Doc
Senior Master
JenniM said:
Thank you sir for the kind words. We'll be working on the basic "Index Set" when I see you.
Bruises, Indexes, and Halting Grapplers
- Thread starter Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
- Start date
Thank you sir for the kind words. We'll be working on the basic "Index Set" when I see you.
Doc
Senior Master
howardr said:
Doesn't matter G., done properly, it is like trying to counter a moveable-immoveable object.
The bag is really deep.
Dr. Chapel, one concern I have with a video (and I know you know this but I'd just like it said for the others): it only shows the viewer an external perspective. In other words, the viewer can see the attack, can see the defense and can see the outcome. What the viewer can't get is the internal feeling of what it's like to be aligned and withstand the attack and the internal feeling of what it's like to be the attacker and be misaligned (and, therefore, not really be able to attack further effectively).Doc said:
Someone can watch and think that if he was the attacker, after being stopped initially ("bumped"), he could just do X, and then if he was was stopped while doing X, he could just do Y. After all, from the external video viewer perspective it doesn't "look" like there's anything to stop these further actions. But, what the viewer doesn't realize is that while the attacker is being stopped at various points he is being misaligned (which for the untrained will not be apparent at all) and controlled (to a decent degree not apparent as well to the untrained), such that those options, which might look from an external perspective as possibilities, are actually reduced or eliminated entirely. Viewers who have not experienced what is happening in the video (which really cannot be mimicked from simply watching, as Dr. Chapel has already mentioned, due to the underlying biomechanics of the movements; this too won't be apparent from watching the video) may think that the defender doesn't look very solid and thus what he is doing couldn't really work, so the attacker must not be really attacking, etc. Of course, the defender is solid, the attacker is misaligned/immobile/controlled, etc. But, unfortunately, you really can't see any of that on a video.
Dr. Chapel, I'm wondering if the above are the sort of considerations that make you hesistant to put out various video clips on SL4 material?
Shortay
Yellow Belt
Another concern with videos and particularly SL-4 on video, would be that videos are best for conveying general principles, and SL-4 is distinctly non-general. Everything is specific, down to the most minute detail.
This is true even for the "basics".
The more advanced stuff (I imagine) would be way too risky to put on video form as I know Doc conducts extensive back ground checks before teaching the nerve work, techinques requiring resuscitation etc and one cannot control the audience of a video once it is released.
This is true even for the "basics".
The more advanced stuff (I imagine) would be way too risky to put on video form as I know Doc conducts extensive back ground checks before teaching the nerve work, techinques requiring resuscitation etc and one cannot control the audience of a video once it is released.
Shortay
Yellow Belt
Doc said:And for the record, I am the one that gave her that nickname. She is indeed a "Shortay" but also a "Cutie."
See you in May "Shortay."
Doc
Senior Master
howardr said:
Absolutely. Even in class to the casual observer it looks "fake." The question comes up, "why didn't they just do blank?" The answer is obvious to me, - because they can't, but it LOOKS like they should be able to. Even when you demonstrate it on someone for the first time, they always have a puzzled look on their face, and say, "Do it again." as if they don't believe what they just experienced. It's a problem and why our videos stay in- house. Those who seek to discredit can find alot when they don't know what they're looking at. (never end a sentance this way - I know.)
Doc
Senior Master
That is only just the beginning sir.Michael Billings said:
This is the exact problem I have with posting a video. There are too many people who believe that simply seeing something enables them to criticize or perform the movements. There will be people who see the video, try it at home, and say it didn't work. The Braced Index involves to many factors to be able to learn from a video. (Even if people are told this, they will still try it).
However, demonstrations on video that are easily copied and tested at home are definetly of use. The Circling Wing example of touching your own head to increase structural integrity is a perfect example. It can be tested/copied by watching a video. Little instruction is necassary.
Doc always say's "Feeling is believing." I have never met anyone, instructor or otherwise, who consistently expects and encourages doubt, skepticism, and "trying it out." If you don't believe him, he say's, "Line up and test it out." Sure enough, he's right. If he finds something wrong he corrects the problem and we move on.
Doc has always had an open door policy to other martial artists. Come in, check it out, and maybe even sign a waver to feel some proof. After all, feeling is believing.
