Anecdotal vs. empirical

[Paul_D]

Many got exposed as BS, long ago.

In what way?

 

[hoshin1600]

In other words, the collective 'we' have been taking people's word for it for FAR too long.

very true. we are active participants in our own deception. Martial-D there is a reason for this. many people prefer BS to reality. in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.

crying wolf since the 70s? You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?

you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there. in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.
let me rephrase that...martial arts grew and evolved to the point where a paradigm shift happened, and MMA was born out of that evolution. the shift gave birth to MMA , not the other way around

 

[Paul_D]

very true. we are active participants in our own deception. Martial-D there is a reason for this. many people prefer BS to reality. in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.

you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there. in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.

Ah yes, but then we know all of that is bollocks. But even the stuff that isn't bollocks is touted as being useless and proved "fake" by MMA.

 

[Martial D]

In what way?

Check out the first three UFC events from the 90s. Back then everyone believed they had 'the real sh#t', until it was actually tested. Keep in mind there wasn't really any rules at that time.

That's just one example of course, and one that the MA religionists already have stock counters to, such as.

'my style is too deadly for the Cage'

'MMA is a sport, real ma is for the street'

'my style handles multiple attackers and armed assailants, but mma doesn't'

'in real fights there is eye gouging, therefore for some reason I can eye gouge in a real fight but mma guys can't'

Etc. None of it holds any real water.

 

[Buka]

Avoiding trouble and recognizing potential problems is key in self defense. As is the physicality of engaging and ending an attack should one occur

Also, a standing triangle choke, which was referenced earlier in this thread, can be quite useful in self defense if one has experience with it. Even more so when the person you're applying it to has others with him. Just saying.

 

[hoshin1600]

Ah yes, but then we know all of that is bollocks

i would say we dont. at least not in the general sense. maybe you and i know it, but many of these chi masters have students, so obviously they dont know it. i know of a modern kyosho kenpo chi master type that has made quite a good living doing seminars teaching, what you call bollocks.

But even the stuff that isn't bollocks is touted as being useless and proved "fake" by MMA.

i think that brings us back to the OP's original thought. that being the need to clarify and codify meanings to the words we use in order to make sure we are arguing about the same thing. i personally feel the MMA mantra of " it doesnt work in the ring" is a misunderstood framework being applied in a self validating way.

 

[drop bear]

It was one example, again point missed.

I can't imagine, I mean it's not like when talking about a SD situation which doesn't involve fighting, people reply with "And yet all styles work" is it?

No where did anybody say or argue or even imply that self defense is all about fighting.

Except for the actual legal definition of course. Where it is all about fighting. But nobody uses that.

And then we can discuss your argument that all styles don't work for self defense.

 

[drop bear]

Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.

Nah. Self defense has to be undefined otherwise we would start to be able to gain empirical evidence.

 

[drop bear]

very true. we are active participants in our own deception. Martial-D there is a reason for this. many people prefer BS to reality. in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.

you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there. in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.
let me rephrase that...martial arts grew and evolved to the point where a paradigm shift happened, and MMA was born out of that evolution. the shift gave birth to MMA , not the other way around

There are a lot of systems in place that allowed martial BS to flourish.

MMA did not invent realism. But it did remove the isolation of martial arts training. And a lot of the ego from martial arts status.

So traditionally cross style competition was either frowned upon or seen as a serious insult.

So I walk in to you dojo,spit on the floor, fight your instructor for sheep stations. Then go back to doing the same old thing.

I would look for styles and artists I could beat to validate my method.

MMA looks for artists and styles that can beat them to improve their method.

And that is the shift.

 

[JR 137]

There are a lot of systems in place that allowed martial BS to flourish.

MMA did not invent realism. But it did remove the isolation of martial arts training. And a lot of the ego from martial arts status.

So traditionally cross style competition was either frowned upon or seen as a serious insult.

So I walk in to you dojo,spit on the floor, fight your instructor for sheep stations. Then go back to doing the same old thing.

I would look for styles and artists I could beat to validate my method.

MMA looks for artists and styles that can beat them to improve their method.

And that is the shift.

There were plenty of "challenge matches" inside dojos, and they didn't stop until very recently. They're still common in some circles, such as BJJ. The only thing I think that's changed is the way they're handled nowadays.

My teacher is Tadashi Nakamura's student. My teacher witnessed several challenges in Nakamura's dojo up until the early 90s or so. One he tells about more frequently than others is when he and about 4 or 5 other guys had to grab Nakamura to keep him from throwing the challenger through a 2nd floor window.

Shigeru Oyama spoke of many challenges and him having to go into Kyokushin dojos in his early US days to prove himself and Kyokushin. One of his first ones was a judo school where guys lined up to fight him, and several ambulances were called during the couple hours he spent beating them up.

