you don't need to bash your uke.

[drop bear]

More in the context of the demo you are just covering up and trying not to get pummelled. A little bit of psychology comes into play here. In the ring you have 'consensual' violence. Each is trying to attack the other within a given rule set. On the street your assailant has already picked you as his victim. Normally, he will only attack someone if he believes he had a distinct advantage and is 100% certain of success, in his own mind. So when he attacks, he is not expecting much resistance, if any. Krav is a full on explosion of violence in response to an attack and unless you are expecting it, I would suggest most people would be more inclined to be defending themselves and not countering.
:asian:

But you are training not to be a victim on the street. Countering while being wailed on will raise your ability. Dealing with somone who counters will raise your ability.

Compliant drills are to get your technique right. The guy isn't fighting back to give you that extra time to perfect what you are doing. And not so much to get as fast and aggressive as you can. Because anybody can be fast and aggressive if the other guy does not fight back.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Arent you training to back off when you get hit though? Rather than defend and counter.

The training in this case is just for one person. The "attacker" is playing a part for his partner's sake. It's not like sparring where both partners are getting benefit from the exercise. (I suppose this is another reason to not train that way all the time.)

 

[drop bear]

Nobody seemed to pick up on this comment. Well maybe it's a little off topic, but it's something that bugs me too. Like all those demos by Joseph Simonet and Addy Hernandez. Well I admit that Addy had a bit to do with why I watched them (it certainly wasn't Joseph's WC skills) but why not have Addy beat up on Joseph?

Here's a funny one:

Yeah that has to be demo suicide doesn't it?


The kick defence one that sparked this thread. And the dude had like 20 kilos on the other guy. And then knee spiked him in the leg. I will see if I can hunt it down.

2:20

 

[Chris Parker]

Right.

Demos in general. Not resisted is my issue with realism. Not the pace at which a compliant drill is done.

Here's a mind-twist for you… resistance isn't realistic.

Get your head around that one…

Sparring you can defend yourself. There are different dynamics in play.

So, if you acknowledge that, why aren't you acknowledging what those different dynamics (and the reasons for them) when you look at other training/demonstration methods? This ain't sparring… and it's not meant to be, or pretending to be.

Seriously, different contexts require different methods… I highly recommend you start to realise that, Dogberry… (sorry, Horatio was already taken&#8230

It's always impressive to watch a bigger guy beat the crap out of a smaller guy in a demonstration.....

To be honest, the entire clip comes across to me as a thuggish display of power without any real sense of personal control or restraint… but when it comes to the size of the individuals involved, I don't have much of an issue. The instructor is who the instructor is… and maybe it's only these guys (who happen to be a bit smaller than him) who are at the senior level to act as "attackers"… I mean, it's not like a WWE wrestler is taking on a 10 year old kid here… the size disparity isn't that huge.

The video as an example.

The video as/is an example of what? It's not an example of the criticisms you cited… so what is it an example of?

I don't know how beneficial training multiple finishing moves really is though. You train to avoid and counter that is the meat of what you are learning. The rest is just show.

"To avoid and counter" might be the "meat" of what you're doing, but that in no way whatsoever means that it's the primary method of anything else… as I stated earlier, the primary tactical application here is to overwhelm… not to avoid and counter. What you do is just that… what you do. It's not the best, the be-all end-all, the only, the proven, or anything else. It's just one of many approaches. I heartily recommend you realise that other systems have other ideas, which might run counter to your understanding, and accept that just because you don't do something, that doesn't make it wrong, bad, or anything else.

In other words, get over this idea that what you do is the only way to do things.

Some folks (like myself) don't start out with much in the way of "killer instinct" and may have the natural tendency to back off when they see an opponent look hurt. This could be a serious mistake in a self-defense situation. Maybe you only got the initial advantage because the bad guy wasn't expecting a strong counterattack and if you allow him to recover you may not get the advantage again.

As I said, I don't think most people need to train that way most of the time. It's just an occasional option for those who need it. I guess it does make an entertaining demo for those who are into such things, though.

To be honest, it's quite a large part of the training of a realistic self defence system… so some systems will train like that far more than "occasionally"… for their benefit.

Arent you training to back off when you get hit though? Rather than defend and counter.

No. You're looking at entirely the wrong thing… stop thinking that all systems are training for the same context, or that the sports-style context you're familiar with is the reality outside of that.

But you are training not to be a victim on the street.

That's not the person who's doing the "training"… they're the training partner.

Look, I'll try to put this in terms you can understand… when running through punching combinations with someone holding pads, are you concerned about the pad-man not avoiding the punches, or counter-punching (outside of as required in specific drills)? In a real way, the "attacker" here is more like a guy holding pads… not a sparring partner.

Countering while being wailed on will raise your ability.

Whose ability, though? The guy who's not training?

The point is that you're still looking at the wrong side of things, and expecting it to match something that it's not.

Dealing with somone who counters will raise your ability.

