I did not intend for my previous post to Touch Of Death to come off as snippy. I really wanted to discuss the experience that led him to form that opinion. If carried out civilly, such a conversation can lead to great insight as to why someone would come to that conclusion.
It’s just that I’m taken back when someone makes a stark declaration dismissing a particular method or techniques. I don’t understand how someone can make such broad generalizations and speak in definitive terms based solely on their own limited experience. It’s one thing to doubt and offer valid explanations as to why, but to just outright discount something because you (generally speaking, not specifically you) don’t do it, seems intellectually lazy to me.
This is not controversial at all, these are very reasonable arguments. The type that would allow for a meaningful discussion and debate.I think what all of this kind of argument about is really a difference of opinion in the assessment of inherent risk.
…This isn't controversial, surely? So the argument really comes down to this: is is possible to train kicking techs so that the pros above can be exploited reliably enough to outweigh the cons, and is that possibility accessible enough for the normal trainee? And most important, is the time devoted to such training by the normal trainee better spent than the same amount of time spent on other techs which didn't compromise stability to the same degree (but possibly also lacked the advantages of the high kicks listed above under PRO)?
It’s just that I’m taken back when someone makes a stark declaration dismissing a particular method or techniques. I don’t understand how someone can make such broad generalizations and speak in definitive terms based solely on their own limited experience. It’s one thing to doubt and offer valid explanations as to why, but to just outright discount something because you (generally speaking, not specifically you) don’t do it, seems intellectually lazy to me.
It’s not that I want to dismiss people’s opinion. The point I was trying to make was that there can be just as many explanations as to why someone might unfairly criticize high kicking as ones that validated such criticism.But I'll say this: I think it's a mistake to dismiss people's opinions on the basis of their presumed lack of competence in kicking.
This is one of those instances were we are on the same page but in opposite columns. I was a bouncer for several year and had to rely on my MA training quite a bit. I had great success with high kicks. My master was a H2H instructor while in the Korean military during the early 60s. He taught the type of TKD that went to Vietnam, and he taught me to kick to the head. Many of the senior BBs at my school were former military and LEOs. In fact the man who tied the BB around my waist and congratulated me with a prideful embrace the day I promoted, was a former Marine and long time member of the NYPD, and he taught me to kick to the head.My own inclination is to be guided by people who fight bloody, brutal and no-rules for a living—and LEOs, personal protection pros, and especially club security people are probably the best guides to that kind of information.
Exactly!In the end, I just don't think the question can be given a quantitatively definitive answer.