conversation is sparring not kata.

[Chris Parker]

no.

you are repeating your statements. Not supporting them.

You're really going to have to be more specific in your complaints… I mean, you've been given a range of supporting evidence, you've been given videos (which you seem to feel constitutes "evidence"), you've had things explained at length, you've had the source of information explained again and again, and bluntly, no-one besides you has had a problem with what's been posted constituting evidence and support. Again, I suggest you really don't get what evidence and support is in this context… as you continue to misunderstand what you've being told, even with regard to the nature of support and evidence itself.

that was the simplest to find rather than having to grind though threads and find all the inconsistencies. Which is impossible to argue due to this idea that every thing he says is fact. And it is fact because he says it.

Yeah… again, you've completely missed what you've been told. Facts aren't facts just because I say them… or even just because I say they are. Facts are facts regardless. But here's the thing… you have never, not once, actually queried me on any facts… you've simply started commenting on the nature or appearance of "facts". So I'll put it bluntly: If you have a question about anything I've stated, ask it. If you want clarification, ask for it. If you still don't understand, keep asking. But simply denying anything you're told isn't an issue of people not giving you facts, or not supporting them… it's you being… well… the words aren't really allowed here.

i mean if you wanted confrontation then all you would need is two people doing that.

Yeah.. because two people coming in armed with facts makes for a good argument… "Hey, I said the sky is blue!" "Yes, it is!"

Hmm...

it would wind up like an argument with a three year old.

You're kidding, right? You, whose entire arguments against relatively lengthy, detailed posts and answers have been "Nope. Sorry. Still wrong.", and "So… no evidence." (after being given multiple sources and supported statements detailing why you were being told the information you were), and so on… but you're now saying that it's other people making these threads like arguing with a three year old?

Really?

they said samurai didn't engage in life or death duels or something. I said i don't know i wasn't around then. Ballen went for some idea that he saw a demo. And Chris backed him up because he trains as a samurai.

i find that either of them living an actual samurai existence pretty slim. So yes some sort of document on how they trained would have been nice.

Well, your memory is completely out, and you were given all of that (and then some) at the time. But, to go back to what was actually said, let's take a look at it… it's in this thread, by the way: Boy dies from headlock. Are you prepared MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

On page one, you made the comment that BJJ's choking had "removed it's lethality" by having a safe training practice (tapping)… it was pointed out that that was an incorrect take on the matter (the lethality of the action itself was not mitigated by a safe training practice, it was still just as potentially lethal) by Elder, using a form of reducto ad absurdum by asking if you really thought that the samurai, in employ of a Daimyo (feudal lord), training to be lethal (for warfare) "regularly choked each other to death in practice"… The next page, you asked Elder if he had any evidence of samurai training methodology (ignoring the flat-out ludicrousness of your question, or the fact that it's based in a deliberately ridiculous construct) that wasn't "based in (his) imagination"… Elder responded with first hand, eye-witness, documentary, second hand, contemporary, and supported observation forms of evidence.

You then said "Do you have any evidence outside of your imagination of how samurai trained." Uh, yeah… all the stuff you'd already been given… in fact, what you'd specifically quoted in your response… and then, you started getting even more bizarre… which I didn't think was really possible. You continued to ignore all evidence given to you, claiming everything was in either Elder's, or my imagination, started saying that we were "living the life of a samurai", and saying we were suggesting that we were there back in the day…

I do, of course, invite everyone interested to read the actual thread to see just how oddly you were coming across there… and just how much you were refusing to acknowledge any evidence you were presented with, even though, in your own comments, you stated you had no idea of the realities yourself.

these sort of posts are an example of what i am getting at. This is how you get a confrontational conversation.

And none of that is on your head? Really?

Where did I post about Samurai duels? I don't remember

You didn't… Elder did, drop bear got confused. Mind you, we weren't addressing duels… we were addressing training practices… duels were mentioned by Elder in post #37, specifically in contrast to training practices, but that's about it… which is nothing at all, of course, like the comments that drop bear is making above (that anyone, Elder, myself, or anyone else, stated that samurai didn't engage in life or death duels… "or something").

except what would be the point? He claimed he does address it by making the statement in the first place. That is his proof.

And, in some cases, that is very much the way it works. If you ask me about training in my arts, if you ask me about training "back in the day", then I will give you an answer based on decades of training, education, experience, and knowledge. That doesn't have a web-page to cite, you understand… the source is me. If you don't think I have credibility, if you think that my comments don't stand, that's one thing. But to demand further evidence is like me asking you to provide photographic evidence of your evening meal last March 14th in order for me to believe that you eat vegetables.

not once have i seen him back a statement with a source. If i back a statement with a source he just says that isn't the case and we are back to square one.

Except, of course, when I pull apart your source, I do it by examining why it's not correct, or relevant. Oh, and I have supported plenty… and have provided more when asked, if it's possible… such as when Steve was asking about definitions differentiating between "choke" and "strangle", and I was saying that the way he knew it was actually opposite to the medical definitions (post #34)…

i have never known an authority on any topic that operates that way.

