Sigh.......
This gets thrown around a bit and it is an excuse not context. It is kind of tragic to suggest your expertise is being able to out run someone with broken legs.
People use this also with weapons. So if they train with a sword and then say but if I have a sword and they don't I would win so my training is superior.
I mean it isn't. I can beat a guy if I have all the advantages without needing any training in it. That doesn't really make me an expert in anything.
Yeah... you missed the point entirely. Again. Firstly, again, "being an expert" is not claimed... you stated that your friend could run away faster than I could, regardless of context or circumstances... as you'd failed to grasp the first set of examples I gave, I went a bit further... but the point is not the idea of running faster than someone with broken legs, it's that there can be any number of reasons that make running away a bad plan... or an impossibility. And to think that having this one skill set is all it takes is, well, failing at understanding what is being discussed.
One more thing.... it's not about "beating" someone... that, again, is a failure to understand the situation... which comes from only having one frame of reference.
true statements are not libel.
No, but knowingly, and continually, denying the evidence presented in order to insinuate (or outright claim) a false description of one in order to damage their reputation really, really, really is. The only thing preventing it is the lack of impact on a professional level... if we're going to get technical.
You have in the past acknowledged zero real world experience with self defense, and I am pretty sure you have no real world experience with violence of any kind.
That, Steve, is complete and utter garbage. I have, continually, consistently, and often (when in these discussions with you) cited multiple examples and occurrences of myself having "real world experience" with self defence usage (in fact, when asked, I stated that I use my self defence training constantly, all day, every day... but you don't grasp what that means, and think it only refers to physical confrontation). You insisted that "no-one can teach self defence, as no-one has experience with it", and failed entirely to quantify what you meant by that... myself, and others, recounted their encounters, and you ignored them. You were asked how many violent encounters were required, and you said "more than none", so we recounted them again. You said that learning it needed to be from someone who had "done it", I recounted violent encounters my teacher had had, that I had had, and that my students had had... giving you three generations of experience (my teachers, who taught me, and my students who I taught). You, again, have ignored that entirely.
I have recounted them, yet again, in this very thread. You are, again, stating (falsely) that I have claimed no experience with violence, and claiming that I have no experience with real violence. Steve, let me be very clear.
I have dealt with real world violence. I have employed the teachings of my school in situations ranging from escorting friends from danger, to applying non-violent restraint techniques on both friends and strangers, through to handling sudden assaults, and a five on one assault. I have dealt with drunk people, I have dealt with people on drugs, and I have dealt with a (at that point undiagnosed) schizophrenic having a psychotic violent episode. I have not yet (and hope not to) dealt with an opponent armed with a weapon, however my teacher and my students have. They have also dealt with muggings. They have dealt with drunk fools at parties who decide to start a fight. And all of this is the lowest level of self defence.
I say again. You have been told this repeatedly. Stop with the false insinuations. Now. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You are, as Iāve said in the past, like a college professor. I enjoy your history lessons.
Genuinely, based on your responses, even in a thread based in historical matters, as you continue to attack and troll as listed above, I doubt that. You have done this for years, and it's time you were called on your behaviour.
I just understand the difference between skill and knowledge, and you seem not to.
Please. I'd say you have no idea of my skills, except you've had them detailed to you multiple times over. The real problem is you have no idea what is either skill or knowledge in this field.
Having the latter doesnāt magically confer the former; experience is what bridges the two.
I will say again... when it comes to self defence, you, despite being told multiple times by many, many people, don't grasp what entails "experience" in this topic. It is largely an academic concept and construct (well, actually a legal one), with a minor physical aspect. You only seem to have any grasp on the physical (and not from your own experience), with no willingness to expand from there. And that is far from my failing, as I've certainly provided you with the knowledge over the years.
Yeah... just echoing the term to me doesn't work when you don't see why it was applied in the first place... that's just a childish attempts to "one-up".
Frankly, your behavior just makes it more clear.
For years, you have slighted me. You have derided my experience, you have denied my experience, you have ignored every time you have been corrected, you have refused to acknowledge anything you've been told, and you have derailed multiple threads where I am involved in order to further this lunatic agenda you seem to have against me.
