Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

But of course you don't need to show me evidence.

Now here is the problem. It has been my experience that that they thrive and I don't need to show you evidence.

And then this conversation turns to a straight up mess where we try to make a case for ourselves using just a big sack of dumb probably.

Except you're the one requiring evidence. I am not. I'm accepting that people will do what they do, and the free market will work itself out. You're holding yourself as some sort of authority where people need to show evidence to prove they are real.

So I guess the issue is you don't trust in the average person, and I do.

 

[drop bear]

Except you're the one requiring evidence. I am not. I'm accepting that people will do what they do, and the free market will work itself out. You're holding yourself as some sort of authority where people need to show evidence to prove they are real.

So I guess the issue is you don't trust in the average person, and I do.

No. I just have a fairly consistent method of determining truth.

And planet fitness has a whole buisness model based on not being results based.

And they are very successful.

And the free market is determined by feelings. That is precisely what marketing does.

This is your truth determined by free market.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

No. I just have a fairly consistent method of determining truth.

And planet fitness has a whole buisness model based on not being results based.

And they are very successful.

And the free market is determined by feelings. That is precisely what marketing does.

Planet fitness does not promise that they will help you lose weight.

Planet fitness promises they offer the materials to help you gain muscle/lose weight.

And against this is the difference. I believe people are smart enough that the free market is based on results. You disagree, and believe it is not. Yet you seem to also believe you are the exception/somehow above others, in that you require evidence. And no one from the places nearby said dojo's also require that evidence. So it's really your own arrogance that's the issue. Which causes your issue with the free market.

 

[drop bear]

Planet fitness does not promise that they will help you lose weight.

Planet fitness promises they offer the materials to help you gain muscle/lose weight.

And against this is the difference. I believe people are smart enough that the free market is based on results. You disagree, and believe it is not. Yet you seem to also believe you are the exception/somehow above others, in that you require evidence. And no one from the places nearby said dojo's also require that evidence. So it's really your own arrogance that's the issue. Which causes your issue with the free market.

Well yeah. Because I am having this conversation with someone who doesn't feel they need evidence to make decisions and that the free market will determine value based on worth. Even though you are an example of what I am trying to point out.

So I am literally the exception in this case.

And another example Goju berries.

Obviously the free market will determine that are not what is claimed an will fail.

Well someday it might happen.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Well yeah. Because I am having this conversation with someone who doesn't feel they need evidence to make decisions and that the free market will determine value based on worth. Even though you are an example of what I am trying to point out.

So I am literally the exception in this case.

And another example Goju berries.

Obviously the free market will determine that are not what is claimed an will fail.

Well someday it might happen.

I do feel I need evidence to make decisions. In this instance, I require evidence to make decisions of where I will train. I have faith that others require the same. You requiring evidence to decide where I should train is where the arrogance comes in.

 

[drop bear]

I do feel I need evidence to make decisions. In this instance, I require evidence to make decisions of where I will train. I have faith that others require the same. You requiring evidence to decide where I should train is where the arrogance comes in.

If you make a claim you should be able to show evidence for it. Or i can reasonably say what you are claiming is false.

This is a basic building block for having a rational conversation.

This is not dependent on how far away you are or how upset you get.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If you make a claim you should be able to show evidence for it. Or i can reasonably say what you are claiming is false.

This is a basic building block for having a rational conversation.

This is not dependent on how far away you are or how upset you get.

Again you mention being upset. I'm not upset by any of this. I don't think anyone would be. But you're just not in the demographic of people that most people here would need to show evidence for.

I've mentioned before: I've learned from people who are professional and amateur kickboxers, and from people who have won bb naga tournaments. I have no need to prove that to you. And it's not my place to, if my instructors do not want me sharing their info online (which I haven't asked them about). You're the same. You've mentioned learning from UFC fighters I believe, but I don't recall you ever mentioning who.

