TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?

[drop bear]

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).

Unless the surface is slippery or there is no ref or you have four friends or a gun.

Which is the argument that got used against the same point I made with a tornado kick.

And why I made the point with the tornado kick.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Also correct. Conceptually a lot simpler than people like to sell the concept.

 

[drop bear]

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.

Over committed punches should happen as part of realistic training.

Not pretending.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Yeah, that's what I said. If you wouldn't normally (you, personally) deliver that attack, you don't just stop doing it and do something different. You feed the attack that the drill calls for.

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.

I said nothing about them having to be drunk. In the video I posted for you a couple of months ago, there was no evidence any of those folks were drunk. Angry people do it, too. So do frustrated people (it even happens in MMA, if they get frustrated enough, or cocky enough).

It's a defense that works, when that kind of attack presents. It also works at other times, but that's the easiest way to practice it. The same movement work with a different set of principles using a push-pull like Judo normally does.

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

Yes. We've been over that many times in the past. You seem to think I disagree about that.

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.

It might. It does slow learning some principles, though, and those principles feed into defense against grappling. They aren't the only way to defend against grappling, but they work pretty well.

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.

Some parts of what we play with in the aiki area are definitely that kind of over-engineering that gets fun to play with. I try to hold those off until students get more advanced (something new to toy with, and challenges the principles differently), or until someone gives me a really good excuse. You might be surprised how often someone resisting a technique for fun by muscling actually provides a fantastic opening to aiki versions of techniques.

So you have to be more conservative and efficient.

Which, in application, aiki versions of techniques are. Why do you think I like them, when I also have the non-aiki versions of them? I'm lazy.

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

I'm not sure what that's about. If you're referring to my BJJ reference earlier, that was simply to point out that some things have a more limited application. It doesn't make them wrong, just specialized. It wasn't "whataboutism", but pointing out that nobody (at least, nobody I know) looks at a ground technique and says, "Yeah, but you can't do that if they are standing up!"

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Over committed punches should happen as part of realistic training.

Not pretending.

That's back to the feeding of a drill. Does a new student have to wait until someone accidentally sets themselves up for a single-leg, so they can learn it, or does the coach/instructor have their partner step into the technique (with a specific attack, most often), so they can learn? I'm going to bet it's the latter: they "pretend" to do that attack, to feed the drill.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unless the surface is slippery or there is no ref or you have four friends or a gun.

Which is the argument that got used against the same point I made with a tornado kick.

And why I made the point with the tornado kick.

All of those do change the situation. How much? That's the point of thinking things through, researching, and experimenting. Which was why I made the point about stepping out to practice on slippery grass from time to time.

 

[drop bear]

That's back to the feeding of a drill. Does a new student have to wait until someone accidentally sets themselves up for a single-leg, so they can learn it, or does the coach/instructor have their partner step into the technique (with a specific attack, most often), so they can learn? I'm going to bet it's the latter: they "pretend" to do that attack, to feed the drill.

Not pretending to be some guy that he saw in a video.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure what that's about. If you're referring to my BJJ reference earlier, that was simply to point out that some things have a more limited application. It doesn't make them wrong, just specialized. It wasn't "whataboutism", but pointing out that nobody (at least, nobody I know) looks at a ground technique and

Wrong for self defence.

 

[drop bear]

All of those do change the situation. How much? That's the point of thinking things through, researching, and experimenting. Which was why I made the point about stepping out to practice on slippery grass from time to time.

You are making a completely different argument to what other people are making while saying the same words.

You argument is about training with flexibility.

Theirs is about rigid scene setting.

 

[drop bear]

I said nothing about them having to be drunk. In the video I posted for you a couple of months ago, there was no evidence any of those folks were drunk. Angry people do it, too. So do frustrated people (it even happens in MMA, if they get frustrated enough, or cocky enough).

It's a defense that works, when that kind of attack presents. It also works at other times, but that's the easiest way to practice it. The same movement work with a different set of principles using a push-pull like Judo normally does.

How are you making that judgement that the defence works with that sort of attack?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not pretending to be some guy that he saw in a video.

So, what's the difference between pretending to be a guy stepping in for an overhook (to set up a drill for a single-leg) and pretending to be a guy giving an over-committed punch?

Either they are both pretending, or they are both not. You're trying to make them different without pointing out any meaningful difference. I can find video of some guy going in for that overhook, just like I can find video of some guy giving that over-committed punch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Wrong for self defence.

And you seem to be unable to point out what's actually wrong, except that you really don't like it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are making a completely different argument to what other people are making while saying the same words.

You argument is about training with flexibility.

Theirs is about rigid scene setting.

Okay, and that's the argument I started making pages ago, which you leaped in to challenge as a bad approach.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How are you making that judgement that the defence works with that sort of attack?

I've seen the movement used in videos (including at least one MMA fight I can think of). I've also gotten some feedback from folks who used the principles in the field (a couple of reports from one LEO, and a couple of bouncers). The reports were reasonably reliable, but only partly applicable. I've used the movement myself once (too anecdotal to be helpful on its own, but at least it's a use I know happened).

