Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Buka]

Yeah. Which I think breaks the link between police being able to police and training being validated by police being able to police.

Is this, like, a cool three stooges routine? I kind of like it. Not taking a shot at you brother, I really do like it.
I just don't know what it means.

 

[drop bear]

Is this, like, a cool three stooges routine? I kind of like it. Not taking a shot at you brother, I really do like it.
I just don't know what it means.

Police could arrest villains with no training whatsoever. So the idea that police arrest people therefore the training works is false.

Now there may be some effect from training but it is a lot harder to quantify than this idea that police do training. Police arrest people so the training works.

 

[jobo]

No. You could make self defense meaningful. You choose not to.

A self defense school could make verifiable claims.

it seems times like your running these debates of a script, which you stick to irrespective of what you or anybody else has said in a previous post. you have your straw-man and your beating it come what may.

you previously conceded that it was impossible to validate the effectiveness of self defence training, now your back on script insisting that it should be validated/verified

so which is it ? at best your creating a situation where your insisting that something you know to be impossible should be done !

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You test what you can do.

There are a few ways to determine if something works by determining similar things that work.

I was going to do a whole fridge metaphor.

That would be verifying the fighting skills. Which I agree with. There is a range of good ways to do that.

But what's the claim that's verifying?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah it is. It is a niche section of martial arts instruction. And I think it is mostly a fabricated niche.

So if say an instructor can't win a MMA fight that doesn't matter because they train self defense. And that is this specialist field.

Which is then conveniently vague.

And that difference surfaces all the time and not just in orientation.

If that were an absolute, I'd agree. But it's not. There are folks who teach at least part of the time with a self-defense orientation, and also compete. There are folks who teach with a SD orientation and test what they do with others outside formal competition.

Would I win an MMA fight? Dunno. I'd certainly fare better than if I hadn't trained, but I don't do so much active training these days for myself. Back in the day when I was training hard and in great shape, I'd have had a shot against a low-level fighter in a match. Today, probably not, unless I went into fight-training mode.

For most folks I've run into who teach with a self-defense orientation, they're just using the SD thoughts to guide some aspects of the training. Some do have odd notions of what that changes (the all-powerful kick in the stones, for instance), but that's not something most would figure out even if they went to compete unless they focused on kicking in the groin during competition (which most formats don't allow, from what I know).

 

[_Simon_]

Been following this thread and thought I'd chime in...

I just think "self-defence" training is more of a continuum. Can't really be any absolutes in this, as though something is guaranteed to work or training you undergo is absolutely 100% of the time guaranteed to ALWAYS make you unbeatable, or able to defend yourself.

Yes, there are systems that are maybe more efficient or dare I say effective. No I cannot detail what that means! But if a place I go to says it can guarantee me ability to defend myself, I'd probably walk the other way. It's not living in reality.

To me it's mixing levels of reality, trying to push a scientific method on something which has far too many variables to guarantee any sort of outcome.

And again, I think it's a continuum. Some styles are maybe leaning more towards realistically preparing you for what actual self defence encounters will look like.

There are only ever likelihoods (increasing likelihoods of defending yourself), and systems that have self-defence in their flier dot points along with fitness etc etc, I don't think that's lying, as what is taught CAN be used in self defence. Heck, flying kicks can be used in self defence from what I've seen. Again it's a continuum and there are margins of error or effectiveness.

I think that claiming something will teach you self defence skills (techniques that MAY be useable in self defence) is different from guaranteeing self defence.

Not sure if that made sense, but feel free to take it with a grain of salt, I have nothing at stake here.

I'm surprised the thread is still trucking on though!

 

[dvcochran]

Police could arrest villains with no training whatsoever. So the idea that police arrest people therefore the training works is false.

Now there may be some effect from training but it is a lot harder to quantify than this idea that police do training. Police arrest people so the training works.

I think you already know it is not that black and white. Police could arrest Some 'villains' with no training. Some villains are a tall order even with tons of training and tons of help.
In context, I do not think there is 1:1 relationship between just training and the officers ability to make an arrest.

 

[dvcochran]

Not a fraud. That's against the rules.

What "rules"? Oh, like the super defined and uniform rules for sparring? Now I get it. Not.

 

[drop bear]

it seems times like your running these debates of a script, which you stick to irrespective of what you or anybody else has said in a previous post. you have your straw-man and your beating it come what may.

you previously conceded that it was impossible to validate the effectiveness of self defence training, now your back on script insisting that it should be validated/verified

so which is it ? at best your creating a situation where your insisting that something you know to be impossible should be done !

You are making it impossible by demanding it remains undefined. Which then makes every version of self defence training valid.

Like your fridge. If you believed you fridge may or may not work. It would be as sensible to keep your cold food in a box.

 

[drop bear]

If that were an absolute, I'd agree. But it's not. There are folks who teach at least part of the time with a self-defense orientation, and also compete. There are folks who teach with a SD orientation and test what they do with others outside formal competition.