In the 70s and 80s it was reportedly somewhat common for people to challenge other dojos in hopes of embarrassing the CI and taking his students. The Gracies reportedly issued challenges to many dojos to get people to convert to their BJJ. This was before the UFC.

MA weren't that isolated.

 

[Flying Crane]

very true. we are active participants in our own deception. Martial-D there is a reason for this. many people prefer BS to reality. in ones imagination you can be the hero, in reality one must accept our own short comings and failures.

you have to admit there is a lot of " chi- ball ,death" touch" garbage out there. in the over arching view of martial arts there has been a growing amount of garbage over the years. it was MMA that made a paradigm shift that woke a lot of people up.
let me rephrase that...martial arts grew and evolved to the point where a paradigm shift happened, and MMA was born out of that evolution. the shift gave birth to MMA , not the other way around

Ya know, i really think the chi-ball, death-touch stuff is in a tiny minority. It gets some publicity mostly because the claims are so fantastic, but it's a very very small number of people making the claims, and at large, the martial community does not give it much or any credence.

We live in an age where information is very easily spread around. It's easy for people to see these things, even when it is rare. I don't necessarily agree that they are spreading. The population at large is well enough educated and appropriately skeptical to know a fish when they smell one.

 

[drop bear]

There were plenty of "challenge matches" inside dojos, and they didn't stop until very recently. They're still common in some circles, such as BJJ. The only thing I think that's changed is the way they're handled nowadays.

My teacher is Tadashi Nakamura's student. My teacher witnessed several challenges in Nakamura's dojo up until the early 90s or so. One he tells about more frequently than others is when he and about 4 or 5 other guys had to grab Nakamura to keep him from throwing the challenger through a 2nd floor window.

Shigeru Oyama spoke of many challenges and him having to go into Kyokushin dojos in his early US days to prove himself and Kyokushin. One of his first ones was a judo school where guys lined up to fight him, and several ambulances were called during the couple hours he spent beating them up.

In the 70s and 80s it was reportedly somewhat common for people to challenge other dojos in hopes of embarrassing the CI and taking his students. The Gracies reportedly issued challenges to many dojos to get people to convert to their BJJ. This was before the UFC.

MA weren't that isolated.

Challenge matches are not collaboration. And are still isolationist.That is the difference I was trying to express.

I have seen coaches from five different clubs fly across the county to put 1 guy in the UFC.

 

[drop bear]

Ya know, i really think the chi-ball, death-touch stuff is in a tiny minority. It gets some publicity mostly because the claims are so fantastic, but it's a very very small number of people making the claims, and at large, the martial community does not give it much or any credence.

We live in an age where information is very easily spread around. It's easy for people to see these things, even when it is rare. I don't necessarily agree that they are spreading. The population at large is well enough educated and appropriately skeptical to know a fish when they smell one.

The training is the same. If you fake eye gouge me and I let go. If you throw me and I collapse for you.

Then you may as well be training chi balls.

Sorta. I mean OK there is a progression. But the progression needs to be heavier resistance. Not just more fluid compliance.

 

[JR 137]

Challenge matches are not collaboration. And are still isolationist.That is the difference I was trying to express.

I have seen coaches from five different clubs fly across the county to put 1 guy in the UFC.

The training is the same. If you fake eye gouge me and I let go. If you throw me and I collapse for you.

Then you may as well be training chi balls.

Sorta. I mean OK there is a progression. But the progression needs to be heavier resistance. Not just more fluid compliance.

I get what you're saying on both posts.

But there inherently are things "too dangerous to train." How do you realistically eye gouge (your example) in practice? I've got better things to do than lose any eye. I've been eye gouged in wrestling and an actual fight. Really sucked both times, and it easily got me to let go. In fact, both times were worse and more effective than any time I've had me boys grabbed in wrestling (there were a few). Maybe the eye gouge guys did something special, but I'll put faith in the technique working, as it worked against me. It didn't end the encounter either time, but it got me to break my grip long enough.

How do you propose kicking someone's knees in practice? I've seen countless knees blown out in sports from contact. I don't need that

Knife hand across the throat or back of the neck? I've been hit in the throat, and I've seen it done (intentionally in a fight and unintentionally in sports). It'll definitely stop someone. Not a death blow per se, but if you're looking for that second or so to get away and it's there, it's a viable option.

Some things really are too dangerous to practice with resistance. Not the setup of them, but the techniques themselves. This is the very essence of why grapplers tap - both parties know the technique will cause real injury and don't follow through. Same as a roundhouse to the outside of the knee, a knife hand to the throat or back of the neck, etc.