Note that I'm more concerned with the movement than the final technique. In working with over-committed attacks, it's the start we're training, not the finish. The finish is a result of where things end up midway through, and the same finish can apply to both an over-committed attack and an under-committed attack.

EDIT: I left out the in-dojo experimentation, which is also a part of our validation.

 

[drop bear]

And you seem to be unable to point out what's actually wrong, except that you really don't like it.

No I already have pointed out what is wrong.

You just do not have the same luxury to fart around in self defence as you do in sport.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No I already have pointed out what is wrong.

You just do not have the same luxury to fart around in self defence as you do in sport.

So far as I can tell, you've claimed that practicing this reduces effectiveness on other stuff. What's the evidence of that? What's the evidence that having another principle to draw on reduces one's ability to use other principles? Other than that, your complaints have centered around the idea that it's not okay to give an attack that's not one's full ability to attack, in spite of the fact that all training includes precisely that approach. You don't like the idea of aiki/aikido, so you attack it for things you accept at reasonable in different usage.

As for farting around, that's what we can do in training, to work on a topic, so we don't do it when defending.

 

[drop bear]

I've seen the movement used in videos (including at least one MMA fight I can think of). I've also gotten some feedback from folks who used the principles in the field (a couple of reports from one LEO, and a couple of bouncers). The reports were reasonably reliable, but only partly applicable. I've used the movement myself once (too anecdotal to be helpful on its own, but at least it's a use I know happened).

Note that I'm more concerned with the movement than the final technique. In working with over-committed attacks, it's the start we're training, not the finish. The finish is a result of where things end up midway through, and the same finish can apply to both an over-committed attack and an under-committed attack.

EDIT: I left out the in-dojo experimentation, which is also a part of our validation.

See for me when I am told that I need to force a certain energy. (And a limp arm defence would be an example) It will be from a guy who has personally hit that move against fully resisting guys. In my specific case he will have hit that move on top fighters. And then can say from experience that this move will work better when someone is really putting energy.

And should someone not be providing that energy then the technique isn't foiled. Because he just gets folded in half.

And it gets replicated in sparring.

So I don't think our methodologies are similar here.

 

[drop bear]

So far as I can tell, you've claimed that practicing this reduces effectiveness on other stuff. What's the evidence of that? What's the evidence that having another principle to draw on reduces one's ability to use other principles? Other than that, your complaints have centered around the idea that it's not okay to give an attack that's not one's full ability to attack, in spite of the fact that all training includes precisely that approach. You don't like the idea of aiki/aikido, so you attack it for things you accept at reasonable in different usage.

As for farting around, that's what we can do in training, to work on a topic, so we don't do it when defending.

If you look at MMA and specifically BJJ you can see this principle in effect. There is a lot of nuances needed in BJJ that you can quite simply not really bother with. The 50 guard passes is in reference to that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

See for me when I am told that I need to force a certain energy. (And a limp arm defence would be an example) It will be from a guy who has personally hit that move against fully resisting guys. In my specific case he will have hit that move on top fighters. And then can say from experience that this move will work better when someone is really putting energy.

And should someone not be providing that energy then the technique isn't foiled. Because he just gets folded in half.

And it gets replicated in sparring.

So I don't think our methodologies are similar here.

I'm not sure I follow your point fully on this one, DB, so my response may be a propos of nothing.

The point I was making about focusing on the movement is that in practicing the aiki application of a technique, it's more about how to move with the kind of energy that comes in. There's a hard version of most techniques (closer to what you'd see in Judo, and some look like what you'd see in a Shotokan Aikido competition). The movement gets you to where the techniques are applied. If they provide a different input, a different movement is more efficient and effective. Against over-commitment, aiki movement (of the movement I have to select from) is most efficient and effective. I end up at many of the same techniques in the end, though they look different in many cases because of the entry point. The aiki entry to a technique is just a principle of movement to make use of what they've provided. And the principle and movement sometimes (much more rarely) even comes into play without the over-commitment. That usually comes either during recovery from a botched or countered technique (you'll see this principle fairly often in Judo), or from simply being in the wrong place at the right time (which, in drills, looks like you're expecting to be the fastest fighter in the world).

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure I follow your point fully on this one, DB, so my response may be a propos of nothing.

The point I was making about focusing on the movement is that in practicing the aiki application of a technique, it's more about how to move with the kind of energy that comes in. There's a hard version of most techniques (closer to what you'd see in Judo, and some look like what you'd see in a Shotokan Aikido competition). The movement gets you to where the techniques are applied. If they provide a different input, a different movement is more efficient and effective. Against over-commitment, aiki movement (of the movement I have to select from) is most efficient and effective. I end up at many of the same techniques in the end, though they look different in many cases because of the entry point. The aiki entry to a technique is just a principle of movement to make use of what they've provided. And the principle and movement sometimes (much more rarely) even comes into play without the over-commitment. That usually comes either during recovery from a botched or countered technique (you'll see this principle fairly often in Judo), or from simply being in the wrong place at the right time (which, in drills, looks like you're expecting to be the fastest fighter in the world).

Judo creates the circumstances that make their techniques work.

You just ask your opponent to attack you right.