What makes you think that that's not dealt with? You've seen a clip of one tactical approach… which is to overwhelm… but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to saying what the training is actually like… unless, of course, you think that all training forms must cover all the bases (here's a hint… not only is that impossible, it's downright undesired).

Compliant drills are to get your technique right. The guy isn't fighting back to give you that extra time to perfect what you are doing. And not so much to get as fast and aggressive as you can. Because anybody can be fast and aggressive if the other guy does not fight back.

Read what's been said, open yourself up to understanding that what you're watching isn't anything to do with anything you know about, and see if you can see the answers to these comments… because you're still missing, well, everything.

 

[drop bear]

Right.



Here's a mind-twist for you… resistance isn't realistic.

Get your head around that one…



So, if you acknowledge that, why aren't you acknowledging what those different dynamics (and the reasons for them) when you look at other training/demonstration methods? This ain't sparring… and it's not meant to be, or pretending to be.

Seriously, different contexts require different methods… I highly recommend you start to realise that, Dogberry… (sorry, Horatio was already taken&#8230



To be honest, the entire clip comes across to me as a thuggish display of power without any real sense of personal control or restraint… but when it comes to the size of the individuals involved, I don't have much of an issue. The instructor is who the instructor is… and maybe it's only these guys (who happen to be a bit smaller than him) who are at the senior level to act as "attackers"… I mean, it's not like a WWE wrestler is taking on a 10 year old kid here… the size disparity isn't that huge.



The video as/is an example of what? It's not an example of the criticisms you cited… so what is it an example of?



"To avoid and counter" might be the "meat" of what you're doing, but that in no way whatsoever means that it's the primary method of anything else… as I stated earlier, the primary tactical application here is to overwhelm… not to avoid and counter. What you do is just that… what you do. It's not the best, the be-all end-all, the only, the proven, or anything else. It's just one of many approaches. I heartily recommend you realise that other systems have other ideas, which might run counter to your understanding, and accept that just because you don't do something, that doesn't make it wrong, bad, or anything else.

In other words, get over this idea that what you do is the only way to do things.



To be honest, it's quite a large part of the training of a realistic self defence system… so some systems will train like that far more than "occasionally"… for their benefit.



No. You're looking at entirely the wrong thing… stop thinking that all systems are training for the same context, or that the sports-style context you're familiar with is the reality outside of that.



That's not the person who's doing the "training"… they're the training partner.

Look, I'll try to put this in terms you can understand… when running through punching combinations with someone holding pads, are you concerned about the pad-man not avoiding the punches, or counter-punching (outside of as required in specific drills)? In a real way, the "attacker" here is more like a guy holding pads… not a sparring partner.



Whose ability, though? The guy who's not training?

The point is that you're still looking at the wrong side of things, and expecting it to match something that it's not.



What makes you think that that's not dealt with? You've seen a clip of one tactical approach… which is to overwhelm… but that doesn't mean anything when it comes to saying what the training is actually like… unless, of course, you think that all training forms must cover all the bases (here's a hint… not only is that impossible, it's downright undesired).



Read what's been said, open yourself up to understanding that what you're watching isn't anything to do with anything you know about, and see if you can see the answers to these comments… because you're still missing, well, everything.

Sorry you are wrong.

 

[drop bear]

The training in this case is just for one person. The "attacker" is playing a part for his partner's sake. It's not like sparring where both partners are getting benefit from the exercise. (I suppose this is another reason to not train that way all the time.)

Yeah you are trying to give the guy a specific feed to get his brain around a concept. I don't feel it is all that useful as an exercise in murderising people. And taken too far that is what it seems to become.

In fact drills in general are generally better slowing people down than speeding them up.

 

[Chris Parker]

Sorry you are wrong.

Er… what?

Mate, if you're going to quote me, just quote the part you want to respond to… or, if that was a response to the whole thing, then I stand by it… you really don't have a clue what you're looking at, or talking about. But, of course, if you want to clarify what you feel I'm wrong about, go ahead… I have no issue hearing a dissenting opinion.

Yeah you are trying to give the guy a specific feed to get his brain around a concept. I don't feel it is all that useful as an exercise in murderising people. And taken too far that is what it seems to become.

In fact drills in general are generally better slowing people down than speeding them up.

To be honest, it's comments like this that have me (and others) doubting you get what any of this form of training is about… or what drills training is about… or, well, anything that doesn't have you living out a cage-fighter fantasy of toughness and "real fightering"… and I really do mean "fantasy".

 

[drop bear]

Here we go a kick boxing version.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmApNWVzYac

 

[Chris Parker]

Version of what?

 

[drop bear]

Er… what?

Mate, if you're going to quote me, just quote the part you want to respond to… or, if that was a response to the whole thing, then I stand by it… you really don't have a clue what you're looking at, or talking about. But, of course, if you want to clarify what you feel I'm wrong about, go ahead… I have no issue hearing a dissenting opinion.



