Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[drop bear]

What kind of proof are you looking for?

Should people put up their personal clip to prove what they can do?

A: How many people have you killed?
B: I have killed many.
A: Show me the bodies.
B: ...

Everyone is a beast until it is time to do what beasts do.

So yeah. If you are some sort of killer. I want to see the bodies.

 

[drop bear]

Absolute logical fallacy.

Oh. And not the way you think it is.

http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence

 

[dvcochran]

No.

I could potentially bash the crap out of a guy who attempt groin kick face punch because the way they have trained it has been super dumb.

They may have only trained half the martial art. (Which bugs me)

So I need a video to see if they are doing something fundamentally wrong but are successful because their training environment is a den of lies.

Sometimes you are a classic case of 'paralysis by analysis'.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Except when you do it. Like when I quoted you doing it and then ignored your own quote.

To then make a point unrelated to the conversation. But deceptively looks like it is related.

You pick and choose these logical process to make the fantastical real. Which then justifies your methods. Which is fine but that doesn't make stuff work.

Stuff working makes stuff work.

Evidence is showing stuff working.

Then you don't need to spend more time on all this mental gymnastics than you do effectively training something that is solid.

Yeah but how am I the judge of something solid? I don't hear you ask.

It is solid because it works. And I know it works because there will be evidence of that.

It will work predictably, consistently and in a way that I can make a reasonable judgement that the whole thing isn't made up. Which I will call accountably.

Without that method martial arts has been shown not to work.

When we see a self defense demo that looks ridiculous and everyone tries it and it fails and the only people who say it works are people who will never show it works.

It doesn't work.

And they are full of crap.

This is not an accusation.This is a basic method from sorting out a reputable martial artist from a fake.

Or a false accusation from a real one.

Yeah, that's a lot of words, most of them about "self defense" people, which is a dramatic over-generalization...one you apply a lot, apparently lumping me in that group (which is a valid group name for me) to show I believe things that I've never stated.

As for the rest, you've misunderstood so many of my posts - or simply ignored the intent in them and picked the meaning you wish - that your other claims here simply attack stances I don't actually hold. Then there's your misunderstanding of what logical fallacies are, and when someone is simply pointing out to you an argument you think you've made but actually haven't. ::Whoosh::

I really like you. I love what you're trying to do. I just wish you'd try to do it in areas where you're addressing actual beliefs and practices of mine. That might be helpful to me. This? This is just an amusment to watch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok. What would be the point of only including half the details and then going out there and drilling it wrong?

What, then 6 months down the track say "By the way guys all that time an effort and you still suck is because this"

Those details are why people should train with someone who has a clue what he is on about.

I think his point was that you can't spend 2 1/2 hours explaining all those details in every demo that's done. If the demo is an intro to a topic, folks aren't in a position yet to digest all of that (like if you were showing me how to do a triangle choke, for instance). And in a comprehensive curriculum, that information (if it's included) usually isn't presented all in one spot, but is distribtued through the curriculum.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Everyone is a beast until it is time to do what beasts do.

So yeah. If you are some sort of killer. I want to see the bodies.

I haven't seen claims of that sort of thing around here in a long time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh. And not the way you think it is.

http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence

You seem to again have made an assumption about my thoughts, because nothing I saw in a quick perusal of that link was surprising to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Sometimes you are a classic case of 'paralysis by analysis'.

I don't think he is. Heck, I'd be more likely to fall into that trap, because I love digging around in stuff to see what the bits and minutae are. I think DB is more direct than that in his training.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, that's a lot of words, most of them about "self defense" people, which is a dramatic over-generalization...one you apply a lot, apparently lumping me in that group (which is a valid group name for me) to show I believe things that I've never stated.

As for the rest, you've misunderstood so many of my posts - or simply ignored the intent in them and picked the meaning you wish - that your other claims here simply attack stances I don't actually hold. Then there's your misunderstanding of what logical fallacies are, and when someone is simply pointing out to you an argument you think you've made but actually haven't. ::Whoosh::

I really like you. I love what you're trying to do. I just wish you'd try to do it in areas where you're addressing actual beliefs and practices of mine. That might be helpful to me. This? This is just an amusment to watch.