If we're discussing a concept of defending against attack, what precisely do you think my behaviour should be?
but, you know, yesterday America broke up with a fascist, and not even your pompous arrogance and bloviation can ruin my good mood.
Honestly, I'm celebrating alongside you there... so I'm going to let those last digs slide. This time.
I measure things differently. I objectively test my methods against other methods by using competition, sparring, resistance. And exposure to other systems and people who train in them.
I get that. That's your value. And, for the 19,000th time... that's fine. Great, even. But expecting all martial arts to share the same value is where you get it completely wrong.
That's the point.
You value a particular approach to martial arts... which will have you drawn to a particular type of martial art (competitive)... that is how you decide what you want to train in. If another martial art appeals to someone else who doesn't share your values, what skin off your nose is that? It's the reason there are other martial arts. The problem is you want all martial arts to be the same... they're not. It's time you came to terms with that.
By using this measurement method I ascribe value.
Yes, but that's not the values we're discussing here. That would get you to value certain techniques/tactics/attacks etc. What we're discussing is the first thing you said... it's you valuing the competition as a testing method in the first place.
Now I am not exactly a boring percentage fighter. I definitely do things that are fun but don't work very well. But because I value an honest measurement I at least know the difference.
Changing that measurement doesn't really make anything more accurate. It just creates a logic or rhetoric that makes people feel good. So healing crystals will not be measured in the same way medicine is because it would of course fail. It will get measured in some way according to individual values that justifies them for people who like that kind of thing.
You're really not getting it.
What I mean when I talk about metrics is that, while competition is used as a way to measure performance in a competitive system, it's not used to measure a non-competitive one. Using a framework of "self defence" is pointless when looking at a school that doesn't deal in it at all.
You seem to be unable to process the idea that people train martial arts for different reasons... and keep trying to insist on asking how a school not designed for, trained for, or applied as a self defence system works in self defence. It's not meant to.
Your "healing crystal vs medicine" analogy is not apt.
Ok. If I ascribe my own values to martial arts say in the terms of Japanese systems. Which you have said is cool for everyone to do.
No.
What I have said is that you have your own set of values, which then guides you towards a particular approach to martial arts. And that's great, as that's what your values are meant to do. What they aren't meant to do, though, is to be falsely applied to an alien context with no regard for that context itself.
Look, there's an old quote often attributed to Einstein on the nature of intelligence... if you judge a fish by it's ability to ride a bicycle, it will spend it's life believing that it is stupid. And that is obviously just a bad way to apply a metric that's not appropriate. Which is exactly what you're doing.
Basically your argument is have your values. I have my values you don't understand the system of merit I am using so therefore you cannot really make an assessment of my systems because you don't understand the measurements.
No, I understand it perfectly. Your values are fine, they just don't apply in this case.
Trying to test length by using kilograms.
That's not testing, that's measuring.
But then I don't really have to value Japanese history or its authenticity or value time spent in training effectiveness of technique. I can value whatever I want which is for now is the magical made up value of midichlorians.
To break this up, you're correct, then you're just... wrong. Not even wrong, really. Not even in the ballpark.
Yes, you have no requirement to value Japanese history or authenticity of classical arts or anything similar.... unless that is what you are studying. Yes, you can value what you want, but applying it where it doesn't apply is just, well, stupid. Like a fish trying to ride a bicycle. And the argumentum ad absurdum is simply another indication that you are failing badly at just grasping what is being said.
Because I have a massively high midichlorian count that is tested by a method you don't understand i have the ability to teach traditional Japanese systems that far surpasses yours.
As I can test your midichlorians in a manner you wouldn't understand. Unfortunately due to your low midichlorians you can never properly teach those systems.
Please stop trying to apply reducto ad absurdum, as you simply can't do it.
No, values are not made up beliefs. I've told you that before. Understand it.
Values are what you find worth in. For you, it's competitive training and what you gain out of that. That's fine. It has nothing at all to do with non-competitive systems.