Except, of course, you do. And you've had the examples of such given to you again and again… such as "expert witness testimony", properly credentialed individuals, and more. That you choose to ignore reality really doesn't help you.

as far as my doubts. I don't think Chris has much practical knowledge in areas like self defence.

And it's fine if you have doubts… but that's got nothing to do with your insistence on ignoring all forms of evidence you're given. But here's the thing… if what I say doesn't hold water, then question it. If what I say makes sense, is agreed upon by the majority, and fits with all other understandings and evidence, then perhaps it's possible that I really do know what I'm talking about… something to consider…

so in the texts there are portions telling me what a fight is like. Even a fun portion on why bouncers lift weights.

Wow, that's one way to take things completely out of context…

it is a style thing rather than a specific thing. He is absolutely sure he is correct every time he makes a point. That is why i compared it to kata. Because of that backwards thought process.

I only post when I'm confident of what I'm saying, yeah. And that's drawn from decades at this… but you're really off base in your take on the thought process. I'm confident because I've spent years questioning my understanding and improving my knowledge… and I continue to do that to today… what you're getting here is the end result of my journey thus far… and, as a result, it's as far from the "backwards thought process" you're ascribing as you can get. I'm not confident because I'm saying it, I'm saying it because I'm confident.

eg. Kata is correct. Now we have to find out why it is correct.

Well, you don't have to find out, it's been explained to you (frankly, in a far clearer and more detailed way that was ever explained to me… I've spent many, many years coming to that understanding… you're welcome, by the way)… and, really, if you're not interested in kata, then there's no reason for you to even care about if it's correct or not, let alone why. But, if you're going to attack it, it really helps if you have the first clue what you're talking about… which, so far, you have shown no evidence of at all. Despite all the assistance you've been given.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

Of course, yeah, I do talk about a martial art (specific system) as being a single unified "thing"… what that is changes from system to system, of course, but I also hold that my belief is correct.

Well, it's neither "correct" or "incorrect". It's not a testable factual claim. It's a perspective - a way of looking at the world. As such, it can be more or less useful depending on your circumstances.

If I can finish this piece I'm working on writing today, I'll try to get that other thread started to discuss the issue.

 

[Steve]

Well, it's neither "correct" or "incorrect". It's not a testable factual claim. It's a perspective - a way of looking at the world. As such, it can be more or less useful depending on your circumstances.

If I can finish this piece I'm working on writing today, I'll try to get that other thread started to discuss the issue.

Yes. Exactly. Very well said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[TSDTexan]

Kata is a waste of time IMO. If you enjoy performing it, more power to you. Personally, I'm very happy that I chose a style that doesn't utilize it as a training tool.

And yeah, debates are a form of verbal sparring. Always have been.

Hatches plan to get all the way to 2nd black in BJJ... And create number of two man Kata. That are required before anything else after warmups.

 

[Koshiki]

Believe you me, that after a year and a half absence from this forum, and after reading all nine pages of the thread, (for some twisted, id-based reason, no doubt) believe you me, I say, that I have no idea why THIS particular thread is what has drawn my attention enough to convince me to post.

I suppose though that the original question, had it perhaps been worded in slightly different manner, and posed with a different intent, is a question central to my training.

Let me explain. We all have, I'm sure, slightly to extremely different things in mind when we use the word "sparring." For me, sparring is about as close to conversation as the martial arts get. Personally, my sparring is nearly entirely formed from my understanding of kata in its analysis. Sparring, as I understand and utilize it, is why I love the martial arts. Sparring, as I do it, has only that one underlying rule of the martial arts; try not to break your partners. Sparring should be something that you can do, with no preamble or discussion, with anyone from any style or lack thereof.

Keep in mind that my "sparring" bears next to no resemblance to two evenly matched guys with some assortment of protective gear both trying to defeat each other in grappling, kickboxing, faux versions of either, or any combination of the aforementioned. I do at times stand five feet away and dodge in and out with extended jabs and reaching round kicks to the legs and head, but those instances are rare, and are either as a goof, or just to mix things up so my partner(s) has/have something new to work with. With most people I play with and have played with, it works something like this:

We both attempt to practice techniques/skills/tactics at the expense of the other, unplanned, uncoordinated, and in direct opposition to one another, but with the common goal of learning. This usually lasts until the first even slightly interesting/painful/unusual thing happens, whatever that may be. It's a bit like the first piece of juicy gossip in a sea of otherwise bland and boring small talk.

At that point, sparring tends to disintegrate, while the interesting "gossip" is asked about, explained, tested, attempted, altered to fit, tested again, played with... At some point, sparring returns, but generally with an undercurrent of trying to implement whatever unusual thing has just been examined.

It is, for me, very like the give and take, the sharing and disagreeing and learning and exploring that a good conversation is about. Now, it can range from sparring or conversation that is as bland and gentle as talking about weather and upcoming BBQs; to sparring that is as driven and polemic and unyielding (and painful) as any Oxford debate. But in all cases, the two actions, at least to me, bear a notable resemblance to one another.

And in all cases, the language that *I* at least am speaking when sparring, is built of words which can all (ok, mostly) be found within the dictionary that is Kata.