Aikido hate

[JP3]

No, they haven't said that, in any way I've seen it. Several of us have pointed out that the physical skills require practice and maintenance they will not get in normal life. Deescalation can be practiced in a lot of ways. Recognition and target hardening can't be practiced meaningfully over a large period of time in classes. De-escalation can be practiced in classes, but doesn't seem to degrade the way physical skills do, and seems to require less practice to become moderately effective, and is something that can be practiced quite often in settings other than classes. Those are among the reasons many people train the physical skills most. There are other reasons, some of which vary by person.

Using Paul's insistance on a non-standard definition of "fight" as an example of certain words being meaningless would be like me showing a video of a BJJ guy getting run over by a bicyclist and saying, "See? BJJ isn't very good 'on the street'!" I don't agree with his definition, but he and I are aware of that, and I usually just acknowledge his definition and move on when it creates a point of contention. We manage to discuss this and other topics reasonably well in spite of it all.

The difficulty seems to be when two (or more) parties have different definitions of the same term(s), recognize that they have such different definitions.... and then one (or both/all) insist that the other one must use their definition.

To sidestep this issue is a skill inherent to discussion boards, I've noted. In the real world, people get on the same page as to what's being talked about very quickly.

 

[JP3]

Provided you are willing to accept dogma.

OK, I've got to ask. I do know what dogma is, and dicta, etc.

I know you can precisely list all the dogma you're talking about, there's tons. But, can you give some examples which apply to the (original discussion) which ou & Gerry were having?

For anyone who doesn't know, here's a decent dogma definition:

Dogma: (noun) -- "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

I'm wondering which set of statements you're talking about.

(By the way... If you can't tell... I'm trying to single-handedly wrench this thread back on track and out of the "It's SD, No it's Not!" debate.)

 

[drop bear]

OK, I've got to ask. I do know what dogma is, and dicta, etc.

I know you can precisely list all the dogma you're talking about, there's tons. But, can you give some examples which apply to the (original discussion) which ou & Gerry were having?

For anyone who doesn't know, here's a decent dogma definition:

Dogma: (noun) -- "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

I'm wondering which set of statements you're talking about.

(By the way... If you can't tell... I'm trying to single-handedly wrench this thread back on track and out of the "It's SD, No it's Not!" debate.)

Depends how original. The big one I have an issue with that Gerry does is that a street fight will provide openings that training won't.

Which justifies modifying attacks in training to reflect someones idea of a real fight.

And it is dogma. You have to believe yhe definition of this real fight for the training to work.

Ironically. Lost in a discussion you are not in the middle of is a very accurate description of that method.

 

[Paul_D]

Paul... a question --

If I'm stood with my wife in a pub, and some fellow decides for whatever reason to attempt pre-emption and succeeds in lamblasting me while I'm involved in staring at her, in the initial moments we end up rolling around on the floor, is that not an SD situation to you? Pre-emptive strike, hit from surprised, slight recovery... etc?

I'm trying to wrap my head around where you define the "line" to be and... I'm having trouble.

Happy to explain, but PM, I think I have taken up enough of the thread already. Plus. Don't quite understand the situation you are describing, he is attacking while you are involved in staring at your wife?

 

[jobo]

Paul... a question --

If I'm stood with my wife in a pub, and some fellow decides for whatever reason to attempt pre-emption and succeeds in lamblasting me while I'm involved in staring at her, in the initial moments we end up rolling around on the floor, is that not an SD situation to you? Pre-emptive strike, hit from surprised, slight recovery... etc?

I'm trying to wrap my head around where you define the "line" to be and... I'm having trouble.

its a silly defintion of Paul's, which is why he has with drawn from the thread.

its quite possible that both people in a fight are defending themselves from an assault by the other. One feels threatened and strikes, the other gets punched and defends himself

as a general observation, most men like most dogs have to snarl and posture a bit before they actual start punching. People who just lash out are either trying to rob you or are very annoyed with someone else and take it out on you

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends how original. The big one I have an issue with that Gerry does is that a street fight will provide openings that training won't.

Which justifies modifying attacks in training to reflect someones idea of a real fight.

And it is dogma. You have to believe yhe definition of this real fight for the training to work.

Ironically. Lost in a discussion you are not in the middle of is a very accurate description of that method.

Actually, I've had input from people who deal with angry and/or drunk people. It's not dogma, it's based upon evidence (evidence you often to write off as "stories", simply because it's not on a video or otherwise witnessed by many people).

And, as usual, you twist the discussion. You make it sound as if I've said we never train against a controlled, trained attack from a skilled fighter. A notion I countered many months ago. You still seem stuck on the idea that all valid attacks will happen between two skilled people, and that an unskilled, angry, or impaired person won't make more mistakes. That's just absurd.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, I've had input from people who deal with angry and/or drunk people. It's not dogma, it's based upon evidence (evidence you often to write off as "stories", simply because it's not on a video or otherwise witnessed by many people).

