The notion that you have to throw/submit yourself in Aikido or get your wrist broken

[Alan Smithee]

You say “believe it or not” as if that should be surprising.

Considering what you wrote to me, it's seemed as if you were not aware of it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sigh.

Ignoring that red herring question, I'll ask you one;

If I told you I just got back from a weekend on Mars , but I don't have anything but my word, and you have video evidence, from 30 different angles, that I was at home posting on martial talk the whole weekend.

Would you believe it?

That’s a pretty blatant argument ad absurdum. There’s a difference between wild stories and the experience of a cop on the job.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unfortunately it's very hard to practice Judo holistically because a lot of dojos don't want their students getting "bad habits" that won't help them in competition. The latest round of rules I've seen in Judo competition are legitimately insane and really serve no purpose except to stop wrestlers and BJJ guys from participating.

Judo clubs live and die by their connections to comps and governing bodies, and there's quite a few black belts (especially in the states) who have nowhere to go as Judo clubs close their doors. I'm seeing a lot of Judo guys migrating over to Bjj to teach, compete, and become black belts, and just like wrestling, BJJ welcomes Judo guys with open arms. Judo's loss is Bjj's gain.

Changes in Judo rules - and the over-adherence to those rules inside the dojo - is a failing in Judo over time. I’m rather hoping some of the BJJ mindset bleeds back to Judo.

 

[JP3]

Changes in Judo rules - and the over-adherence to those rules inside the dojo - is a failing in Judo over time. I’m rather hoping some of the BJJ mindset bleeds back to Judo.

A few years back a movement was starting against the "then) "new" judo competition rules. Those new rules were rumored to be initiated int he international governing bodies because so many of the traditional competition powerhouse nations (i.e. Japan) were losing to all these wrestlers & BJJ people working single-leg nd double-leg takedowns, leg picks, etc. All of those were already "in" judo (right there in the syllabus, if you go looking) but people really didn't use them because the traditional starting position (i.e. standard kumikata grip position) rendered it a bit weird, uncomfortable &/or awkward to attack that way.

Anyway, brief digression over, I forget which US organization was rebelling against the new rules, which had the obvious and glaring removal of techniques... and stuck them right back in. AAU, maybe? Anyway, they changed up scoring as well, going to a point system which promoted more action for spectators, and less liklihood that a match would just be... over. It was interesting. But... the big associations did something about rank and testings etc., and I stopped hearing about it here in Houston.

How did you guys get on this topic, anyway? I read page 1, then skipped to page 24 and it's completely different topic shift. Interesting to me how that happens.

 

[JowGaWolf]

For starters, I don’t assume I get to decide where and how the attack starts. We do part of our training under the assumption that our awareness may fail us. So, having some guy shove you against a wall from behind to start the fight seems advantageous for that guy.
And, as I said before, some of what you learn is just how to deal with restrictions. Say some guy tries to bash your head as you said. If you manage to control that, you’re still at a wall with him behind you. It’s a drill that forces you to work differently than if you’re in an open area, similar to drills where you have to do your best while staying inside a small box (taped on the floor).

While you cannot make assumptions on where and how you can get attacked, there are always restrictions and opportunities that you can manage by how you position yourself in that environment. How you position yourself in a given environment will either increase, decrease, or totally eliminate the chances of certain attacks occurring. This is what you manage. The environment itself also helps determine the possibility of attack.

Am I more likely to get in a fist fight at a museum or at a bar? I'm I more likely to be ambushed in a mall or in the parking lot.

I understand what you mean by learning certain things from certain drills, I just don't think that the one in that video fall under that and it was definitely not presented as drill in which you learn something else.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If I told you I just got back from a weekend on Mars , but I don't have anything but my word, and you have video evidence, from 30 different angles, that I was at home posting on martial talk the whole weekend.

Would you believe it?

I still don't know what you are getting at. I don't see how this is related to "personal experience"
If you told me that you took a weekend on Mars then only only needs to ask "when did you leave?" You'll ask this question so you can measure the amount of time that it takes to get to mars with the amount of time that the person said they left. It doesn't matter if I only have your word. If your time gone does not match the number of hours to travel to Mars, then you would have failed the most general verification.