You are a specific example of that group. You teach self defense but do not have reasonable first hand experience.

You do not really understand the subject.

But you take second information and anecdotes, use them to hypothesize a conclusion with incredibly flawed logic and then re brand that as expert knowledge.

And more importantly you are not alone in that so the anecdotes you receive are quite often the results of that process as well. Skewing your whole system in to basically a series of urban myths.


And what you wind up with is street punch. A concept that is ludicrous but you defend to the death.

Where you take a punch you haven't used, so therefore don't know how to apply that is a pretty sub standard strike anyway.

Then create a specific defense for that strike.

Then change your students striking habits from something that defeats that defense to something that won't.

Now then I can pretty much guarantee you don't put on a set of 16's and say to you students "come at me"

You slow the punch down. Make the punch predictable and about as emasculated as a technique can get and train the defence for that.

And then use that success as proof of claim. With Mabye that one time that one guy didn't die in a street fight.


And it is not good enough. It is not developing a self defense skill.

And you train in a subject set of martial arts (self defense) that has such a high proportion of out right garbage and yet refuse to lift yourself above that and cry mock indignation when people who understand the subject look suspiciously at it.

Everyone is upset when I say MMA all the time. But it is easy to find good MMA. It is easy to find ethical MMA. You can tell through evidence if MMA is bad.

The amount of straight up garbage I have to wade through of incompetents and charlatans I would have to wade though to find good self defense is astronomical.

And that is for someone who has fought people on the street for over a decade. I can it imagine how a novice manages.

 

[drop bear]

I don't think he is. Heck, I'd be more likely to fall into that trap, because I love digging around in stuff to see what the bits and minutae are. I think DB is more direct than that in his training.

I think fighting is many layered. So really good fighters have this immense depth which makes their stuff work when my stuff doesn't.

Which is again the title.

 

[drop bear]

You seem to again have made an assumption about my thoughts, because nothing I saw in a quick perusal of that link was surprising to me.

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.



But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

So say when I look for good aikido and only find bad aikido. I can have confidence that there is bad aikido unless shown otherwise.

Not this weird idea of looking at all the evidence that isn't there.

 

[drop bear]

I haven't seen claims of that sort of thing around here in a long time.

He asked the question.

 

[skribs]

I think his point was that you can't spend 2 1/2 hours explaining all those details in every demo that's done. If the demo is an intro to a topic, folks aren't in a position yet to digest all of that (like if you were showing me how to do a triangle choke, for instance). And in a comprehensive curriculum, that information (if it's included) usually isn't presented all in one spot, but is distribtued through the curriculum.

Exactly. It becomes a burden to produce. The longer a video is, it's going to take exponentially longer to produce it. Longer to write everything that goes into it to make sure it's all presented in a cohesive order, longer to cut and edit the video for final production. Unless you just do one long seminar, which would also require a lot of preparation time (and most of those tend to ramble on and get into rabbit trails). That extra time will have diminishing returns on the effectiveness of the demonstration.

I'm kind of curious to do an experiment. Post videos of MMA guys or combat sport guys (i.e. boxing, BJJ, Judo, wrestling), but edit the title of the video and cut out any mention of what their experience is. Replace the title with something like "traditional karate self defense". And then watch as these gung-ho MMA jocks rip it apart because of everything they don't put into the video. Because something I've noticed is that every criticism I see of a TMA video, I also see the same things happening in MMA videos. (Compliant training partners, techniques done at half speed, etc.).

 

[drop bear]

Exactly. It becomes a burden to produce. The longer a video is, it's going to take exponentially longer to produce it. Longer to write everything that goes into it to make sure it's all presented in a cohesive order, longer to cut and edit the video for final production. Unless you just do one long seminar, which would also require a lot of preparation time (and most of those tend to ramble on and get into rabbit trails). That extra time will have diminishing returns on the effectiveness of the demonstration.

I'm kind of curious to do an experiment. Post videos of MMA guys or combat sport guys (i.e. boxing, BJJ, Judo, wrestling), but edit the title of the video and cut out any mention of what their experience is. Replace the title with something like "traditional karate self defense". And then watch as these gung-ho MMA jocks rip it apart because of everything they don't put into the video. Because something I've noticed is that every criticism I see of a TMA video, I also see the same things happening in MMA videos. (Compliant training partners, techniques done at half speed, etc.).