It's this simple. If you're training in a Classical Japanese system, you will obviously value the way that system operates, which is different to the way a modern art does. It makes neither "better" or "worse" than the other... just different. I really don't get why this is hard for you to understand.
This concept devalues martial arts instruction. Because now anyone can do it.
What are you talking about? You don't understand classical arts, as you've never done them and they are completely alien to you, so it's a matter of made up fantasy beliefs?!?!? No.
Classical martial arts instruction is far more detailed, precise, efficient, focused, directed, and effective than most modern systems. It is really not a case of "anyone can do it".... in fact, the criteria of being a respected teacher are significantly higher than you have any idea of.
Because we're discussing all forms of Jujutsu. The point of this thread is to discuss if Brazilian JJ will continue on its path towards becoming the dominant form of Jujitsu due to its popularity and penetration in various countries around the world, including Japan.
Here's the real problem with your initial thesis... there's no such thing as "jujutsu". Really. There's not.
There are many, many, many systems who have curriculums (or parts of their curriculums) that can be identified as jujutsu in one way or another... but are so distinct from each other that there really can never be a "dominant form". Just many different (in many cases, unrelated) arts who share some basic commonality of terminology (although even that is nowhere near what you might think it is).
At the end of the day, BJJ really is not jujutsu... so how can it be the "dominant form"? It can only be so in the minds of people who are largely ignorant of jujutsu itself. You may as well as if muay Thai or TKD is the dominant form of kung fu... or of boxing. They're all striking dominant forms of martial arts, but they share very little beyond that. It's the same here.
Do most people imagine BJJ when you say "ju jitsu"? Sure. Does that mean it's dominant? Only in popular imagination. But then again, those people who think of BJJ, are they actually thinking of BJJ? Or are they just thinking of any kind of ground fighting seen in MMA, and wouldn't know the difference between it, Catch-as-catch-can wrestling, Greco-Roman wrestling, Shui Chao, Chin-na, Freestyle Wrestling, or Professional Wrestling? Okay, today, hopefully they'd be able to identify the last... but still, I wouldn't be shocked.
After all, can you recognise the different strains of karate? Or is it all just "karate"? Before you started martial arts, could you spot the difference between that and TKD? Could you tell what was Japanese and what was Okinawan? Or American? Or was it all "karate", regardless?
The point is that popular imagination is not everything... it's just that. Imagination. It's an image, not necessarily, or even likely based in knowledge or reality... just an image that kinda stuck. It doesn't mean that other jujutsu systems are going anywhere. There's still an audience/market for them as well. Hell, there's a market for all the low-level, McDojo, fraudulent, delusional fools of "teachers" out there as well. Those, in particular, seem to do really well... especially as all they have to do is kinda look like the popular image... and not worry about accuracy or authenticity or skill... just put on a show, and cash the cheque. Are they going anywhere thanks to BJJ? Nope.
And that's the last point. BJJ's popularity doesn't come at the expense of other arts. More people training in BJJ means just that. More people training in BJJ. It doesn't mean less people training in other things. More people playing guitar doesn't mean less people playing drums. It just means more musicians.
I find it unbelievable that you think that someone on top of another person, or someone being wrestled or struck to the ground is a low likelihood self defense situation.
You can find it unbelievable, but it's accurate. Firstly, as mentioned, physical violence (and dealing with it) is the lowest level of "self defence". Second, the only study that suggested a relatively high likelihood of it came from a study of police engagements, where they wrestled the suspect to the ground in order to control and arrest them... which is not self defence, nor is it an accurate view of violence outside that context.
How do you think the majority of women are sexually assaulted? Standing up?
Actually, yeah. A lot of sexual assaults are far from the "pin a woman down and rape her". Many/most are standing. I don't want to start listing them, as I don't want to inadvertently trigger anyone who may be reading this, but yes. The fact you are unaware of this just further supports my comment about HAOV being the first step to understanding this topic.
Maybe that was the case in medieval Japan, but it isn't the case in the modern world.
Have you seriously not read a word that's been written?
