Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Gweilo]

A commonality, facts produced by different training methods, always back up the theory of that method, mma beleive they have the monopoly of stats and facts, because they are recorded for sports, and results based training, but the facts are scewed, towards mma, same is true of any training method, but mma is recent, and recent tech allows a modern method to utilise the tech data, most traditional arts never had this option, and yes they are jumping on the band wagon, this does not make mma a better self defense, I could claim, my art was used by special forces, so must be better than other methods, because military methods work better than sport, nonsense, pressure testing is key. Some are naturally better than others at fighting, be it talent or experience, 40% skill, 60% mentality, you can have all mma stats and video you like, its how you respond to pressure, how you respond when hit or hurt, I used to know when an opponent on the street was beaten, by the way they responed, when they saw their own blood, or the way they responded, when you could smell the blood on their breath, watching their body language change when they tasted their own blood. My point is, fitness, strength, and skill all play their part, the mind is equal to those combined, you can have all the stats in the world, beat 20 out of 20, sparring or in a sports enviroment, but when it gets real, thats the only proof you should need, is how you respond, this will tell you, if your method works or not.

 

[Steve]

Since punching and throwing are fighting skills that can be applied in self-defense...

So you're saying tae bo and cardio kickboxing are self defense programs? That would at least be intellectually consistent.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So you're saying tae bo and cardio kickboxing are self defense programs? That would at least be intellectually consistent.

You're being purposefully insulting. You could do better, but you don't. That's disappointing.

 

[Steve]

You're being purposefully insulting. You could do better, but you don't. That's disappointing.

Not true. Just trying to make a point. You talk about fighting skills. When have you been in a fight?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not true. Just trying to make a point.

Okay, so not purposely insulting. Just making insinuations by accident. Apparently you're doing that a lot lately, since you've walked back a few statements. Maybe you're using language that overstates your position?

You talk about fighting skills. When have you been in a fight?

Only occasionally. It really depends how we define "fight". Soft (light-technical) sparring doesn't seem like it should be included. Official bouts would be (I have none of those, obviously). I'd include hard sparring. The very few times I've used my fighting skills outside of sparring (in my adult life) I wouldn't call "fights" - just never got to that level.

Now if we go back to my teens, there were a few more fights back then. Some I was in, some I broke up. I'm not sure how much those have informed my training, though.

 

[Steve]

Okay, so not purposely insulting. Just making insinuations by accident. Apparently you're doing that a lot lately, since you've walked back a few statements. Maybe you're using language that overstates your position?

Only occasionally. It really depends how we define "fight". Soft (light-technical) sparring doesn't seem like it should be included. Official bouts would be (I have none of those, obviously). I'd include hard sparring. The very few times I've used my fighting skills outside of sparring (in my adult life) I wouldn't call "fights" - just never got to that level.

Now if we go back to my teens, there were a few more fights back then. Some I was in, some I broke up. I'm not sure how much those have informed my training, though.

my position has been very consistent. I'm not aware of walking back anything. If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous. But the message doesn't change. I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand.

And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense.

You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight. There's just no two ways about it.

You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it.

But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.

 

[Gweilo]

vaginal eggs

You seem to have a thing for these eggs, is that a subliminal message?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

my position has been very consistent. I'm not aware of walking back anything. If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous. But the message doesn't change. I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand.

And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense.

You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight. There's just no two ways about it.

You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it.

But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.

First, let me address something that hasn't been brought up this tread that I recall: "self-defense" has a couple of different common usages. The definition I most commonly use only includes the physical defense against an imminent attack, so that course you cite would (by my usage) be a self-protection course - self-protection being the larger term that includes self-defense, as well as the self-defense area. Just clarifying that because it's been brought up a couple of times.

And while I think it's probably possible to learn to fight only through drills, I don't think that's a reliable method and I'm not sure how anyone would know where they are. Fighting - which includes competitions and sparring that reasonably approximate combat - is an important part of the process. The harder that fighting gets, the more the training benefits. The wider the range of people that fighting tests with, the more the training benefits. At the very least, good resistive sparring of some sort within the school seems a reasonable minimum.

 

[jobo]

my position has been very consistent. I'm not aware of walking back anything. If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous. But the message doesn't change. I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand.