If I make a claim and say you should listen to it purely based on my instructors/lineage that absolutely you can say it is false. But if I make a claim about a technique, and you really want to learn, you have the chance to test it out for yourself and see. And then we can have a rational conversation about it, regardless of my lineage, or my MMA/kickboxing score, or anything else unrelated to the technique. @skribs is a great example of this. You mentioned the inverted backfist recently; he didn't think it would be powerful. He tested it out and found out that it is. I expect he'll test it out more in the future. At this point it really doesn't matter if you are lying about your credentials or not, you gave him something new to think about.

And at the same time, he has no need to prove to you that his style works, because you aren't going to be a student there. But if he mentions a strike you haven't heard of, just like you did to him, and you dismiss him based on him not providing that evidence to you, you're really only hurting yourself.

So again if you worked on your own arrogance. And became openminded the way skribs did when you offered something new. You have the potential to gain, and no potential to lose (to take the skribs example again: If he did the experiment he stated in the other thread and found that the inverted backfist sucked, and didn't practice it any further as a result, he really wouldn't lose anything from that).

 

[skribs]

Either way there's an assumption being made. You're either assuming that they know what they're doing outside of it, or assuming that they don't. Either way you're making a judgment on their teaching/ability based on insufficient material.

The better option, IMO, wouldn't be to judge the person teaching at all, and just the technique. So taje what they taught, whether that's eye gouging, elbows to the back, whatever, and see if you can make it work (or at least the positioning for it). If you can, add it to your toolset. If you can't look into it more. If you look into it more and still can't get it to work, don't worry about it.

I'd say that giving someone the benefit of the doubt isn't exactly the same as assuming competence.

Without trying to get into a discussion on religion, it's kind of like the difference between atheism, agnosticism, and theism.

@skribs is a great example of this. You mentioned the inverted backfist recently; he didn't think it would be powerful. He tested it out and found out that it is. I expect he'll test it out more in the future. At this point it really doesn't matter if you are lying about your credentials or not, you gave him something new to think about.

And had I not produced good results, I would have posted it with the caveat "I haven't been instructed in this technique, nor really trained it, so it's still possible it's a good technique in the hands of someone who has."

Instead of "my numbers were bad, therefore this technique is crap."

 

[skribs]

It seems to me you sometimes jump to the conclusion that something that shows up in a system or curriculum must get equal time with other stuff. My primary instructor did teach eye gouges. I'll bet I spent an entire 2-3 hours of my training time over 15 years with him on eye gouges. They'd come up a couple of times a year, and we'd cover a couple of points on them, then move on to the next thing.

If eye gouges are receving the same time commitment as the jab, I agree - they're a waste of time. But if they are simply visited at times to discuss things like when they do and don't work, pros/cons vs. punches, etc., then that can be time well spent.

Or the assumption that "the entire fighting style is built around this technique." I've seen him say "if your entire curriculum relies on eye gouges" for the same situation you describe. The binary all-or-nothing approach.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I do agree training certain things without understanding basics of it is a silly way to train...but..

One could also add not understanding a specific styles training methodology and berating is irksome too

Just as a point, looking to understanding an art, there is a "strike" in JKD that many who never trained JKD look at as an eye gouge, and if they have never trained it, like JKD, they may even train it as an eye gouge....and of course...it is REAL hard to apply as an eye gouge so they say that this eye gouge does not work.....of course it doesn't, it is not an eye gouge, it is strike, done quickly to gain an advantage and basically make the other person blink. If you hit them in the eye, even better as a distraction, but it is not an eye gouge.

See the same thing with the application of split in taijiquan and a version of that in xingyiquan. of course it doesn't work, they are doing it wrong. Seen videos on "YouTube" showing me int does not work, and based on teh way they are applying it, there is no way it could work. They have no understanding of the application because they never trained it or were shown how it is supposed to work. Do it right, it works, but if all you see is the form, or if all you are shown is the form, and then try and make it work, chance are it will not and then those who try and fail go off touting how useless it is, and the way they did it, they are correct. But they did it wrong and do not have the basic understanding of the application and how if is supped to work.