Their ability has never been objectively demonstrated in the modern era. You hear stories about it, and you see them do pretty demonstrations, but that's about it. The closest modern MA that utilizes that type of training model is Aikido, and by and large Aikidoka's ability to perform those techniques on a resisting opponent has been suspect.
Okay, I suppose you haven't....
For the last time... classical martial arts aren't concerned with demonstrating ability outside of their art. We don't care about the "cage". We don't care about competition. We don't care about anything you think is important. We don't need to demonstrate anything to your satisfaction, as we aren't even in the same arena. For that matter, BJJ hasn't ever been objectively demonstrated in our context. Which is because that's not where it works.
Stop trying to apply the way you think things are supposed to work, and you might start to learn how they actually do.
Again, the principle is controlling position, and using that ability to control a violent outcome.
Oh, I understand completely what the essential tactical methodology of BJJ is. But you haven't been describing the concept of principles (as that's a tactic, not a principle), and have not given different contexts, just different applications of a basic technical approach.
Sure... but the point is more that the semantics are indicative of a larger issue.
Marketing backed by multiple forms of evidence.
HA!!!!
No. Really, minimalist "forms" of evidence, when it comes down to it... and largely self-supportive. But that's okay as well. It's how the marketing works for BJJ, and really, more power to it in that regard. But the fact is, it's still marketing.
How is it inaccurate? You said yourself that your training revolves around medieval Japanese situations, weapons, tactics, and concepts. You even go so far as culturally appropriate language, norms, and dress.
Are you genuinely unable to get this?
No, we do not "culturally appropriate" anything. We use the proper (appropriate) terminology and methodology to the practice. Are ballet dancers "culturally appropriating" being French when they describe doing a pass-de-deux? Is anyone "culturally appropriating" America when saying they're practicing "lay-ups" in basketball?
So if a woman wanted to learn how to defend herself you would seriously tell her to learn a medieval Japanese martial art that would teach her how to twirl a spear, learn a kata about a person getting attacked with a sword by a samurai, and how to properly bow during a tea ceremony....
.....versus a BJJ or MMA school where she'll constantly have a burly hairy man on top her imposing his will on her, and that woman having to learn through skill and practice how to escape that situation and submit her attacker?
I consider that quite irresponsible.
Oh, for god's sake.....
Point out once, just once, where I have said that, for self defence, the best choice is classical jujutsu. Seriously. I have, instead, said repeatedly that we do not train for self defence, particularly in a modern context. Are you truly unable to read what is written?
I consider that quite... yeah, look, the words aren't approved of here... but pompous, arrogant, bull-headed, foolish, unwilling to learn, unwilling to read... that's getting closer...
I should also point out that he refers to Bjj as simply āJiujitsuā, which further illustrates my point that the term Jiujitsu is slowly but surely being linked to one particular style only (Bjj) in popular vernacular.
No, it says that the audience he was talking to considers BJJ as "jujitsu" and "jujitsu" as BJJ, using the terms interchangeably.
Speaking of which, I think a good question is BJJ's penetration of the Japanese market, and what long term effects that may have if it maintains or expands upon its current level of popularity in that country. No other American form of jujitsu has ever penetrated the Japanese market on the level that BJJ has. There could be a point that even in Japan, "Jiujitsu" simply means BJJ.
I think we're rapidly approaching that reality quite quickly.
It's a rather interesting thing, but not for the reason you think... it's the bizarre case of a loanword being altered, then brought back to the country of origin in it's altered state as a secondary loanword... so, yeah... they'd probably think of BJJ if you asked about "jujitsu" in Japan... accompanied by a slightly quizzical look... of course, this is assuming the person you spoke to had any reference at all.
This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read here. And it has "McDojo" written all over it.
I'm retired military, so I definitely would have heard of this if it was a thing.
Well, Rusty, I don't know what to tell you.... perhaps your military background failed you if it didn't teach civilian defensive and protective methods, such as escape?
But with a bit less of a quip, are you seriously suggesting that the idea of learning how to hide effectively, rather than having no tactic at all and getting run down by a larger, faster aggressor, is a bad thing? And you equate it to a "McDojo"? You may have a bit to learn about how RBSD methods work, then...
