Your Enemy Is Training...

[MadMartigan]

One person's bickering is another's discussion. Often when people complain about bickering what they actually mean is they don't like being disagreed with.

I think the problem he and I were addressing is:
This site lists that there are currently 24824 members. While at the same time, there were only 10 actually online
"Total: 308 (members: 10, guests: 298)"
Which appears to be somewhat of an average at any given time.

My working theory is many have joined; but few have stuck around. Many look as visitors, but do not join. If I was placing bets, I know where I'd put my money as the primary cause. Too many arguments about grammar or just circular arguments that no one actually want to solve or find common ground on... or stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand that go back and forth and on and on... kinda like that run on sentence just now .

The thought crossed my mind the other day. If I was a parent (with no MA background) researching which martial art to enroll my kid in. After reading portions of this site; I'd start looking into baseball or soccer.

Too much 'keyboard warring' as he put it. Not enough of the mutual respect and comraderery that should fill a place like this.

 

[dvcochran]

Diverse bickering, is still bickering...and is what runs a majority of people off. Keyboard warring, is getting old, in all categories.

It is simply not productive.

Agree; arguing for the sake of arguing is unproductive; but we all do it, unconsciously at times. It never hurts to point that out to someone even though the attempt may be fruitless.

 

[Graywalker]

One person's bickering is another's discussion. Often when people complain about bickering what they actually mean is they don't like being disagreed with.

Horse crap, this is a bully excuse. Knew many of them in my days and they always say these lame excuses. (Kidding)

 

[ShortBridge]

I participate in a few on-line fora and am a Moderator on one. They all settle into a culture and a pattern of behavior either by design or organically. It's tough to redirect that once it takes hold.

Some of this is just IRL martial arts community behavior too, though I have found the people tend to be cooler or come across that way in person than on-line. Hopefully that is true for me as well.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

This site lists that there are currently 24824 members. While at the same time, there were only 10 actually online

Maybe the other 24814 members are out there training now instead of talking online! The offline members are the true enemy. They're getting ready to come for us any day now. We need to hone our keyboard skills in self-defense.

 

[Urban Trekker]

Too much 'keyboard warring' as he put it. Not enough of the mutual respect and comraderery that should fill a place like this.

I'd say the comeradery and the thumb thugging go hand-in-hand. The old regulars are gatekeeping. But that happens in every forum, not just here.

 

[drop bear]

Conversion is sparring not kata.

 

[Graywalker]

I'd say the comeradery and the thumb thugging go hand-in-hand. The old regulars are gatekeeping. But that happens in every forum, not just here.

Yeah the gatekeeping, is a weird thing imo...and not at all constructive.

 

[Graywalker]

Conversion is sparring not kata.

Intelligent conversation, would be Kata

 

[dvcochran]

Conversion is sparring not kata.

Conversation? I have heard the acronym 'word sparring' many, many times.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Conversation? I have heard the acronym 'word sparring' many, many times.

You have? I have not. Can you tell us all what the acronym W.O.R.D. S.P.A.R.R.I.N.G. stands for?

 

[dvcochran]

You have? I have not. Can you tell us all what the acronym W.O.R.D. S.P.A.R.R.I.N.G. stands for?

Haha. I cannot and yes, that was a bad choice of wording. Believe I was thinking of synonymous.
Let's try it is the same as saying conversation equals 'word sparring'.

 

[The Contender]

Dear Martial Arts Talk,

What trainings that will help win the fight in each different fights of opponents should go in the fighters head. He should use a couple of moves he needs to learn most importantly as practice. This may help faster training even with cops or people with day jobs that are busy. You may get faster execution on your moves you train most. Moreover, the enemy also has to do the correct moves as well. The enemy has to know what you are doing. He must train for you and many more enemies. He must have the right footwork at the right distance even strikes. The enemy must train to do these things (there are many enemies to train differently). Of course, sometimes the enemy knows how to do them. The question is does the enemy have luck as well sometimes?

I am a beginner, and I would like to learn more.

Thank you and be safe!

 

[Tez3]

Maybe the other 24814 members are out there training now instead of talking online! The offline members are the true enemy. They're getting ready to come for us any day now. We need to hone our keyboard skills in self-defense.