I've spent 6 months in Australia. Right now at this point you only have my word to go on and my reputation for telling the truth or for lying. If I'm known for lying then this is probably a lie. If I'm known for being fairly honest and truthful, then it's a good chance that this is true. You can ask me questions about it, but you wouldn't know if those answers were true unless you have been to Australia. Sometimes the "lack of evidence" is more about the other persons "lack of knowledge" Meaning that person has no knowledge or personal experience of Australia in which he/she can use to verify what I'm telling you.

If I tell you I can pull off a wrist lock and that it works, but I only verbally described how I did it. Then the only thing you have to verify if I'm telling you the truth is your "personal experience" successfully pulling off a wrist lock. If you don't have any knowledge of how to do it, then you can't verify. It's not because I lack evidence, it's because you lack the knowledge or personal experience in which you would compare what you did to be successful with what I'm saying.

This why some of use are comparing similar things at random and we understand exactly what the other person is referring to, because it's something we have experienced either by doing or receiving. There are certain things that people will only know through experience. This is how people tend to come back with the same or similar stories about that experience.

 

[JowGaWolf]

How did you guys get on this topic, anyway? I read page 1, then skipped to page 24 and it's completely different topic shift. Interesting to me how that happens.

lol. such is the reality of this group. Champions of topic shifts lol.

 

[Martial D]

That’s a pretty blatant argument ad absurdum. There’s a difference between wild stories and the experience of a cop on the job.

But it isn't. What it is is an analogy.

I have no way of differentiating wishful thinking/intentional bs/willful exaggerating from someone's actual experience barring external verification/evidence.

My claim to have been to Mars, despite evidence to the contrary, is epistemologically equal to someone's claim that they win fights with TMA training and methods(ie kata/gi cooperative choreography) despite evidence that rarely to never happens.

Logic 101

 

[Martial D]

I still don't know what you are getting at. I don't see how this is related to "personal experience"
If you told me that you took a weekend on Mars then only only needs to ask "when did you leave?" You'll ask this question so you can measure the amount of time that it takes to get to mars with the amount of time that the person said they left. It doesn't matter if I only have your word. If your time gone does not match the number of hours to travel to Mars, then you would have failed the most general verification.

I've spent 6 months in Australia. Right now at this point you only have my word to go on and my reputation for telling the truth or for lying. If I'm known for lying then this is probably a lie. If I'm known for being fairly honest and truthful, then it's a good chance that this is true. You can ask me questions about it, but you wouldn't know if those answers were true unless you have been to Australia. Sometimes the "lack of evidence" is more about the other persons "lack of knowledge" Meaning that person has no knowledge or personal experience of Australia in which he/she can use to verify what I'm telling you.

If I tell you I can pull off a wrist lock and that it works, but I only verbally described how I did it. Then the only thing you have to verify if I'm telling you the truth is your "personal experience" successfully pulling off a wrist lock. If you don't have any knowledge of how to do it, then you can't verify. It's not because I lack evidence, it's because you lack the knowledge or personal experience in which you would compare what you did to be successful with what I'm saying.

This why some of use are comparing similar things at random and we understand exactly what the other person is referring to, because it's something we have experienced either by doing or receiving. There are certain things that people will only know through experience. This is how people tend to come back with the same or similar stories about that experience.

Maybe you went to Australia, maybe you didn't. I already have pretty sound evidence that people do, in fact, go to Australia, so I have no reason to question that you did.

Now if I was convinced by a similar amount of evidence that people couldn't go to Australia(let's say it got nuked and was completely irradiated), but you claimed to have gone there anyway, I would need something more than your word to believe it.

This is far more the latter than the former.

 

[jobo]

But it isn't. What it is is an analogy.

I have no way of differentiating wishful thinking/intentional bs/willful exaggerating from someone's actual experience barring external verification/evidence.

My claim to have been to Mars, despite evidence to the contrary, is epistemologically equal to someone's claim that they win fights with TMA training and methods(ie kata/gi cooperative choreography) despite evidence that rarely to never happens.