I have only been a direct student of Doctor Chapel's for about 7 months. When I have discussions with other martial artists and show them some SL4 examples they are consistently saying, "WOW." I have never tried to convert anyone, only to improve their execution of a Krav Maga technique or otherwise. They are always thankful.
oh, and...
I must admit I have an alterior motive. I don't want to be the one "bouncing" off a solid braced index!
J
JDenz
Guest
interesting
Doc said:Hey Amrik, I look forward to seeing you in your new uniform.
And what a wonderful uniform it is, I gave Mr Dean his and he said he had never been so excited over a piece of clothing as he was in getting his uniform
I endeavour to do the uniform Mr Mills and yourself Justice whilst wearing it and when not Work HArd TRain Hard and practice, practices, practice .....
Look forward to seeing you in May
R
relytjj
Guest
I'd be interesting in seeing a video of this technique in action.
Who cares about these people. Only a fool would try to learn a new technique described as complex from its teachers from a video. You already know they won't pick up on the subleties, which are apparently very important to this technique, so why worry...
umm... no... Competition is the most technical...Doc said:
Making something work against a uncooperative opponent is always more complicated then making it work against a cooperative one...
Yup, athleticism is importanin anything physical. Football, dance, manual labour and yes, fighting.
There are always rules, even if they are not written. Even on the "street". If you want fewer rules the first UFC's did that, as did a whole bunch of Vale Tudo stuff out of Brazil.
Yup, So is street fighting, just slight variations on a theme. And games tend to get extremely complicated. Think of Chess, or Go.
Sure there are, they are just different and not always something you volunteer into.
Yes, being taken down on cement or into a wall would hurt a lot more. As well as skmirring around on your back under a knee mount.
Slight variations in rules call for variations in tactics.
Can't say I've seen much of that in MMA....
Not as easy as it sounds, generally people aren't to cooperative when you try this sort of thing.
Competition can hardly be considered more technical in such a all encompassing way. Your example is specific enough to point out the difference between a cooperative person and someone who isn't. Is that a suggestion that only competitors train with uncooperative people? Training (in our school) is not always done with a compliant opponent. In the early stages it must be to promote proper mechanics, but as time progresses the attacks become more aggressive, faster, and overall uncooperative. That's reality.
The point is that in a competition, take point fighting for example, you can deliver a blow that makes "trembling shock" and be considered a winner. In the street the point winning blow would have done nothing to end the fight.
I know a number of great competition fighters who leave competition because they lost to someone who just happened to be a bit faster and younger (Thus the athleticism comment) and give them a love tap that scored a point. They consistently say, "That wasn't a fight. Take it to the street and see what happens." And watching them it's obvious who would win.
Grappling competitions are much the same.
I don't know what street you are fighting in...
As far as the UFC and "fewer rules"... that is laughable. The rules of the UFC are geared towards enabling grapplers to win. Don't believe me, here are the list of fouls:
- Butting with the head.
- Eye gouging of any kind.
- Biting.
- Hair pulling.
- Fish hooking.
- Groin attacks of any kind.
- Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
- Small joint manipulation.
- Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
- Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
- Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
- Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
- Grabbing the clavicle.
- Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
- Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
- Stomping a grounded opponent.
- Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
- Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
- Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
- Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
- Spitting at an opponent.
- Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
- Holding the ropes or the fence.
- Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
- Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
- Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
- Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
- Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
- Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
- Interference by the corner.
- Throwing in the towel during competition.
That is, per your comment, "fewer rules."
And regarding rules in the street:
If you are going to make such a statement then tell us what the rules are because I am certain everyone would like to know. Maybe I've been leaving my house every day not knowing these rules.
If you assume that everyone on the street operates under ANY form of rules you are asking for possible death. Yes, a college frat boy might be content with throwing punches or rolling around on the ground in a contest of who has the biggest... However, we cannot count on the opponent being a frat boy. We assume the worst and prepare for it. The reason terrorists destroyed the world trade center had more to do with the American intelligence communities assumptions and "rules" about how terrorists behave/operate than about lack of intelligence data or sharing. They did not obey the "rules" and thus, dealt a terrible blow to America.
So go ahead and assume there are rules... you know what they say about assuming.