There's also a big time difference between members, we've members from all around the world so it's unlikely you'll get huge numbers on at the same time.

 

[Shatteredzen]

I've met a few, have you met any proper Marines? By that I mean Royal Marine Commandos, have you met any Paras or any British military? They would be disgusted to be thought of as a bully even in jest.
During the last war, American soldiers were issued with instructions on how to work with the British forces, good advice look it up.

Yes, I have worked with the Royal Marine Commandos several times, it helps that they didn't have nearly as much salt in their tea as you seem to. In my experience, the British military and its descendants like the Australian military have a very high level of competency and they are easy to work with. That said, they function very differently than the American military and have a totally different perspective on leadership, operations, etc that is overall incompatible with the way we do business. We can work well together, especially our special operations forces, but we are as foreign to each other as we could be from an organizational standpoint. Its simply comparing apples to oranges. American military are mostly much younger overall, half the privates in the RMC I have worked with were older than my staff NCO's and their most junior lance corporal I ever met was still in his early twenties.

A USMC rifle squad by comparison will likely have a bunch of eighteen and nineteen year olds with a twenty or twenty one year old corporal, a twenty three year old sergeant and a staff sergeant or gunny who isn't even thirty yet as a patrol leader. As a young corporal I had been a squad/patrol leader many times before my 21st birthday, that's pretty much unheard of in the British military. Leadership in the British armed forces tends to be very top heavy although it tends to be very democratic at a squad level, lending towards the better base of experience and we can see this approach in US special forces units where a similar level of experience is the norm. US units tend to better distribute authority to lower levels and so junior NCO's tend to make most of the decisions and leadership gives more interpretive or abstract instructions, relying on the junior NCO's to "get it done". Both of these styles of leadership have their benefits and drawbacks, but I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to argue that the US Marines aren't effective at what they do or aren't the premier fighting force in the world, even your Royal Marine Commandos, who are better compared to our special forces, do not have the mission or the capabilities tasked to the US Marines, no one does.

 

[Tez3]

Yes, I have worked with the Royal Marine Commandos several times, it helps that they didn't have nearly as much salt in their tea as you seem to. In my experience, the British military and its descendants like the Australian military have a very high level of competency and they are easy to work with. That said, they function very differently than the American military and have a totally different perspective on leadership, operations, etc that is overall incompatible with the way we do business. We can work well together, especially our special operations forces, but we are as foreign to each other as we could be from an organizational standpoint. Its simply comparing apples to oranges. American military are mostly much younger overall, half the privates in the RMC I have worked with were older than my staff NCO's and their most junior lance corporal I ever met was still in his early twenties.

A USMC rifle squad by comparison will likely have a bunch of eighteen and nineteen year olds with a twenty or twenty one year old corporal, a twenty three year old sergeant and a staff sergeant or gunny who isn't even thirty yet as a patrol leader. As a young corporal I had been a squad/patrol leader many times before my 21st birthday, that's pretty much unheard of in the British military. Leadership in the British armed forces tends to be very top heavy although it tends to be very democratic at a squad level, lending towards the better base of experience and we can see this approach in US special forces units where a similar level of experience is the norm. US units tend to better distribute authority to lower levels and so junior NCO's tend to make most of the decisions and leadership gives more interpretive or abstract instructions, relying on the junior NCO's to "get it done". Both of these styles of leadership have their benefits and drawbacks, but I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to argue that the US Marines aren't effective at what they do or aren't the premier fighting force in the world, even your Royal Marine Commandos, who are better compared to our special forces, do not have the mission or the capabilities tasked to the US Marines, no one does.

I'm sure you have inter-service rivalry and understand when one service says they are better than others............ I'm sure you understand as well tongue in cheek humour even though you're not British............

I think you'll find that these days the age range of our military has changed to a much younger demographic not always to the army's benefit. In the RAF and Royal Navy it's been long accepted that the older people may be less fit but have a wealth of experience and knowledge, also that rank in many cases is less importance than what they know. With the army the government has made a mistake, they want rank to be gained within a time constraint, if you don't get to lancejack for example by a certain time you are made redundant, services no longer required. This looks good on paper, no one staying a corporal for their whole career of 22 years but what you lost was that person's experience, their steadiness and 'seen it all, got the t shirt' air. Not everyone wants to be a chief, some are happy as indians.