Logic 101

no, there isn't any evidence that it rarely happens, there maybe an absence of evidence that it happens a lot, but there's an absence of evidence that MMA or BJJ works often as well outside of the ''ring''

because no one is compiling evidence

 

[drop bear]

That’s a pretty blatant argument ad absurdum. There’s a difference between wild stories and the experience of a cop on the job.

When you develop a culture of evidence through stories. You encourage people to talk themselves up.

Police are as susceptible as anyone else for this.

 

[jobo]

When you develop a culture of evidence through stories. You encourage people to talk themselves up.

Police are as susceptible as anyone else for this.

that has an element of truth, but evidence through first hand testimony is the bed rock of the criminal justice system, so you cant just dismiss it unless you can suggest a more reliable form of available evidence, to which both ourselves and the criminal justice system could benefit

even in this day and age the vast majority of things don't happen on camera, particularly violent assaults where criminals with even a modicum of sense avoid cameras

 

[JowGaWolf]

Maybe you went to Australia, maybe you didn't. I already have pretty sound evidence that people do, in fact, go to Australia, so I have no reason to question that you did.

So you assume what I've done or where I've been based on the evidence of what other people do?.

My claim to have been to Mars, despite evidence to the contrary, is epistemologically equal to someone's claim that they win fights with TMA training and methods(ie kata/gi cooperative choreography) despite evidence that rarely to never happens.

This comment makes it all to clear now why you don't understand some of the things I talk about. You have already made up your mind about the value and effectiveness of TMA and that it can't win a fight.

To you the realistic possibility of someone winning a TMA = the reality that you spent a weekend on Mars.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I would need something more than your word to believe it.

This is far more the latter than the former.

You would only need proof that winning a fight using TMA is possible, If you personally lack TMA skills that would allow you to win a fight. If have the personal experience of winning a fighting using TMA skills then you would personally know from experience that it's possible.

That's what I'm reading from this. You lack functional TMA skills.

 

[Martial D]

no, there isn't any evidence that it rarely happens, there maybe an absence of evidence that it happens a lot, but there's an absence of evidence that MMA or BJJ works often as well outside of the ''ring''

because no one is compiling evidence

Aside from the hundreds of videos of guys trying their TMA against actual fighters and getting quickly pummeled, I guess.

 

[Martial D]

You would only need proof that winning a fight using TMA is possible, If you personally lack TMA skills that would allow you to win a fight. If have the personal experience of winning a fighting using TMA skills then you would personally know from experience that it's possible.

That's what I'm reading from this. You lack functional TMA skills.

You have entered the realm of willful ignorance now. Once ignorance is willful, no amount of logic can assail it.

My points are there for those that are willing to digest them.

 

[Martial D]

So you assume what I've done or where I've been based on the evidence of what other people do?.

/R/whoosh

This comment makes it all to clear now why you don't understand some of the things I talk about. You have already made up your mind about the value and effectiveness of TMA and that it can't win a fight.

To you the realistic possibility of someone winning a TMA = the reality that you spent a weekend on Mars.

You should really take a basic logic course.

It will literally change your whole world.

 

[JowGaWolf]

that has an element of truth, but evidence through first hand testimony is the bed rock of the criminal justice system, so you cant just dismiss it unless you can suggest a more reliable form of available evidence, to which both ourselves and the criminal justice system could benefit

even in this day and age the vast majority of things don't happen on camera, particularly violent assaults where criminals with even a modicum of sense avoid cameras

That's because first hand testimony usually has similarities and consistencies to other victimization and conflicts. It's difficult to fake things that people feel when they are a victim of something. The more questions that are asked and answered, the more the lie will fall apart. Is it 100% fool proof or accurate? Of course not, but it's more accurate than not.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You have entered the realm of willful ignorance now. Once ignorance is willful, no amount of logic can assail it.

My points are there for those that are willing to digest them.

Dude I'm still trying to figure what you are getting at. You are who brought up Mars, and that TMA can't win fights. You brought that up not me.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You should really take a basic logic course.

It will literally change your whole world.

I had 2 years of college level logic so I'm pretty sure that's not the issue. But now you get use your logic and determine if I'm lying to you or not.