Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Kung Fu Wang]

These people know how to do their individual disciplines because they have a depth of knowledge in applying them.

Boxers don't just know how to punch.

Boxers know how to manage distance, and move, how to bait people, how to move their heads and so on.

And because they know that they punch more effectively than someone who knows how to punch.

Agree with you everything that you have said here.

What's your definition of "1/2 MA"?

 

[drop bear]

If you can move back faster than I can move forward, there is no way that any of my MA technique can work on you. Does that mean my MA training is worthless? Can I prove my MA work when that happen? I can't. Will I lose faith in my MA training? I won't.

Faith base - if my opponent attacks me, I'll have chance to apply my MA skill.
Evidence base - if my opponent runs away from me, my MA skill won't work.

There are very few people who can beat me in a running race if they are running backwards and I am running forwards.

Faith based are these things like being told it only takes 30lbs of pressure to break a knee. And then the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone is when they are trying to kill you.

 

[JP3]

Not to get involved in the fun & games you guys are having, but I wanted to toss an anecdote in...

I tried, a couple of times, to inject sparring, in a real sense, into my aikido school/curriculum. My student's didn't care for it. I mean, I'd been at the TKD school recently enough and had some kid ask if I wanted to spar, and I asked him if he only wanted to TKD spar since my own game was rusty with disuse, but I could "do other stuff" if he was cool with it. He was, just asking me to "not break anything," to which I said, "It's much more likely just to be frustrating to one of us and that person will probably fall down more than be bruised."

So, we did. Kid was pretty good, strong, quick and explosive kicks, agile in that way I vaguely remember being, myself. LOL! I did prove something to myself again, that the mind keeps track of things even when the body is going in the ditch, fitness-speaking. It was fun. He went head-hunting, which I gently disabused him was going to be easy with a couple simple rising deflections, taking his balance off of the support leg in a manner totally illegal to my experience in typical TKD sparring... unless I've missed a rules change recently. As he'd be correccting his balance, I'd have done something like an arm drag, or circle step while linked to him to get to his back.... a few times until he caught the timing of it I had him in standing hadakajime (rear naked). He got that part figured out, so I change it up on him again. He was touch-tapping me some... but I was staying a bit farther away from him than he was used to, until he'd overextend and I could close. Sometimes to judo distance. I loaded him on a couple things but didn't throw. It was a good time. Was he going 100%, of course not. Was I, again... of course not. Did I learn much... well, not really, as I'd learned most of what I'd used back in my own TKD days and was just applying that knowledge differently. But... did he? Of course. At least, I think he did. Maybe he just put me down as "a cheater" and went about his day.

But, I never did get my own aikido class folks to buy intot he idea. I think it's actually "because" of the name, aikido. Preconceptions are used to decide "what we want to do" as much as "what we are doing." I finally gave it up.

Though, I'd still mess around with other school's guys if asked at their places. If it wasn't a Rambo gym where'd I'd get on the mat to learn and share and someone would try to pull my arms off or very seriously try to poke me in the eye. I've only got the one working eye, so my built-in redundancy went away.

All right, go back to the efficacy discussion...

 

[drop bear]

Agree with you everything that you have said here.

What's your definition of "1/2 MA"?

Ok. Here is a video of aikido striking. And the striking looks ok.

But they are standing in the wrong place to receive strikes. (At the 12 o'clock and directly in arms reach.)

So when a strike comes at them fast they have a greatly reduced chance of making anything work regardless how perfect their striking is.

These little details is why you see a martial artist who has trained for years get eaten alive by a fighter who has trained for six months.

And it bugs me.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

And then the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone is when they are trying to kill you..

You can also say that "the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone, you break that guy's knee."

I don't like the attitude that the world is so dangerous that everybody all try to beat me up.

 

[drop bear]

Ok. Here is a video of aikido striking. And the striking looks ok.

But they are standing in the wrong place to receive strikes. (At the 12 o'clock and directly in arms reach.)

So when a strike comes at them fast they have a greatly reduced chance of making anything work regardless how perfect their striking is.

These little details is why you see a martial artist who has trained for years get eaten alive by a fighter who has trained for six months.

We have seen what happens when people go live at like 20%

And it bugs me.

 

[drop bear]

You can also say that "the very first time you really throw an oblique kick at someone, you break that guy's knee."