And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense.

You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight. There's just no two ways about it.

You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it.

But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.

il have another go at one of the several questions you have chosen to ignore

how do you test your fighting skill steve, ?

il answer to show good faith, i dont, its impossible to do so... im making a number of assumptions which may of course be incorrect

im assuming if i get in a ring with a trained 30 yo fighter im going to get crushed in short order, may be when i was 30 id stand a chance but im 61, even when i was 30 i relied extensively on fast reactions, i was very difficult to hit, i was always likely to loose to someone with faster reactions or hand speed that exceeds my reactions and reactions diminished substantially with age, im likely to provided him with a walking punch bag


so thats out, i could try and find a ring match with a similar aged person, but that would prove nothing but i can hold my own with a pensioner and i already new that, and self defence against pensioners is of limited use

if theres an altercation brewing i make an assessment of the cause of my annoyance, if they are 25 and hit the weights im likely to let things go, 25 yo me would have had no fear, but 25 yo me would be beat 61 yo me up, so ive no reason to believe that this 25 yo wont do like wise, if this 25 yo attacks me, then my best bet is i catch him by surprise, i can still knock him out if he walk on to punch

for other less intimidating folk, they dont seem to want to take things further than shout insults from a distance, even if i provoke hard they still tend to leave rather than fight, this possibly partly because of the confidence i give out and partly that i still look big and strong and as i train very very hard im stronger than i look, hence my confidence

so what is it you expect me to do


and just in case youve forgotten this started with a question, what is it you do to test your self defence skills

 

[Steve]

You seem to have a thing for these eggs, is that a subliminal message?

I think they're hilarious. It's not subliminal at all. And it makes the point while also being a funny visual.

 

[Steve]

First, let me address something that hasn't been brought up this tread that I recall: "self-defense" has a couple of different common usages. The definition I most commonly use only includes the physical defense against an imminent attack, so that course you cite would (by my usage) be a self-protection course - self-protection being the larger term that includes self-defense, as well as the self-defense area. Just clarifying that because it's been brought up a couple of times.

And while I think it's probably possible to learn to fight only through drills, I don't think that's a reliable method and I'm not sure how anyone would know where they are. Fighting - which includes competitions and sparring that reasonably approximate combat - is an important part of the process. The harder that fighting gets, the more the training benefits. The wider the range of people that fighting tests with, the more the training benefits. At the very least, good resistive sparring of some sort within the school seems a reasonable minimum.

So we've reached the, "you're using exotic definitions" stage of the thread? The term is vague. It matters a little bit how you define it. What matters most, in the context of this thread, is how the lay public commonly defines it.

But it's also interesting to me that you create these reasonable scales, and always tack on the way you train at the end as a reasonable minimum. Why even do that?

 

[Steve]

il have another go at one of the several questions you have chosen to ignore

how do you test your fighting skill steve, ?

il answer to show good faith, i dont, its impossible to do so... im making a number of assumptions which may of course be incorrect

im assuming if i get in a ring with a trained 30 yo fighter im going to get crushed in short order, may be when i was 30 id stand a chance but im 61, even when i was 30 i relied extensively on fast reactions, i was very difficult to hit, i was always likely to loose to someone with faster reactions or hand speed that exceeds my reactions and reactions diminished substantially with age, im likely to provided him with a walking punch bag


so thats out, i could try and find a ring match with a similar aged person, but that would prove nothing but i can hold my own with a pensioner and i already new that, and self defence against pensioners is of limited use

if theres an altercation brewing i make an assessment of the cause of my annoyance, if they are 25 and hit the weights im likely to let things go, 25 yo me would have had no fear, but 25 yo me would be beat 61 yo me up, so ive no reason to believe that this 25 yo wont do like wise, if this 25 yo attacks me, then my best bet is i catch him by surprise, i can still knock him out if he walk on to punch

for other less intimidating folk, they dont seem to want to take things further than shout insults from a distance, even if i provoke hard they still tend to leave rather than fight, this possibly partly because of the confidence i give out and partly that i still look big and strong and as i train very very hard im stronger than i look, hence my confidence

so what is it you expect me to do


and just in case youve forgotten this started with a question, what is it you do to test your self defence skills

Oh, hey man. I don't test my skills. I'm a lover, not a fighter. Seriously though, outside of pretty typical bjj training, I don't fight. I know a lot of fighters, so I can tell the difference. I would never hold myself as being a highly skilled fighter.

