Pressure testing self-defence techniques

[Phil Elmore]

Why, conducting yourself in a manner we can all consider exemplary of a forum moderator, of course. Why, were you not pursuing that goal?

 

[Phil Elmore]

So where does your real understanding of the arts and systems about which he was commenting on come from?

More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts, culminating in more than three years publishing a successful martial arts magazine and an equally successful book (or books, depending on how you look at it) in the same topic area. Granted, that might not stack up against a series of computer-generated cartoons depicting caricatures of martial arts figures farting and defrauding their students. It's all in your perspective, I guess.

 

[green meanie]

More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts...

Can you be more specific?

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Hmm, and here I thought it was against the rules to take pot-shots at moderators. Seems someone is grumpy that they can't boot people who disagree with them from every part of the site. Too bad.

Phil cannot be more specific as he has never spent enough time in any one art to really get to the true "meat" as it were. On the other side of that same coin, are those who have no real experience with an art, other than what their equally clueless buddies share who will then try to somehow "grade" it.
2 sides of the same coin, saturated in arrogence, ignorance and worse. As a friend of mine was known to say "Ahh. Arrogence and Stupidity in 1 package. How efficient of you."

My opinion of pressure-testing remains the same, as does my opinion of those who seem to think that their limited experiences somehow make them qualified to compare. Double that if they are under 50 and have less than 40 years in, and less than 20 in any 1 specific art.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Might I also add, it's poor form to continue to take shots at someone who is not here to defend themself? Kickcatchers not on my "admired list" but he isn't a member any longer from what I can tell. Show good form gentlemen.

 

[Phil Elmore]

And I find it "poor form" when a moderator takes shots at members because of his personal feelings. I find the way you cannot resist jumping into every argument in order to take shots at everyone else to be "poor form," while we're at it.

Phil cannot be more specific as he has never spent enough time in any one art to really get to the true "meat" as it were.

Wow, you've got me there. Why, it's all I can do to hide behind the anonymity the Internet offers poor benighted souls like me, what with my phone number and links to multiple websites detailing almost everything I think, do, and believe (and why) all listed in my signature.

For those who prefer hardcopy there is a rather detailed martial biography of me in my first book, Shorthand Empty Hand.

Somehow I'll manage to soldier on despite your negative opinion of me, Edmund.

 

[shesulsa]

MODERATOR WARNING:

Keep the conversation polite, respectful, on topic and non-defamatory.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Senior Moderator

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Hey, what can I say? Some of us are just gifted like that. I know you will keep on soldiering on Phil.

As to the "moderator", last I read here, having a badge doesn't somehow make them not have their own opinions. I think they bite their tongues quite a bit in regards to some of the primadonnas that have come through here. Of course, there is also your annoying little habit of deleting all opinion that doesn't agree with you inside your little cardboard box. Why don't you stay there Phil? I mean, you have complete control. Why come out here with us stupid people? Not enough people to talk to inside "Outpost Martialist"? Now you have to invite them to follow you to "Fortress Martialist" too? Hmmm?

But, I am but an anonymous internet trollkin.

 

[Phil Elmore]

MODERATOR WARNING:

Keep the conversation polite, respectful, on topic and non-defamatory.

:angel:

 

[frank raud]

More than fifteen years of studying multiple martial arts, culminating in more than three years publishing a successful martial arts magazine and an equally successful book (or books, depending on how you look at it) in the same topic area. Granted, that might not stack up against a series of computer-generated cartoons depicting caricatures of martial arts figures farting and defrauding their students. It's all in your perspective, I guess.

So, he asks politely, would that be 15 years of continous and progressive martial arts training, or dabbling here and there with no real advancement in any particular art that has given you this depth of understanding?
As the original poster is not around to post his resume, please feel free to denigrate his 12 years years of martial arts experience.

As your comment was not to the effect of "me write better", can you produce a chart that will more realistically reproduce the value for self defense training of the various martial arts that Kickcatcher did? Not " I regularly write better than that"(a paraphrase), can you develop a superior chart? Just for comparison purposes, as you have the higher level of experience, according to you?

 

[Phil Elmore]

His experience is not borne out in what he writes, from what I've seen. You asked and I answered; don't get snippy.

I could produce a chart and an accompanying article that was more coherent and more persuasive, yes. The fundamental problem, however, is that this thread (and his chart and all that bother) was an attempt to quantify subjective opinion -- to shoehorn an editorial belief into a pseudoscientific presentation. That's the wrong approach and the reason it failed.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Any chart that anyone produces is based off their own opinions and experiences. Something like this is opinion based. I saw a taichi demo once that was anything but 'soft'. I saw a grappling match that was more cuddling than rolling. It's all a matter of opinion.

And Phil, I saw that warning, it was posted while I was posting. No need to go all "angelic" there. It doesn't fit.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Opinions can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to objective reality. They can be quantified accordingly. All opinions exist somewhere on a continuum between wildly subjective and unverifiable at one extreme, and quantifiable and verifiable at the other. When one attempts to shoehorn the former into a format appropriate only to the latter, you get the chart that started this thread -- a subjective, highly speculative, and (in my opinion) largely uninformed editorial couched as quantitative analysis.