Then do it and prove your point. Don't just invent a story about it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You are a specific example of that group. You teach self defense but do not have reasonable first hand experience.

You do not really understand the subject.

But you take second information and anecdotes, use them to hypothesize a conclusion with incredibly flawed logic and then re brand that as expert knowledge.

And more importantly you are not alone in that so the anecdotes you receive are quite often the results of that process as well. Skewing your whole system in to basically a series of urban myths.


And what you wind up with is street punch. A concept that is ludicrous but you defend to the death.

Where you take a punch you haven't used, so therefore don't know how to apply that is a pretty sub standard strike anyway.

Then create a specific defense for that strike.

Then change your students striking habits from something that defeats that defense to something that won't.

Now then I can pretty much guarantee you don't put on a set of 16's and say to you students "come at me"

You slow the punch down. Make the punch predictable and about as emasculated as a technique can get and train the defence for that.

And then use that success as proof of claim. With Mabye that one time that one guy didn't die in a street fight.


And it is not good enough. It is not developing a self defense skill.

And you train in a subject set of martial arts (self defense) that has such a high proportion of out right garbage and yet refuse to lift yourself above that and cry mock indignation when people who understand the subject look suspiciously at it.

Everyone is upset when I say MMA all the time. But it is easy to find good MMA. It is easy to find ethical MMA. You can tell through evidence if MMA is bad.

The amount of straight up garbage I have to wade through of incompetents and charlatans I would have to wade though to find good self defense is astronomical.

And that is for someone who has fought people on the street for over a decade. I can it imagine how a novice manages.

Yeah, there are more misunderstandings and assumptions (some.of which you should know better than, since we have discussed them).

Self defense is the purpose, not the skill. You start from a view that doesn't recognize that, and this skews all of your arguments flowing from that base supposition.

Several other points in there are just you taking a piece of training and treating it like the whole. Which I've mentioned more than once to you recently. You're stuck, and I don't know how to help.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you look for "X" and don't find it, does that prove that there is no "X"? No.



But the more you look in places where X "ought to be" in ways and at times that X "should be likely to be there," the more confidence you can have that there is no "X".

So say when I look for good aikido and only find bad aikido. I can have confidence that there is bad aikido unless shown otherwise.

Not this weird idea of looking at all the evidence that isn't there.

You are correct that you can assume there is bad Aikido, based on that. You might even be excused for assuming there is ONLY bad Aikido, though that would not be solid logic (I'm the formal sense)...but it's not a major flaw for a working assumption.

I was specifically referring to your relatively recent statements to the effect that if I don't show you evidence of specific things in my training, you can assume those things aren't in there. That's flawed in major ways, since you've seen exactly zero of my training so far as I know, so certainly haven't enough evidence upon which to base even a working assumption of that nature.

Yet you do, and proudly so.

And, on top of that, you continue to talk about what I do as being quite similar to the Aikido you've seen. Which it quite likely isn't. But don't worry about that. You're biased by the word "Aikido", and it blinds you. I'm used to it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

He asked the question.

Yes. But your response seems to address a claim.not in evidence.

 

[skribs]

Then do it and prove your point. Don't just invent a story about it.

I presented a hypothesis. You seem so hell-bent on everyone proving everything, you should probably know the basic scientific model.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

bad Aikido,...

- Aikido is bad because the wrist control give your opponent too much freedom.
- Bagua system is bad because you cross your legs during circle walking.
- long fist system is bad because most of the movement is too big to be practical.
- SC system is bad because it doesn't have ground game.
- boxing is bad because a boxer doesn't know how to kick.
- ...

There is nothing wrong to say a MA system is bad as long as you can give a good reason for it.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, there are more misunderstandings and assumptions (some.of which you should know better than, since we have discussed them).

Self defense is the purpose, not the skill. You start from a view that doesn't recognize that, and this skews all of your arguments flowing from that base supposition.

Several other points in there are just you taking a piece of training and treating it like the whole. Which I've mentioned more than once to you recently. You're stuck, and I don't know how to help.