Our government is decimating our military so it may well be hypothetical shortly.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Motobu Choki warned about taking the same 3 steps/kamae in a row, and never to do 4. This seems to be good advice here. IMO, this is the boundry between discussion and bickering. Point, counterpoint, rebuttal and clarification all get to come into play and should be sufficient for the participants to make their point, to be agreed or disagreed with at the end.

The problem comes when participants seize on an inconsequential point to hammer on, or obtusely ignores a main point the poster is trying to make, just to be difficult

 

[Shatteredzen]

I'm sure you have inter-service rivalry and understand when one service says they are better than others............ I'm sure you understand as well tongue in cheek humour even though you're not British............

I think you'll find that these days the age range of our military has changed to a much younger demographic not always to the army's benefit. In the RAF and Royal Navy it's been long accepted that the older people may be less fit but have a wealth of experience and knowledge, also that rank in many cases is less importance than what they know. With the army the government has made a mistake, they want rank to be gained within a time constraint, if you don't get to lancejack for example by a certain time you are made redundant, services no longer required. This looks good on paper, no one staying a corporal for their whole career of 22 years but what you lost was that person's experience, their steadiness and 'seen it all, got the t shirt' air. Not everyone wants to be a chief, some are happy as indians.

Our government is decimating our military so it may well be hypothetical shortly.

This is the approach the US military uses and it indeed leads to a huge loss of experience. I have always admired the way the British/Aussie troops were able to have the experience at all levels of command and how that translated into a more mature force and how it gave the Regiments there own particular identities. We have a large military machine with a huge turnover, our approach works for us because most people will do their one contract and then get out. It would be a shame to see such a sea change within the UK's forces, I wonder if its a matter of them copying our methods out of hand or if there is an increase in turnover that is encouraging it?

 

[dvcochran]

This is the approach the US military uses and it indeed leads to a huge loss of experience. I have always admired the way the British/Aussie troops were able to have the experience at all levels of command and how that translated into a more mature force and how it gave the Regiments there own particular identities. We have a large military machine with a huge turnover, our approach works for us because most people will do their one contract and then get out. It would be a shame to see such a sea change within the UK's forces, I wonder if its a matter of them copying our methods out of hand or if there is an increase in turnover that is encouraging it?

I always assumed the percentages flattened that curve out a good bit. Like you say the U.S. troop force is huge so one would expect turnover to be higher.
For everyone’s sake I sure hope the cream of our officer corp is staying in active duty and just not seen as often at the boot guys.
Great thanks to everyone from every country for their service.

 

[Tez3]

This is the approach the US military uses and it indeed leads to a huge loss of experience. I have always admired the way the British/Aussie troops were able to have the experience at all levels of command and how that translated into a more mature force and how it gave the Regiments there own particular identities. We have a large military machine with a huge turnover, our approach works for us because most people will do their one contract and then get out. It would be a shame to see such a sea change within the UK's forces, I wonder if its a matter of them copying our methods out of hand or if there is an increase in turnover that is encouraging it?

I think the main problem is successive governments appointing ministers in charge of the military with next to no knowledge of experience. They all want this 'super duper' military on a shoestring, where they can chart productivity as if it were a civilian company. I was sat in a meeting in the Garrison headquarters here a couple of years ago, it covered different departments. A civilian servant was up from London to give an overview of the latest government thinking, look he said, the Ministry of Defence is the only department that is not making a profit.............

The regimental system in the army works very well here if a little incestuous at times, many in the battalions are related to each other, lots of brothers, cousins, father's and sons, they marry each other's sisters, are often the 10th generation in the regiment which recruits from a specific areas of the UK. It can make it difficult for the Corps that work with them being 'outsiders'. The Celtic regiments are notorious for this but on the other hand they work unbelievably well together. The Royal Marines and Paras do as well but from Corps pride and ethos.
This though led to tragic consequences though during the First World War, along with the forming of Pals Battalions, families lost all their men who were in the same battalions, the losses of the Pals Battalions meant villages and towns lost most of their men.

I do think though that the way our government is slashing our forces, our military members will all be on first name terms with each other soon and living in one barracks block!