Vague. What are they?
Regarding digging your fingers into someones eye sockets:
We agree on this, but that wasn't Doc's point. The point, if I may, is the possibility exists for it to happen. THE POSSIBILITY. If you were about to get into a fight and someone said to you, "I've seen this guy fight. He broke this guys arm in three places and blinded him in one eye." I bet you would think twice. Same goes for criminals who are about to rob a house. Tell them, "That guy has a handgun under his mattress while he sleeps. He shot the last guy who tried to rob him." The equation changes with the possibility of death or extreme injury.
Training and repetition harden the neural pathways. If you train under a set of rules of course you will find there are rules in the street!
No, it's saying that once people stop cooperating it becomes competitive.Bode said:
ok, so you are progressing into a competitive environment...?
ok, why does everyone that argues against competition go back to pointfighting? Yup, it's silly, we all agree. It's like playing football and "pretending" to tackle each other while the refs decide if the pretended tackle was good or not.
So go full contact...
No, they are full contact.
None, fighting in the streets is something I would try to avoid.
Actually, they are geared towards striking lately.
Makes sense, the 45 min stalemates on the ground are not good for the ratings.
- Butting with the head.
- Eye gouging of any kind.
- Biting.
- Hair pulling.
- Fish hooking.
- Groin attacks of any kind.
- Putting a finger into any orifice or into any cut or laceration on an opponent.
- Small joint manipulation.
- Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
- Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
- Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea.
- Clawing, pinching or twisting the flesh.
- Grabbing the clavicle.
- Kicking the head of a grounded opponent.
- Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent.
- Stomping a grounded opponent.
- Kicking to the kidney with the heel.
- Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his head or neck.
- Throwing an opponent out of the ring or fenced area.
- Holding the shorts or gloves of an opponent.
- Spitting at an opponent.
- Engaging in an unsportsmanlike conduct that causes an injury to an opponent.
- Holding the ropes or the fence.
- Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
- Attacking an opponent on or during the break.
- Attacking an opponent who is under the care of the referee.
- Attacking an opponent after the bell has sounded the end of the period of unarmed combat.
- Flagrantly disregarding the instructions of the referee.
- Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury.
- Interference by the corner.
- Throwing in the towel during competition.
Got any that use less?
The first UFC's did, "No biting" No eye Gauging" and that was it. Got penalized with a fine afterwards.
Rules change from one situation to another, but there are always rules.
Sure, maybe not by choice but they are forced to follow rules. Environment is one, numbers is another.
I thought it was American foriegn policy?
So best train under as few as you can and varrying them to build adaptability into your "style" because you never no what "rules" you might get stuck with. Right, isn't that what I have been saying?
You can't. No one can. Unless they plan on having one fight a year and risk possible death. You can train with a degree of realism, but never full contact. Simply adding the tap out means you aren't training full contact. Even in "full contact" competitions there are rules that define full contact for that given venue.
If you say go full contact, then define it. What are the rules? We could argue semantics all day and become blue in the face. Be specific. (I think my definition of full contact is different than yours).
Regarding grappling competitioins:
See above.
After this quote you stepped through all the fouls listed on the UFC website. I'm not sure how you interpreted this, but they are FOULS. Meaning you cannot perform the listed moves. The majority of the fouls favor the fact that a grappler can stay tightly wound around his opponent without fear of small joint manipulation, biting, eye gouging, etc... By not allowing someone to bite you are creating a competition where people are not afraid to roll around on the ground. They wont lose a chunk of muscle. (That's just one example)
The street uses less. And no, the first UFC had more rules than that. Too bad I can't find a source to quote, but I doubt you can as well. Those were the general rules they promoted to the mass media, but read the fine print for the fighters contracts. I'm sure the rules are clear.
Again, in your world there is.
Ahhhh, I see the problem. Your defintion of rules is vastly different than most. Here is websters definition:
A usual, customary, or generalized course of action or behavior.
Environment or numbers (I am assuming you meant number of people) are not, per the common definition of rules, an "action" or "behavior."
If you expect to communicate and have a logical discussion we should be clear on the semantics.
Now you are just bating me. This isn't a forum for such discussioin. To be technical my comment should have said, " The reason terrorists were able to destroyed the world trade center."