The resistance in training techniques like that should be in resisting the opening; the person doing it shouldn't actually hit it.

I'm pretty sure we're on the same page though. Too many people think they can do it without developing the setup, timing, power, etc. Throwing roundhouse kicks knee height in the air isn't going to do it. Throwing them hard against a heavy bag is a great start.

 

[Steve]

This is something I've noticed come up here constantly over the last 5 years since I joined this site. Basically, some members will say anecdotally what works, while others say that since there are no empirical studies for it, there anecdotal stories don't count.

The issue with empiricism here, from what I can gather, is that it's tough to empirically study self defense encounters, as they're not something you can directly plan. So it's literally impossible to know what is effective self-defense and what isn't.

That said, what is the issue with making logical assumptions about whether something is good for self defense or not? And what is the issue with utilizing LEO research to determine good self defense procedures? I understand that they are, for the most part, in different situations than civilians, but considering we cant do ethical empirical studies focused on self defense, that seems the closest to me to determine what is or isn't effective.

The issue isn't using LEO to draw reasonable conclusions about what can work. There are, however, a couple of issues. First, people tend to cherry pick. Some endorse LEO, but refuse to acknowledge other sources, such as bouncing or competitions. And vice versa.

The second issue is that people who endorse one source tend to conflate that source with civilian self defense as a direct link. What LEO does and what will work or is even relevant to a non-cop are not the same. Similarly, there are issues with mma. So, while some things cops know can be relevant and helpful, very little of what cops do crosses over.

And we can do empirical studies, but interestingly, the few that do exist are largely ignored.

 

[Steve]

Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.

No one is interested in that. Once you define it, folks will have nothing to argue about.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, really scientific LOL
Don't teach Judo if you don't know Judo

And crying wolf since the 70s? You realise the techniques in TMA worked before MMA came along?

Lol. Prove it.

 

[hoshin1600]

Ya know, i really think the chi-ball, death-touch stuff is in a tiny minority.

yes its a minority. i didnt mean that chi ball throwing was growing more popular. i just used that as an example on the extreme. more common are unqualified teachers making stuff up as they go and making wild claims. but like drop bear said its kinda the same thing.

We live in an age where information is very easily spread around. It's easy for people to see these things, even when it is rare. ....... The population at large is well enough educated and appropriately skeptical to know a fish when they smell one.

i disagree with the premise. yes we live in a youtube/ google age of information, that is inconsequential. people are not being fooled into bad martial arts, they are choosing it on their accord. like i said earlier , we are deluding ourselves. most people really dont want to put in the effort to learn to fight. they would rather buy into some mumbo jumbo that is easy to do and no one can call them out on it as BS. because " well you would die if i showed you" they want to be the archetype hero that get the girl but they dont want to actually have to slay the dragon.
its not about information, science has been around a long time now and people are quite sophisticated, yet people still believe there is a man that lives in the sky that if you dont worship him correctly he will send you to hell, to burn in fire for eternity. oh and btw ,,,the world is flat, man never landed on the moon and sasquatch is real....look it up on youtube.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Also, is there a specific definition of self defense that we can utilize? I've seen pages of arguments on unrelated threads over how to define self-defense, where it distracts from the actual purpose of the thread. If that could be defined, and stickied on the self defense forum, I feel like that would resolve a lot of the arguments and tangential topics that occur.

This isn't really an issue, so long as those discussing at any given time agree to use a specific definition. Paul D and I, for instance, include different material within the scope of "self-defense", but we're capable of discussing it sanely, because we can temporarily adopt each other's definition to discuss what was posted. So, for instance, when Paul posts something about "self-defense", I know he's including what I call "self-protection" (target hardening, de-escalation, etc.), so when I reply to his post, I don't reply as if he meant what I mean when I use the term.

Problems begin when people refuse to accept each others' definition in replying. If I refused to use Paul's definition when replying to him when disagreeing about some point, my arguments would all be strawmen, since they'd be based upon the premise that he uses my definition of SD.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There's also the problem that not everything works for everyone. Just because you can make something work doesn't mean it's true for everyone. There is no 'one right way' which everyone should be doing which often comes from strict teaching and grading of techniques. People have to adapt, to make it work for them. Often here someone puts up a video and people criticise, they say 'you should have done this' instead but it's not necessarily right for that person. Offering suggestions can help but people never take into account different sizes, strengths height etc when telling people they are wrong to do what they did or telling them they must do it another way.

This is a good point. There are things I do, which I don't teach to others, because I've seen very good martial artists find them problematic. They work for me, but not because they're particularly good in some cases - more because they happen to fit me quite well, or I have some strength that covers the inherent weakness. And I've seen the same from others - things that worked well for them, but which expose a gap I shouldn't be exposing.