TKD is Weak on the street as a self defense?

[Gerry Seymour]

You are not getting practical imput from streetfighters.

An assumption.

Your aikido guy who may never have been in a streetfight and may never have thrown a successful streetfighting punch

Another assumption

has gone on youtube. Watched a successful punch and is trying to pretend to do that. Then you are defending Aikido guy who has never fought's punch and thinking that it is anything like a roided up neck tattoo throwing a shot that is designed to take your head off.

Another assumption

The people who are feeding me whatever technique at whatever speed have successfully used the techniques they are feeding. That is why they are feeding it in the manner they are feeding it.

You start to make a good point here. I teach people to deliver the punch "properly" for the drill. So, yes, they have actually delivered that technique. Not as an actual attack in some (not all - that's where your assumption fails), because it's not something that fits into our strategy.

So your guy is pretending to be something he isnt to create the illusion that your defence works. So you can drill that untill the cows come home. But you are not training to stop a streetfighting punch.

Again, you equate one type of drill with the entirety of training, and heap in a bunch of assumptions. As long as you do that, I don't see any chance for either of us to learn anything from this interchange.

You are training to stop an Aikido guy who is being forced to punch badly.

And you, when you first learned to sprawl against a shoot, learned to stop someone who is being forced to shoot badly, in that he wasn't bringing his best game, and was feeding what the drill called for. An over-committed punch, using those mechanics, is not so different. It presents different weight, and sometimes and over-reach (which creates the over-commitment). You'd understand better if you stopped assuming you know the drill and actually try to understand it. But you are more concerned with being right than being accurate, more concerned with showing something wrong with Aikido (any branch of it will do fine for you), than with sharing information. You're sparring against someone, trying to win, when you're not in a contest. You're wasting your time and mine.

 

[drop bear]

An assumption.


Another assumption

Another assumption


You start to make a good point here. I teach people to deliver the punch "properly" for the drill. So, yes, they have actually delivered that technique. Not as an actual attack in some (not all - that's where your assumption fails), because it's not something that fits into our strategy.


Again, you equate one type of drill with the entirety of training, and heap in a bunch of assumptions. As long as you do that, I don't see any chance for either of us to learn anything from this interchange.


And you, when you first learned to sprawl against a shoot, learned to stop someone who is being forced to shoot badly, in that he wasn't bringing his best game, and was feeding what the drill called for. An over-committed punch, using those mechanics, is not so different. It presents different weight, and sometimes and over-reach (which creates the over-commitment). You'd understand better if you stopped assuming you know the drill and actually try to understand it. But you are more concerned with being right than being accurate, more concerned with showing something wrong with Aikido (any branch of it will do fine for you), than with sharing information. You're sparring against someone, trying to win, when you're not in a contest. You're wasting your time and mine.

The reason I make these assumptions is that the likley hood that you are getting in a successful streetfighter to train your guys to properly throw what is inproper punches is pretty unlikley.

So the defence against shooting is a very good example because it is exactly the issue I am discussing. And it is super common. There is no evidence you are doing anything differentially.

Aikido guy who can't do a double leg takedown vs an Aikido guy who can't defend one equals you training to defend rubbish with rubbish and you will quite simply never know what works and what doesn't.

If you are concerned about learning I would be more concerned with holding on to this training method for dear life and less concerned about arguing with me.

You are desparate to justify unworkable techniques because you have spent a lifetime believeing they work. Rather than putting them in a situation where they either work or they don't. And then putting in the work to either fix the techniques of replace them.

What you do instead is replace the attack.

This is not an Aikido hate thing there is nothing stopping you training against realistic techniques and seeing what happens. This is just you and your ego. And an unwillingness to take an honest look at your training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The reason I make these assumptions is that the likley hood that you are getting in a successful streetfighter to train your guys to properly throw what is inproper punches is pretty unlikley.

So the defence against shooting is a very good example because it is exactly the issue I am discussing. And it is super common. There is no evidence you are doing anything differentially.

Aikido guy who can't do a double leg takedown vs an Aikido guy who can't defend one equals you training to defend rubbish with rubbish and you will quite simply never know what works and what doesn't.

If you are concerned about learning I would be more concerned with holding on to this training method for dear life and less concerned about arguing with me.

You are desparate to justify unworkable techniques because you have spent a lifetime believeing they work. Rather than putting them in a situation where they either work or they don't. And then putting in the work to either fix the techniques of replace them.

What you do instead is replace the attack.

This is not an Aikido hate thing there is nothing stopping you training against realistic techniques and seeing what happens. This is just you and your ego. And an unwillingness to take an honest look at your training.

You continue to equate one part of training with the whole of training, ignoring past discussions where we’ve talked about other areas of work, other drills, and other approaches. You have valid points to make, but we can’t actually get to them, because you’re too busy making generalizations and assumptions. It’s time to drop this line - it’s profiting nobody.

 

[granfire]

I love those 'BUT STREET' discussions.
they inadvertently turn into a water letting contest....

 

[drop bear]

You continue to equate one part of training with the whole of training, ignoring past discussions where we’ve talked about other areas of work, other drills, and other approaches. You have valid points to make, but we can’t actually get to them, because you’re too busy making generalizations and assumptions. It’s time to drop this line - it’s profiting nobody.

You are too busy defending your ego on a method that is just silly. If part of your training is silly. It does not make it good because it is only part of your training.

Why you keep trying to defend unworkable methods is beyond me. But while you do continue to defend silly training. I will continue to point out it is silly.

Dressing people up like street fighters who are not street fighters. Is not the same as a judoka doing a judo throw with less intensity.

That is pretty obvious.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are too busy defending your ego on a method that is just silly. If part of your training is silly. It does not make it good because it is only part of your training.

Why you keep trying to defend unworkable methods is beyond me. But while you do continue to defend silly training. I will continue to point out it is silly.

Dressing people up like street fighters who are not street fighters. Is not the same as a judoka doing a judo throw with less intensity.

That is pretty obvious.

I don’t actually need to defend it. There are legitimate issues that can be raised, but you’re too busy making silly assumptions to make yourself right to actually make the salient points. You make specious destinations between similar drill concepts, and avoid actual discussion by using each argument as a reply to a response to each other argument.

You might try looking back to see if I ever claimed people were delivering exactly the attack of a “street fighter”. I’ll save you the time: I never did. What I said was they were replicating the mechanics of attacks that are found in street attacks. Your repeated attacks on a statement I’ve not made are yet another example of your frequent use of straw man arguments. You’d rather “win” than actually make a useful point. I’m done with this discussion.