Sure. But in simplifying the concept of SD one flows from one to the other.
Yeah, but I'm not convinced DB recognises the difference and at the very least he was using loose terminology. His description pretty much implied that as soon as the trachea was grabbed a person would 'freeze', again a similar concept. No trained person is going to react that way no matter however you want to describe it.
Something someone else wrote:
Only for the purpose of the exercise. I just wasn't being specific in what the response should be as different people will train different responses. I would normally train it with a likely/realistic response rather than an artificially contrived one.
Yes, I am pointing out the flaw in the drill but it is the type of drilling you will see in most places.
I was expanding on:
I'm suggesting that drills are fine as long as people understand why they are drilling. Some styles have hundreds of drills so that every possible attack is covered. The problem arises when the attack is varied, so I don't have any set drills. We used to call them 'pre-arranged sparring', one of the many things I abandoned some years back.
Yet you will read time after time someone who can't use them declaring that they don't work. If you look deeper I would be sure that in most instances they are attempting to move to that technique from the wrong start point, something you could only do with brute force.
No. Shuhari was in a different context. As you say, what I was describing would only be 'Shu'.
Interesting that you qualified your response, "in a way". That's exactly what I was saying. The terminology is the same but the meaning can vary between styles. For example my kata has no set interpretation as it is a single person sequence of techniques. The application of those techniques is up to the individual as the original meaning of the kata was never passed down, if indeed it ever existed. I have never seen your kata but from what you have written in the past I am assuming that with your two man kata the meaning is evident.
Sure.
Again, true. But it is very difficult to produce a definition that is water tight. If we could do that a billion lawyers would suddenly be without a vocation.
Read any thread on MT. How long does it take before one of the dogs grabs it and tries to run off with it? Some people are set in their ways and will never take anything on board. Oh what bliss, to know that your cup is always full.
The arguement is valid, the outcome somewhat different. Achieving a definition that is acceptable to all is only a remote possibility.
Yes, but ...
Your weapon systems are integral to your traditional training in the same way that I would say weapons are integral in a combatives system. In RBSD the use of weapons has to be addressed. How it is treated causes the overlap.
Without learning to fight you may not reach the "post fight" stage in any meaningful way. So I would still argue that although all the elements of RBSD are important, the ability to physically take care of yourself is your insurance policy when the other bits have failed.