And, as usual, you twist the discussion. You make it sound as if I've said we never train against a controlled, trained attack from a skilled fighter. A notion I countered many months ago. You still seem stuck on the idea that all valid attacks will happen between two skilled people, and that an unskilled, angry, or impaired person won't make more mistakes. That's just absurd.

And by imput you mean a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true?

And no. the valid attacks happen by the people validly attacking you. If they are unskilled then it is an unskilled attack. If they are skilled then it is a skilled attack. Nobody has to pretend to make the system work.

 

[drop bear]

its a silly defintion of Paul's, which is why he has with drawn from the thread.

its quite possible that both people in a fight are defending themselves from an assault by the other. One feels threatened and strikes, the other gets punched and defends himself

as a general observation, most men like most dogs have to snarl and posture a bit before they actual start punching. People who just lash out are either trying to rob you or are very annoyed with someone else and take it out on you

And men like dogs after a bit of training that observation changes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

And by imput you mean a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true?

Nope. Nothing was put forth as "incontrovertibly true". That's where you're getting stuck. People with experience sharing what they've experienced is not stating something as incontrovertible.

And no. the valid attacks happen by the people validly attacking you. If they are unskilled then it is an unskilled attack. If they are skilled then it is a skilled attack. Nobody has to pretend to make the system work.

Correct. But if you want to practice a specific technique against a specific attack, you need someone to give you that attack. That's nothing you don't do in your own training. You don't train a sprawl against a single-leg by waiting until someone randomly gives you a single-leg. You ask them for the single-leg, and practice the sprawl. Even if they prefer a double-leg, because they know it works more reliably against you, they give you the single-leg, so you can practice. You REALLY want there to be something wrong with people giving a specific attack on request, but it's a necessary part of everyone's training.

 

[drop bear]

Nope. Nothing was put forth as "incontrovertibly true". That's where you're getting stuck. People with experience sharing what they've experienced is not stating something as incontrovertible.

Then who is controverting these ideas?

Probably not a real word.

 

[drop bear]

Correct. But if you want to practice a specific technique against a specific attack, you need someone to give you that attack. That's nothing you don't do in your own training. You don't train a sprawl against a single-leg by waiting until someone randomly gives you a single-leg. You ask them for the single-leg, and practice the sprawl. Even if they prefer a double-leg, because they know it works more reliably against you, they give you the single-leg, so you can practice. You REALLY want there to be something wrong with people giving a specific attack on request, but it's a necessary part of everyone's training.

Exept what you described there is a little different to attack me with a single leg. But do it like you don't know how to do a single leg and try to pretend you are also really angry. Because people have told me that is more likley to occur on the street. And somewhere in that mess of truth and pretend you are trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Which is kind of the impression I get. Hence how being in a conversation you are not actually having applies.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Then who is controverting these ideas?

Probably not a real word.

Anyone who has different evidence is free to dispute them. Is the law of conservation of matter and energy dogma, just because people have accepted the evidence?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Exept what you described there is a little different to attack me with a single leg. But do it like you don't know how to do a single leg and try to pretend you are also really angry. Because people have told me that is more likley to occur on the street. And somewhere in that mess of truth and pretend you are trying to figure out what works and what doesn't.

Which is kind of the impression I get. Hence how being in a conversation you are not actually having applies.

Nope, that's a story in your head. It's much more like, "Okay, so an angry person will sometimes overcommit. On this attack, overcommit. Bring a lot of power, and leave your patience behind." That sets up a specific situation to work against, and is not all that different from learning to work from under mount without the other person having a good base (a first step in learning to get out).

You've gotten really stuck on there being a problem with what I call "simulated attacks", which are just attacks with parameters. Those parameters might be over-committing, stepping with a specific foot, "fake attacking" (a feint), attacking with slow pressure, attacking with over-aggression, being left-handed, or anything else that sets up a training opportunity.

 

[JP3]

Depends how original. The big one I have an issue with that Gerry does is that a street fight will provide openings that training won't.

Which justifies modifying attacks in training to reflect someones idea of a real fight.

OK... are you thinking about another thread, or just this one? I've not noted that happening in this one.

"A street fight will provide openings that training won't." If that is what you are getting out of what Gerry's saying, then I'd agree with you. The training should (imperfect tool that it is) reflect as closely the thing that your are training "for," bodies only move in certain ways, physics is physics. Same openings for techniques in both places. The openings are usually smaller and tighter in a fight (with a guy coming full-tilt boogie) due to speed but the same ones are still there.

But... I don't think Gerry is saying that.

 

[JP3]

Actually, I've had input from people who deal with angry and/or drunk people. It's not dogma, it's based upon evidence (evidence you often to write off as "stories", simply because it's not on a video or otherwise witnessed by many people)

If he's writing off/scoffing at the anecdotal evidence... it must be contradicting his own experiences. That's the issue with anecdotal info, the problems with verification. It's what led to the "Hearsay Rule" in court proceedings.

It is sort of like my starting a story with, "This one time... at band camp... I met this girl and we..." The story is going to be great fun, probably brilliant in conception, the plot will execute with precision and the .... uhh... climax will be satisfying. Yeah, that's it. But, nobody will believe a word of it unless I've got security camera footage.