But, I think I'm also pretty safe. I have two giant dogs that are vigilant and vocal to deter bad guys from entering my home. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood. I don't engage in high risk behaviors like fighting in bars, hanging with a gang, or taking illegal drugs. Honestly, the place I'm most at risk is at work, but I do what I can to mitigate those risks.

But, I'll tell you what. If I wanted to learn to be a better fighter, I would find a place where I could fight a lot. Because that's how it's done.

Also, I would never presume to teach "self defense" because that would, in my opinion, be dishonest.

 

[jobo]

Oh, hey man. I don't test my skills. I'm a lover, not a fighter. Seriously though, outside of pretty typical bjj training, I don't fight. I know a lot of fighters, so I can tell the difference. I would never hold myself as being a highly skilled fighter.

But, I think I'm also pretty safe. I have two giant dogs that are vigilant and vocal to deter bad guys from entering my home. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood. I don't engage in high risk behaviors like fighting in bars, hanging with a gang, or taking illegal drugs. Honestly, the place I'm most at risk is at work, but I do what I can to mitigate those risks.

But, I'll tell you what. If I wanted to learn to be a better fighter, I would find a place where I could fight a lot. Because that's how it's done.

Also, I would never presume to teach "self defense" because that would, in my opinion, be dishonest.

that admission makes a mockery of most of your points

my high risk behaviour is owning a dog, that brings considerable points of possible confrontations with belligerent cyclist particularly and belligerent big dog owners, i could get in 10 fights a day for dissing me, if i could raise the enthusiasm, a it is a wait till someone really pushes it.

several cyclists have found themselves extracting both themselves and their bikes from the canal, you really shouldn't antagonise people when your only two foot away from a waterway, and another who very narrowly managed to escape after he narrowly missed my dog and then decided he would stop and lecture me on dog ownership, just as one pit bull owner felt the full force of my wrath after he attacked me, just for telling him he was a complete &&&&

there were two well publicist cases just before the lock down, one where a cyclist had narrowly missed a middle aged pedestrian and when he shouted something after him, he came back and punched the guy unconscious, all on cctv and another were an old guy had had words about someones big dog attacking his little dog and got punched and died.

thats why i train so hard, its a real and present danger and whist the dog owners are general puffed up body builders, them cyclists tend to have excellent cardio

 

[Steve]

that admission makes a mockery of most of your points

Why would it? I've never alleged to be a tough guy. I think what would invite mockery is if I put out my shingle as a self defense expert.

 

[drop bear]

my position has been very consistent. I'm not aware of walking back anything. If I have, it was unintentonal. Depending on which stage of the dvchocran merry go round we are on, I'm either stating the obvious or being ridiculous. But the message doesn't change. I'm only trying different ways to make it easier to understand.

And thus far, I haven't seen anything to make me think self defense oriented arts are any different than vaginal eggs for self defense.

You can learn to fight, but not if you don't fight. There's just no two ways about it.

You can learn self defense, but it will would be tailored to your specific needs, and fighting might not even be a part of it.

But a self defense oriented art that alleges to teach fighting without fighting is snake oil.

Self defense not tailored to fighting should still be tested by real application. Same as fighting should be tested by fighting.

It is something people miss a lot when they sell this idea. That so long as you train deescalation you are somehow getting automatically better at it.

And something with generally less evidence of authenticity than fighting skills.

 

[drop bear]

that admission makes a mockery of most of your points

my high risk behaviour is owning a dog, that brings considerable points of possible confrontations with belligerent cyclist particularly and belligerent big dog owners, i could get in 10 fights a day for dissing me, if i could raise the enthusiasm, a it is a wait till someone really pushes it.

several cyclists have found themselves extracting both themselves and their bikes from the canal, you really shouldn't antagonise people when your only two foot away from a waterway, and another who very narrowly managed to escape after he narrowly missed my dog and then decided he would stop and lecture me on dog ownership, just as one pit bull owner felt the full force of my wrath after he attacked me, just for telling him he was a complete &&&&

there were two well publicist cases just before the lock down, one where a cyclist had narrowly missed a middle aged pedestrian and when he shouted something after him, he came back and punched the guy unconscious, all on cctv and another were an old guy had had words about someones big dog attacking his little dog and got punched and died.

thats why i train so hard, its a real and present danger and whist the dog owners are general puffed up body builders, them cyclists tend to have excellent cardio

There needs to be a third party method of determining the validity of this training. Because if there isn't the system is broken.