I don't like the attitude that the world is so dangerous that everybody all try to beat me up.

Yeah. I managed to mostly not cripple guys I fought.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

when they are trying to kill you.

Again, I try not to live in a scary world that everybody all try to kill me. The day when I found out that I could scare others, I don't get scare that easy any more. If you pull out a .38, I'll pull out a .44 magnum.

One time I got someone in a head lock in the street in Hawaii, the guy screamed, "Please, Please don't kill me."

One night I (A long hair China man with leather jacket and blue jean) stood in a dark street alley of Rio de Janeiro, Everybody walked on the other side of the street and tried to keep distance away from me.

One time I was in a taxi from Taipei airport. The taxi driver asked me (a long hair China man) what I was doing in Taiwan. I joked about and said, "I come to help my friend to take care some personal business". Just about 3 days ago, the head of the 4 seas Chinese gang leader was killed by an assassin hired from outside Taiwan. The Taxi driver thought I was that assassin. When I paid him my taxi fare, he didn't take my money, and left quickly.

Sometime I don't know who is more scary, a long hair China man,

or a bold head white guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But you can't generalize TMA and then take credit for its success

But you can generalize whatever you like, apparently.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Where you take a point I didn't make and argue against that rather than argue my actual point.

So say if I suggested that a style that really only includes half the details to make a technique work bugs me. You say boxing some how has no way of protecting the body when they punch so I am wrong.

Because there are not body shots in boxing or something.

But that would be a straw man.

Yeah, that's not a strawman. It's an analogy. Entirely different things.

So, yeah, you don't really know what a strawman is. You gave a reasonable definition, but then an example that's entirely not that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No I am not claiming that. You are making up straw man arguments to suit yourself. (See explanation above of what a straw man is)

Nobody knows what you teach. You have been very careful about concealing that. And so you can make any claim you want. But that is all it is a claim. It is essentially worthless without something to support it.

Now you give that claim worth because it benefits you. If people have faith then you get support. So faith is the ultimate driver in your logic.

I work on evidence so faith based claims have a lot less worth.

Richard Dawkins defined both methods where he was asked if science and faith are opposing beliefs why is a bias towards science acceptable?

Again, using the word "like" indicates (in the English language, all variants and dialects I'm aware of) the presence of a simile, which is a specific kind of metaphor. Metaphors can be poor metaphors, but they are not strawman arguments.

As for the rest, I've discussed on several occasions some of my training and teaching techniques. I'm not sure how you get me not filming something as "hiding". If I had video pertinent to discussions, I'd share it. But I don't. I've never bothered to film more than small bits of training, and none of those ended up showing anything much useful, so I haven't kept them.

You think you work on evidence. What you work on is deep confirmation bias. You accept the evidence you like (both positive and negative), and tend to discard or distort the evidence that doesn't fit you bias.

You have a great message about changes that could be made to some training practices. Unfortunately, your delivery completely buries the message for most folks. And you've gotten worse. 4 years ago, you made more cogent arguments and presented things in a way that was somewhat more objective (unless the word Aikido came up, then your bias entirely took over, but at least it was confined to that).

As for whether people suppor me or not, why would I care? I teach a very few students at a time. So long as they are progressing in the ways they wish, I'm happy. If they aren't, then I help them look for someplace that serves their needs better. You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of personal passion about what I do............without really bothering to know what I do. Odd, that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So for example I have heard this theory from Aikido guys somewhere. That whatever throw doesn't work. He just doesn't give the energy or sort of clams up if say you are angling to grab a wrist or something.

And the solution becomes something like yeah but we have striking to compensate for that situation.

So then I ask so you are competent at striking say at Mabye a first or second fight ammy boxer competent?

And this is where things fall apart.

Instead of being the sort of aikido guy that I have found videos of actually being able to make things work. They are the sort of aikido guy who makes excuses and creates hypothetical situations.

That would be an example of faith based vs evidence based.

I recall you saying not too long ago that training with resistance was the important thing. That competition was best, but resistance in the school is part of the way there.

Now you're saying that to be judged competent at striking, someone has to be at a specific level in boxing (or, I presume, some other official competition). I think we've had this ridiculous argument before.