Which I do, but that's beside the point.

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. ... Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience." (Straight from the Google goblins)

And... just like my band camp story is actually factual, the premise of it and the nature of the one-off tale indicates to others that it is, at the very least, exaggerated and/or changed in some small way.

Think of this, and it's more pronounced on discussion boards than anything else which represents this type of communication. I'm at the dojo, and a visitor comes in and asks, "So, what is it that you guys do here?" So I start talking, students demo, I do stuff, Q & A happens, etc. You might get a good, penetrating question such as "Pardon me for beind direct, but it doesn't look like this stuff would do F-all against a guy going off on you at the pub." And then we get intot hat discussion, and if the right people are there who can take it, maybe a full-speed with intent demo. Problem witht he demo is, it's "set up" so is only anecdotally (that word again) related to what would/could actually happen.

Here's another great example. I tell you on here, "My wife is Hot. I mean, uber-smoking, and she kills it ont he beach over the 20-somethings." What ALWAYS seems to happen when you get one of those style comments....

"Pictures or it didn't happen." Verification, authentication... evidence. Not just words, i.e. unverifiable stories.

 

[JP3]

Then who is controverting these ideas?

Probably not a real word.

It's a real word. I use it in my real world all the time.

controverting: -- verb (gerund or present participle) -- deny the truth of (something).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If he's writing off/scoffing at the anecdotal evidence... it must be contradicting his own experiences. That's the issue with anecdotal info, the problems with verification. It's what led to the "Hearsay Rule" in court proceedings.

It is sort of like my starting a story with, "This one time... at band camp... I met this girl and we..." The story is going to be great fun, probably brilliant in conception, the plot will execute with precision and the .... uhh... climax will be satisfying. Yeah, that's it. But, nobody will believe a word of it unless I've got security camera footage.

Which I do, but that's beside the point.

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. ... Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience." (Straight from the Google goblins)

And... just like my band camp story is actually factual, the premise of it and the nature of the one-off tale indicates to others that it is, at the very least, exaggerated and/or changed in some small way.

Think of this, and it's more pronounced on discussion boards than anything else which represents this type of communication. I'm at the dojo, and a visitor comes in and asks, "So, what is it that you guys do here?" So I start talking, students demo, I do stuff, Q & A happens, etc. You might get a good, penetrating question such as "Pardon me for beind direct, but it doesn't look like this stuff would do F-all against a guy going off on you at the pub." And then we get intot hat discussion, and if the right people are there who can take it, maybe a full-speed with intent demo. Problem witht he demo is, it's "set up" so is only anecdotally (that word again) related to what would/could actually happen.

Here's another great example. I tell you on here, "My wife is Hot. I mean, uber-smoking, and she kills it ont he beach over the 20-somethings." What ALWAYS seems to happen when you get one of those style comments....

"Pictures or it didn't happen." Verification, authentication... evidence. Not just words, i.e. unverifiable stories.

The issue I've had with DB is that he impugns all anecdotal evidence as "just stories", regardless of their source. If I hear something (such as that people who are angry and people who are drunk and people who are untrained are much more likely to overcommit in an attack) from several sources who have reasonable background to provide that input (LEO, bouncer, someone who just got into a lot of fights in college, etc.), and all of them seem to have had similar experiences, then that's not just "stories". And it's certainly not dogma.

Wherever possible, we want to look for both confirming and contradictory evidence beyond the anecdotal variety. And I can find videos that show people over-committing in an attack. I can see how angry people tend to move. That can be combined with that anecdotal evidence to provide useful input to training (assuming the training isn't only for competition, where this would have less utility).

 

[drop bear]

OK... are you thinking about another thread, or just this one? I've not noted that happening in this one.

"A street fight will provide openings that training won't." If that is what you are getting out of what Gerry's saying, then I'd agree with you. The training should (imperfect tool that it is) reflect as closely the thing that your are training "for," bodies only move in certain ways, physics is physics. Same openings for techniques in both places. The openings are usually smaller and tighter in a fight (with a guy coming full-tilt boogie) due to speed but the same ones are still there.

But... I don't think Gerry is saying that.

The opposite
He thinks the openings will be larger and more pronounced.

 

[JP3]

The opposite
He thinks the openings will be larger and more pronounced.

If you get an untrained guy, I agree with him. Well, perhaps untrained is the wrong word, as there's lots of self-taught fighters out there that can crack heads pretty well.

How about in-schooled. People who have very little idea what they're doing.

But, those kinds of people really don't get into fights, I've noticed... so maybe it ends up being moot.

 

[drop bear]

If you get an untrained guy, I agree with him. Well, perhaps untrained is the wrong word, as there's lots of self-taught fighters out there that can crack heads pretty well.

How about in-schooled. People who have very little idea what they're doing.

But, those kinds of people really don't get into fights, I've noticed... so maybe it ends up being moot.

It depends how you look at evidence. If you are searching for fights that validate your training method. You can. You just have to filter out all the ones that don't.