And how do you train under few rules? Where do you draw the line? The very act of sparring or grappling and having respect for your training partner entails rules. You don't want to hurt them because they wont be able to train. Our classes would last 1 minute if we trained perfectly realistic. An elbow to the head or spine... class over.
OP
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #56
As "just another jerk on the bus", I would like to pose a question: Is it possible to explore ideas in this media in a way that prompts thinking minds to take an idea to the next level? Case in point: Were I a grappler only, I would be curious if the state of "being in alignment/congruence" could be applied to the floor; if one could "index" while in the mount, and apply it to ground-fighting.
If I were only a stand-up fighter or kenpoist, I might ask, "what is this thing? Can it help my kenpo?" Mr. Conatser speaks in another tread of the importance of basics. Can I apply this to improving mine?
Any of these require humility & curiosity. There are some great "hints" dropped about what's out there, but you rarely see curious minds enquire. Only critical ones. I attempted to post some of the mechanisms and ideas to see if folks would go to the "curious and exploratory", as opposed to the "invested & critical". Hmm.
D.
If I were only a stand-up fighter or kenpoist, I might ask, "what is this thing? Can it help my kenpo?" Mr. Conatser speaks in another tread of the importance of basics. Can I apply this to improving mine?
Any of these require humility & curiosity. There are some great "hints" dropped about what's out there, but you rarely see curious minds enquire. Only critical ones. I attempted to post some of the mechanisms and ideas to see if folks would go to the "curious and exploratory", as opposed to the "invested & critical". Hmm.
D.
Think about this...Bode said:
These fouls are used when "tightly wound around his opponent" as you state. WHO has the control to put these fouls to the most use at this range? The person in control, or the person being controlled?
Doc
Senior Master
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
"WARNING, WARNING, DANGER WILL ROBINSON - TOO MUCH INFORMATION HAS CREATED BRAINLOCK AND DUG IN HEELS."
Seriously Dr. C, this is normal. I have experienced this many times. I have given information that should have produced significant inquiries from anyone who is interested in actually improving their knowledge base. I have also put physical experiments out there so the "curious" could physically test ideas for themselves. To date only Mr. Billings has engaged (on more than one occasion), and commented on his findings publicly.
It is my experience that some posters are not actually interested in what they perceive as "new knowledge/material" only in validation for what they already subscribe to. Then there are some like Mr. Green, who is so locked into his own positions, he eludes common sense to bolster his perspective. Others ask multi-part intricant questions, and then after lengthy detailed answers to their inquiries, you get little to no resposnse. One was even honest enough to say he wanted answers, but just not from me. Then there are those that would rather talk about anything but the art, and cite numerous non martial art books you should go read so you'd "understand" where they are coming from.
I have always promoted the examination and exchange of honest "information" and asked questions to promote thought and an open mind, and avoided "political correctness" which I hate because it stifles the free flow of that information. I have always told it "like it is" and given "credit where credit is due," popular or not. That is what real teachers do.
Mr. Parker did the same, (although I must admit later in his life his commercial art made him very political in his interactions with many) to promote the free excahnge of ideas. All his life he put it out there and waited to see who "really wanted to know." They "worshipped" and laughed at his jokes, but through the years he found that the majority only wanted to know one thing. - "When is the next rank test?" Once they got enough rank, or thought they learned as much as they needed to know, - they left the fold to set up their own shop with his material. (very little of his personal material)
For me, these forums are fascinating and despite some of the less than open minded, there are truly some very well educated and brilliant people that participate. But I have also found that more people read than participate, so no matter what the exchange is between posters - good or bad, informative or not, a greater service is being done for the readers who have the opportunity to come to MartialTalk to see all sides and make decisions about what is available and credible for themselves. That is why I make my home here on MartialTalk and that is the extent of my own agenda. Recently a few of my newer students have participated and I think the experience has been positive for them. Mostly good posters and exchanges, and I presume, good readers that allows me to keep my promise to my teacher - "Preach the gospel brother." he always said with a smile.
I will. God I miss him.
OP
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #59
I can only imagine.
Doc
Senior Master
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
You know Sat is your day and you didn't show. You missed some great offensive applications of the Index Set.
