Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Talk' started by skribs, Jul 26, 2019.
You quoted the wrong guy, @Martial D said that. Got me very confused for a second.
Have fixed it.
How do you create a situation where it works without resistance? For example, if someone resists my inside move, I will do an outside move. If I try an outside move and it is resisted, I will do an inside move. So I can't say "let me show you the inside move with resistance", because when I feel resistance, I will not use the inside move.
Like I said in my OP. Sometimes you can't get the wrist lock, but you can still use the rest of the concept to grab their hand or arm and then take them down. As a white belt in Hapkido, I spent a lot of time learning to make the wrist locks work. As an orange and green (and now blue) belt, I learned more of what to do when the wristlock doesn't work. If I just relied on the wrist, then I wouldn't be able to do half of what I can do. But applying the concepts and using the rest of the body, I'm able to make it work.
I did say "most", not "all". And to be perfectly honest, I was thinking about a recent argument with you as part of writing this post.
And the dousing sometimes doesn't work because God likes a laugh.
You would do a bunch of blind tests of training with resistance and during that training you would attempt that wrist lock. And it would either work or it wouldn't.
And then you could show that the wrist lock does work against resistance and in a consistent manner.
The leaps of logic that you needed to make your theory work make your conclusions incorrect.
But you are using anecdotes as evidence.
"Wrist locks work because I can make them work. So there."
But we don't know if you can make them work. Just like dowsing.
Anecdotally it works. Scientifically it is as effective as random chance.
If we can only show a technique working on compliant partners. Then the evidence suggests that it only works on compliant partners.
And this works both ways. So a move that logically shouldn't work can be shown to work. Then it works.
Regardless of the logic.
The fact it works anecdotally is proof enough for me. It works. In fact, it's a staple technique used by police officers when making arrests. I'm pretty sure the people getting arrested are not compliant. I've seen compliant people get arrested, and they don't need wrist locks.
The fact you can't make it work is not because the technique doesn't work, but that you do not have the capability of making it work. You've chosen to believe it doesn't work at all, which is an incorrect assessment.
Every technique is as effective as random chance. Show me one technique that will never fail.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The cartwheel kick would appear to be bad if you have poor balance, poor aim, haven't practiced on a bag, or don't know how to set it up. Any of those possibilities will derail that cartwheel kick, and result in you whiffing on the kick, getting kneed in the face while you throw the kick, or getting your arm broken.
That doesn't mean the cartwheel kick is bad. It just means the cartwheel kick has requirements in order to be used properly. If used by someone skilled in the kick, in the right situation, it's a good technique. If used by someone unskilled in the technique, whether the execution or the strategy of the technique, then it is a bad technique.
That's fine. But we can see the cartwheel kick working.
Just because things may work when we don't expect them to. Doesn't mean everything works.
We see dowsers find water. Astrologists predict the future and mind readers read people's thoughts.
But under scrutiny their method falls apart.
I am not choosing to believe anything. I am choosing to follow the evidence.
If there isn't good evidence then there isn't anything to support that a technique works. The arguments are irrelevant to the facts.
You are choosing which evidence to follow and which evidence to ignore. You are choosing what is "fact" and what is "science", and what is "anecdote". You are purposefully ignorant of successes, in order to say it only fails.
Please quote me where I said everything works.
The term "against resistance opponent" can be misleading.
If your opponent wants to
- resist against your elbow lock, you apply shoulder lock.
- resist against your shoulder lock, you apply elbow lock.
- raise up, you lift him off the ground.
- sink down, you press him down on the ground.
- keep his feet apart, you spring his leg from inside out to make his stance wider.
- Keep his feet close, you sweep his leg from outside in to make his stance narrower.
In other words, you try to use the minimum amount of force to achieve the maximum amount of result. You should not against your opponent's well.
IMO, it makes no sense that when your opponent is on the ground, you pick him up and throw over your hip even if your "hip throw" is good.
There you go.
Your argument supports the conclusion that everything works.
So I have this move where I shoot my laser eyes at people and kill them.
How do you determine I am full of crap?
Ok so with the cartwheel kick. I am Choosing to accept repeatable success by a top fighter against top fighters who are fighting back that I can see and track as fact. Over "cops do wristlocks"
And you have an issue with that?
get hold of a training partner, tell him your going to put him in a wrist lock and say you give him 50$ if you fail. that should ensure a good level of resistance and if your correct won't cost you any money at all
it would be a good technique only if it works .common sense say it has a multitude of ways it can go badly wrong, not least putting your head that close to the floor makes kicking you in the head a piece of cake, its much the same reason that people don't general go into a handstand when trying to defend themselves
Do you have any times when that laser eyes move has worked?
I have literally made it clear in this thread that I do not think everything works. I have specifically stated "most techniques" and not "all techniques". However, you are doing to me the same thing you do with your argument. You're picking which facts you agree with and which facts you reject. In this case, you're rejecting that I said "most" and adding in that I must mean "all".
I never said dousing works. You just assumed I did. I never said all techniques work. I don't know how you can assume I did, when I specifically did not.
Separate names with a comma.