Either we have novices who use their ignorance to determine validity. Or we have vested interest determining the validity of a system.

I know guys who can legitimately fight and who are full of crap and make stories up to sell themselves.

This idea that hard men are speaking gospel about fighting is incorrect.

 

[drop bear]

So, now a school not making a claim is lying?

As to the short course, those of you upset with the statement that they don't produce long-term skills and that someone is clear about that to the attendees......you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think we could all agree that a few hours isn't enough to produce long-term repeatable applicable skills with beginners in MA. But once someone adds "self-defense" to the comment, suddenly "AHA! SEE! YOU CAN'T PRODUCE RESULTS!!!"

A short course is industry standard for security, military and police to prepare people for real world combat. Life and death stuff.

So we don't all agree that a few hours is not enough to produce long term so on so on. Because we have an entire industry that sells an idea that these short courses sufficiently prepare people for self defense fighting.

Now I don't agree that this is long enough or comprehensive enough. But then i don't earn money from selling short courses. So who am I to say.

 

[drop bear]

If a tool works for its purpose, then it's good for that. It doesn't have to be the best at a more generalized context to suit the purpose. I keep a tack hammer over my workbench, because most of the hammering I do there is with small nails and brads. It would suck badly at driving 10-penny glue nails, but that's irrelevant, since that's not what it's there for. It's quite a good little hammer for its purpose.

If someone wants to be able to beat high-level fighters (even high-level amateurs) they need to train specifically for that (and specifically for that context, because that's the level where context training starts to be essential, IMO). But it's most folks aren't interested or concerned with that level.

Now is this from a personal investment point of view? or an instructor with accountability for your training point of view?

Because how do you determine what is an acceptable level of ability should a person engage in this activity you are training them to engage in?

 

[jobo]

There needs to be a third party method of determining the validity of this training. Because if there isn't the system is broken.

Either we have novices who use their ignorance to determine validity. Or we have vested interest determining the validity of a system.

I know guys who can legitimately fight and who are full of crap and make stories up to sell themselves.

This idea that hard men are speaking gospel about fighting is incorrect.

how can you possibly validate its effectiveness when you have no idea who its going to have be effective against,

your daft idea about going up against pro fighter breaks down if your taking about pensioners and people with infirmities and people who are doing it as the step aerobic class was fully booked, in fact just about any one who isnt as fit as a pro fighter is getting an *** kicking and bizarrely there are no where near enough pro fighters to go round and what does the pro fighter get out of sparring jim from accounts with the bad back, when he is pre paring for a pro fight

you seem to think that people are delusional enough to think that attending every Tuesday at the Church hall for an hour is going to turn them from feeble to killer, it wont and thats not what people genera;lly believe, will it make them better at defending themselves yes most probably, does that mean they win a fight who knows, depends who they are fighting

 

[drop bear]

how can you possibly validate its effectiveness when you have no idea who its going to have be effective against,

your daft idea about going up against pro fighter breaks down if your taking about pensioners and people with infirmities and people who are doing it as the step aerobic class was fully booked, in fact just about any one who isnt as fit as a pro fighter is getting an *** kicking and bizarrely there are no where near enough pro fighters to go round and what does the pro fighter get out of sparring jim from accounts with the bad back, when he is pre paring for a pro fight

you seem to think that people are delusional enough to think that attending every Tuesday at the Church hall for an hour is going to turn them from feeble to killer, it wont and thats not what people genera;lly believe, will it make them better at defending themselves yes most probably, does that mean they win a fight who knows, depends who they are fighting

Which is self defense as a weasel word.

This argument gets used a lot but then people jump of the self defense is a meaningless term bus and try then try to justify it without context.