that. Then learning to effectively punch properly and then learning to defend that.

Bear in mind I do sport. And can muck around with over engineered junk that covers the vagaries of what a professional fighter might do. Spider guards and flying ompaloompas. You should be focusing on cracking skulls.

So you have to be more conservative and efficient.

So seriously none of this "you learn 50 guard passes so why can't I do it?"