Would I win an MMA fight? Dunno. I'd certainly fare better than if I hadn't trained, but I don't do so much active training these days for myself. Back in the day when I was training hard and in great shape, I'd have had a shot against a low-level fighter in a match. Today, probably not, unless I went into fight-training mode.

For most folks I've run into who teach with a self-defense orientation, they're just using the SD thoughts to guide some aspects of the training. Some do have odd notions of what that changes (the all-powerful kick in the stones, for instance), but that's not something most would figure out even if they went to compete unless they focused on kicking in the groin during competition (which most formats don't allow, from what I know).

That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. Do you have a practical example of this club you are describing?

 

[Gweilo]

I think DBs thought process is common, police, uniform, air of authority, there are those who will submit to that, but the point I think he is missing is, experienced based training, does not just benefit fighting arts, police forces around the world, have been there, seen it, done it, and usually done it many times, if results based training works for mma, then it sure as hell works for the police, military.

 

[jobo]

You are making it impossible by demanding it remains undefined. Which then makes every version of self defence training valid.

Like your fridge. If you believed you fridge may or may not work. It would be as sensible to keep your cold food in a box.

im not demanding anything, i am asking nicely and repeatably how you intend to validate it, which seems a fair question as you say it cant be done and it must be done even though its impossible

 

[drop bear]

im not demanding anything, i am asking nicely and repeatably how you intend to validate it, which seems a fair question as you say it cant be done and it must be done even though its impossible

I validate elements of it to get a general picture of the whole.

So say I get good at punching, kicking and grappling for example. I will have an advantage in a situation that involves punching, kicking and grappling.

Now I can verify my punching, kicking and grappling skill. So I can have a fairly accurate assessment of where I stand with that.

And so on. Same as the fridge.

I can look at similar fridges and by determining their performance I can make an assessment on if my fridge will be cold tomorrow.

 

[drop bear]

I think DBs thought process is common, police, uniform, air of authority, there are those who will submit to that, but the point I think he is missing is, experienced based training, does not just benefit fighting arts, police forces around the world, have been there, seen it, done it, and usually done it many times, if results based training works for mma, then it sure as hell works for the police, military.

I have no doubt it would work. But because police can successfully subdue criminals isn't really evidence that the training works.

 

[drop bear]

I think you already know it is not that black and white. Police could arrest Some 'villains' with no training. Some villains are a tall order even with tons of training and tons of help.
In context, I do not think there is 1:1 relationship between just training and the officers ability to make an arrest.

Correct.

 

[drop bear]

That would be verifying the fighting skills. Which I agree with. There is a range of good ways to do that.

But what's the claim that's verifying?

I think it was if something works for "self defense"

 

[Gweilo]

I have no doubt it would work. But because police can successfully subdue criminals isn't really evidence that the training works.

So if results based training works, why, in your opinion, does it not work for the police?
Take for instance crowd dispersal, many police forces use different techniques, sheild and baton, officers on horse back, water cannons and tear gas, rubber bullets, to just shooting people, through training, constant testing and re visiting training, tweaking stratergy, or should I say adapting to the conditions. This is training at work, sounds very similar to self defense to me.

 

[drop bear]

So if results based training works, why, in your opinion, does it not work for the police?
Take for instance crowd dispersal, many police forces use different techniques, sheild and baton, officers on horse back, water cannons and tear gas, rubber bullets, to just shooting people, through training, constant testing and re visiting training, tweaking stratergy, or should I say adapting to the conditions. This is training at work, sounds very similar to self defense to me.

I have handled riots with no training whatsoever. People have successfully defended themselves with no training whatsoever. People even make arrests with no training whatsoever.

The results of the training and no training are indistinguishable by this method of results.

Obviously being a tradie is a results based training program that works as well.

10 News First Adelaide

 

[Gweilo]

I have handled riots with no training whatsoever. People have successfully defended themselves with no training whatsoever. People even make arrests with no training whatsoever.

The results of the training and no training are indistinguishable by this method of results.

Obviously being a tradie is a results based training program that works as well.

10 News First Adelaide

Thatsceasy in oz though, you just dangle a few tinnies, game over, on a serious note, an untrained fighter may win fights, but what is their opponents calibre?
I agree, you can have all the skill in the world in the gym, but if your head goes to mush, because of nerves or fear in a real situation, no skill (apart from running very fast) is going to help, perhaps the police are trained differently where you come from, but you are still dodging jobo's question

 

[Gweilo]

So say I get good at punching, kicking and grappling for example. I will have an advantage in a situation that involves punching, kicking and grappling.

If your opponent is limited to punching, kicking and grappling, so you are limiting the arguement to your skill set, this is called spin in politcs, or as you once stated bollocks. What if your opponent was good at blocking, parrying, countering, where does leave your skill set, your results based evidence?