As for the rest, at the time we were actually talking about something you and I agree on, though your bias makes you unable to recognize it. I don't think most of the techniques in Aikido are well suited to fighting situations. In my opinion, they are for training movement and control principles that work best when backed by solid basics.

So, yes, the right input is needed (that's not unique to the aiki arts - can't single-leg in a situation where a single-leg isn't a good fit, either). And, yes, striking is one of the other answers (so is Judo-style grappling, among other things). It's not so much about compensation, as a set of tools. The aiki areas are training other ways to put the basic tools to work.

But, yeah, go ahead and reword my statements to make them say what you want. It's easier for you than challenging your own bias by actually reading for understanding. You disappoint.

 

[skribs]

A because in a vacuum a feather falls as fast as a bowling ball so hits harder?

Sound. The sound it makes. You can't make sound inside a vacuum. Since the metaphor was too much for you, let me put it this way: your logic is not sound. It's not as poetic, but it's hopefully said in such a way that even you can understand it.

 

[skribs]

These people know how to do their individual disciplines because they have a depth of knowledge in applying them.

Boxers don't just know how to punch.

Boxers know how to manage distance, and move, how to bait people, how to move their heads and so on.

And because they know that they punch more effectively than someone who knows how to punch.

By your logic, you should appreciate a lot more of the arts than you do. Because I've never taken a boxing lesson in my life, and I know all of these "extra" things you think is somehow unique to boxing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

how to move their heads ...

When your opponent punches at you, you can:

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (your opponent can punch you again).
2. Block, wrap, and ... (your opponent cannot punch you again).

IMO, 1 < 2.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

These little details is why you see a martial artist who has trained for years get eaten alive by a fighter who has trained for six months.

And it bugs me.

If nobody trains how to fight, and you are the only person who trains how to fight, you should have easy time to deal with those "1/2 MA" guys.

If I have riffle and my opponent only have knife, I won't tell my opponent that my hot weapon is more power than his cold weapon.

 

[drop bear]

If nobody trains how to fight, and you are the only person who trains how to fight, you should have easy time to deal with those "1/2 MA" guys.

If I have riffle and my opponent only have knife, I won't tell my opponent that my hot weapon is more power than his cold weapon.

Iron sharpens iron. The better you are the better I am.

 

[drop bear]

I recall you saying not too long ago that training with resistance was the important thing. That competition was best, but resistance in the school is part of the way there.

Now you're saying that to be judged competent at striking, someone has to be at a specific level in boxing (or, I presume, some other official competition). I think we've had this ridiculous argument before.

No we have had this argument before. You can do some pretty terrible resisted training from within your own school if you are not open to outside influence.

So you could be sneaky and say you do resisted training or even sparring or even mma. But if we don't have a level to compare it to. Then it is a claim that could mean anything.

So if someone makes that claim I would ask for further information.

There is sparring and there is sparring.

And it's level of competency greatly effects the feedback.

You can't jump on the mat and kramer a bunch of guys and be able to make a truthful climate of competency.

 

[drop bear]

So, yes, the right input is needed (that's not unique to the aiki arts - can't single-leg in a situation where a single-leg isn't a good fit, either). And, yes, striking is one of the other answers (so is Judo-style grappling, among other things). It's not so much about compensation, as a set of tools. The aiki areas are training other ways to put the basic tools to work.

But, yeah, go ahead and reword my statements to make them say what you want. It's easier for you than challenging your own bias by actually reading for understanding. You disappoint.

No I am saying this is a culture issue. So for whatever reason you can't do the technique. And instead of fixing the technique so you can or changing the technique so it works. Someone will invent a clever logical story about how it would work if only whatever.

It is of course dishonest.

Then we can claim a technique works without ever having to show evidence.

So basically if they are striking and you are striking and you use shots to set up a throw. That is a claim you can make that striking is this viable thing.

But if they are not striking and you suddenly bend the rules and add striking it is a cheap ego stroking way of winning without ever having to develop yourself to where you learn the technique.

It is a very common argument that is almost always used as a fallacy.

It is how martial artists create an environment that produces deceptive results.

 

[drop bear]

By your logic, you should appreciate a lot more of the arts than you do. Because I've never taken a boxing lesson in my life, and I know all of these "extra" things you think is somehow unique to boxing.

I wouldn't know. I have never seen you box. So you could be good. You could be terrible.