To be honest, it's comments like this that have me (and others) doubting you get what any of this form of training is about… or what drills training is about… or, well, anything that doesn't have you living out a cage-fighter fantasy of toughness and "real fightering"… and I really do mean "fantasy".

Sorry still wrong.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay… so you have absolutely no back-up, yeah?

This is bordering on trolling now, you realise…

 

[K-man]

Yeah you are trying to give the guy a specific feed to get his brain around a concept. I don't feel it is all that useful as an exercise in murderising people. And taken too far that is what it seems to become.

In fact drills in general are generally better slowing people down than speeding them up.

The thing is what you saw was not a drill. What you saw was an unscripted response to an attack that I am assuming was predetermined. It is, as was said by Tony Dismukes above, training for one person. I tried to describe it for you in the training I conducted a week or so ago. The difference between what I did and what you saw in the video was my attacks were unscripted as were my guy's responses. I don't think you took anything I said on board

We have different training philosophies. You train your way and I and others train our way. Neither way is wrong and I would suggest neither way is better unless you want to put the training into context. But there are some crusaders who seem bent on changing the world to their belief, and guess what? It ain't going to happen. You will change your training as you get older without a doubt. I don't have to because I have been transitioning over the past decade or so. The Gracie interview on the other thread is what I am referring to here. Perhaps in time you will come to appreciate other people's training without feeling the need to criticise and try to change what they are doing.

This thread started out about bashing your partner and like so many other threads in recent time has descended into the murky depths of one training methodology against another. What a pity we can't celebrate our differences.
:asian:

 

[K-man]

Here we go a kick boxing version.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tmApNWVzYac

OK, so this one is totally different. Here they are training a drill. There is a set attack and a set response. The only hard strike is the kick to the thigh which is incredibly painful after the first one or two. I see no reason for the guy being kicked couldn't wear a thigh guard unless they are working on conditioning as well as the drill.
:asian:

 

[tshadowchaser]

I am just going to jump in here and say this:
beating on the UKE is almost a right of passage in many schools for the black belt to be. He gets to feel what the technique may really feel like when applied ( be it a punch, throw, etc.). In many schools the UKE knows he is going to get hit (or what ever) hard and he is prepared for it.
Heck he may not like it but I can almost bet that when the day comes that he is demonstrating his uke gets the same treatment if he thinks the uke will someday be a teacher.
It may be an old school tradition that is still being passed down today

 

[drop bear]

I am just going to jump in here and say this:
beating on the UKE is almost a right of passage in many schools for the black belt to be. He gets to feel what the technique may really feel like when applied ( be it a punch, throw, etc.). In many schools the UKE knows he is going to get hit (or what ever) hard and he is prepared for it.
Heck he may not like it but I can almost bet that when the day comes that he is demonstrating his uke gets the same treatment if he thinks the uke will someday be a teacher.
It may be an old school tradition that is still being passed down today

That pretty much.

 

[hussaf]

As an Uke I prefer it when I get a partner that likes to put a little energy into it and scrap up, whether it's karate, grappling or aikido.

 

[drop bear]

The thing is what you saw was not a drill. What you saw was an unscripted response to an attack that I am assuming was predetermined. It is, as was said by Tony Dismukes above, training for one person. I tried to describe it for you in the training I conducted a week or so ago. The difference between what I did and what you saw in the video was my attacks were unscripted as were my guy's responses. I don't think you took anything I said on board

We have different training philosophies. You train your way and I and others train our way. Neither way is wrong and I would suggest neither way is better unless you want to put the training into context. But there are some crusaders who seem bent on changing the world to their belief, and guess what? It ain't going to happen. You will change your training as you get older without a doubt. I don't have to because I have been transitioning over the past decade or so. The Gracie interview on the other thread is what I am referring to here. Perhaps in time you will come to appreciate other people's training without feeling the need to criticise and try to change what they are doing.

This thread started out about bashing your partner and like so many other threads in recent time has descended into the murky depths of one training methodology against another. What a pity we can't celebrate our differences.
:asian:

It really isn't. It is a couple of posters desperate to take offence rather than have a discussion.

I mean seriously if I don't like some training methods that you do. Why are you so crippled by that? It is childish.

 

[K-man]

It really isn't. It is a couple of posters desperate to take offence rather than have a discussion.

I hope that's not me as I believe I am trying to discuss it.

 

[elder999]

It really isn't. It is a couple of posters desperate to take offence rather than have a discussion.

Well, I know that's not me. I may not have agreed with your evaluation in the OP, but I didn't "take offense."

I mean, dude-it's the internet. I don't even take myself seriously, let alone 95% of what gets posted here....

 

[K-man]

Well, I know that's not me. I may not have agreed with your evaluation in the OP, but I didn't "take offense."

I mean, dude-it's the internet. I don't even take myself seriously, let alone 95% of what gets posted here....

I must be one of the few that keeps in the 5% envelope , and it is difficult at times.