Editorials are wonderful things; I write them all the time. Attempting to reframe an editorial as scientific analysis is always awkward and rarely results in anything but a failed piece -- an essay that can stand neither as logical analysis nor as persuasive opinion because it does both functions poorly and out of context. Many poor writers fall into the trap of attempting to graph or otherwise chart their opinions as if this gives them more credibility; I've seen some people who do it in a desperate attempt to determine and to define for themselves what they believe, and I've seen others who do it in the hope that it will lend their assertions the illusion of scientific substantiation when those opinions are viewed by others. In either case, it simply doesn't work.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Some people make charts, some people write books. Anyone can do that, and anyone with a few bucks can publish it. Neither makes them somehow "right" or "correct".

When someone with little to no experience with a subject does this, I look at them as if they were a fool, which, often they prove themselves to be. Experience to me is defined as decades in the arts, not a decade. When Kick posted his chart, my first question was "what direct personal experience does he have with these to score them so?" Little it turned out. One cannot qualify "karate" after a few lessons, or a few friends opinions, or watching "Karate Kid". Careful research, over a prolonged period of time, looking at not the beginner, but the experts (who are deemed that by their peers, not their own PR). One must also be careful of putting too much stock into the opinions of "Art-Hoppers". Those are the "experts" who have seemingly tried every art in the world, who then "Mix and Match" to form their own arts, usually without achieving any recognized rank in the systems they "borrow" from. As most systems reserve the "good stuff" for after "black", it is questionable just how much real stuff they got. They often times will be found pointing at their "years of experience" as if it somehow means something, other than "I couldn't stick with anything long enough to really learn much".

So, both are little more than "editorials".

And when a short billionaire with big ears starts whipping out the charts and waving a pointer around, I tend to pay more attention.
(points if you get the ref.)

 

[shesulsa]

And when a short billionaire with big ears starts whipping out the charts and waving a pointer around, I tend to pay more attention.
(points if you get the ref.)

Ross Perot?

 

[Phil Elmore]

The fact that something was written, drawn, or otherwise publicized means nothing, no. When we start dismissing everything with a wave of the hand and the statement, "Hell, anyone can say anything," we are being intellectually dishonest. The fact is that we can judge the substance of an opinion based on its content, its context, and the degree to which these correspond to objective reality, as analyzed through the science (some would say art) of non-contradictory identification (logic). We can then make conclusions, integrating the data of our senses into concepts with which we deal with life and make decisions (and extrapolations) for long-term survival.

The chart is a subjective, speculative, and ill-informed attempt to couch inaccurate opinions as quantitative analysis. This is why it fails. Were it recast as an editorial, it would still fail, but it would at least be honestly presented.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Shesulsa: Bingo. I'd give you a gold star, but I see you already have one.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

The fact that something was written, drawn, or otherwise publicized means nothing, no. When we start dismissing everything with a wave of the hand and the statement, "Hell, anyone can say anything," we are being intellectually dishonest. The fact is that we can judge the substance of an opinion based on its content, its context, and the degree to which these correspond to objective reality, as analyzed through the science (some would say art) of non-contradictory identification (logic). We can then make conclusions, integrating the data of our senses into concepts with which we deal with life and make decisions (and extrapolations) for long-term survival.

The chart is a subjective, speculative, and ill-informed attempt to couch inaccurate opinions as quantitative analysis. This is why it fails. Were it recast as an editorial, it would still fail, but it would at least be honestly presented.

I disagree with the bolded statement. Anyone can, and has writen and published.
Phil, with all bluntness here, I can write a book, "100 reasons why Phil is a Twit". It might even become a best seller (maybe even give Dan Brown a run for the money). It would however not make it "right", regardless of how much research I put into it. I mean, how many people think the Davinci Code is real?

I do dismiss everything. Everything that fails the acid test of "quality" of the source. I have quantified that previously.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Saying, "Anyone can publish anything" is not reasoning; it is evading -- if we do not then follow it up with critical analysis of what has been said. Judging everything by the "quality of the source" is a logical fallacy; someone you detest or whose resume you find lacking is not wrong simply because you think so. You must judge the statement made, not the person making it.

You're stumbling over the notions of the "open mind" versus the active mind. The latter is desirable. The former is popular but generally useless. Don't worry, though; your mistake is a common one. If I'm to guess I'd imagine you lean towards populism rather than ruthless logic.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

Saying, "Anyone can publish anything" is not reasoning; it is evading -- if we do not then follow it up with critical analysis of what has been said. Judging everything by the "quality of the source" is a logical fallacy; someone you detest or whose resume you find lacking is not wrong simply because you think so. You must judge the statement made, not the person making it.

You're stumbling over the notions of the "open mind" versus the active mind. The latter is desirable. The former is popular but generally useless. Don't worry, though; your mistake is a common one. If I'm to guess I'd imagine you lean towards populism rather than ruthless logic.

Phil,
It is not evading. It is truth. Anyone can publish. There is however a large difference between McGraw Hill, and Kinkos. Tell me Phil, who is better qualified to judge the quality of an art? The 40 year expert in that art, the 30 year expert in another art, the 10 year non-expert in 6 arts?

I will take the first, give due consideration to the second, and look down my nose at the third.

Quality of the source is key. One does not need degrees and awards to be of quality, but one does need experience and quality sources. I can still detest someone, but that doesn't make them wrong automatically. I try to look at the quality behind their comments, not automatically label them "wrong".
Case in point: You and I do not see eye to eye on many things, yet, there are times we are in agreement.

We are in agreement on the reliability of the chart mentioned previously. We may (I don't recall) be in agreement on the concept of pressure testing. We disagree on the idea that someone who art-hops is somehow qualified to be an art-expert. Such is life, and the joy of living.