I expect this from the majority of the Taijquan folks out there, because they are rarely taught how things are supposed to work in application these days. I suspect this form folks from other styles too, who know nothing about it. The only one I have seen to date, that surprised the heck out of me was a xingyiquan teacher from Great Britain, who was trained in China, showing the application of Hengquan, sayin it is useless.....and he was doing it very very wrong.

OK, I'm done, not here to teach and not going to try to change folks minds, learned my lesson about that a long time ago

peace, stay healthy

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yeah but A can't make it work. Nobody can make it work. That is the whole point.

There are top level strikers, top level wrestlers, top level leg lock specialist, even top level fancy kick specialists. And so on for all sorts of martial skills we could conceivably want to learn.

Who are the top level eye gouges specialist?

You have used hook punch to knock down many opponents. It makes sense to teach your hook punch to your students. If you have never used side kick to knock down anybody, will you teach your side kick to your students?

Sometime an instructor may only have 1 "door guarding" move. Does that instructor only teach that move to his students?

 

[Buka]

Who are the top level eye gouges specialist?

I'm going with Moe Howard.

 

[drop bear]

Again you mention being upset. I'm not upset by any of this. I don't think anyone would be. But you're just not in the demographic of people that most people here would need to show evidence for.

I've mentioned before: I've learned from people who are professional and amateur kickboxers, and from people who have won bb naga tournaments. I have no need to prove that to you. And it's not my place to, if my instructors do not want me sharing their info online (which I haven't asked them about). You're the same. You've mentioned learning from UFC fighters I believe, but I don't recall you ever mentioning who.

If I make a claim and say you should listen to it purely based on my instructors/lineage that absolutely you can say it is false. But if I make a claim about a technique, and you really want to learn, you have the chance to test it out for yourself and see. And then we can have a rational conversation about it, regardless of my lineage, or my MMA/kickboxing score, or anything else unrelated to the technique. @skribs is a great example of this. You mentioned the inverted backfist recently; he didn't think it would be powerful. He tested it out and found out that it is. I expect he'll test it out more in the future. At this point it really doesn't matter if you are lying about your credentials or not, you gave him something new to think about.

And at the same time, he has no need to prove to you that his style works, because you aren't going to be a student there. But if he mentions a strike you haven't heard of, just like you did to him, and you dismiss him based on him not providing that evidence to you, you're really only hurting yourself.

So again if you worked on your own arrogance. And became openminded the way skribs did when you offered something new. You have the potential to gain, and no potential to lose (to take the skribs example again: If he did the experiment he stated in the other thread and found that the inverted backfist sucked, and didn't practice it any further as a result, he really wouldn't lose anything from that).

You are arguing for a system designed to avoid truth petty much. And martial arts thrives on this concept of avoiding any sort of exposure.

And it is argued on emotion. If I wasn't so arrogant is a good example.

And you are basically arguing martial arts as a theology. Rather than a science.

If he found the back fist sucked then I would have to go out and prove my argument works. Or he could say my back fist argument is false.

I have mentioned and shown the guys I have learned from multiple times plus the name of my gym plus showing videos of my gym or myself and I do this because evidence is important to rational conversation. Because that is how we determine truth from fiction.

You are trying to set up an emotional argument to defend not equipping people with the tools to separate truth from fiction and these are the tools that allow dishonest martial arts schools to thrive in a free market.

If people were rational consumers wealth would be based on worth. But we all are not, I am not, and so we go back to these tools to try and separate our emotional responses to our logical ones so we can discussions that don't hit these theological brick walls.

Because at some point normal rational people still went out and payed good money to do this.

 

[drop bear]

I'm going with Moe Howard.

View attachment 22772

 

[Buka]

They have nothing to gain by showing you the evidence. They have everything to gain by showing it to potential clients/customers.

I don't think it's a moral impasse so much as a philosophical one. I think a business will be more successful by being upfront in what it offers. In this case martial ability, and how it is/isn't effective. You seem to think a business will be more successful by lying about what it offers. Again in this case martial ability, and how it is/isn't effective.

My issue with your thinking is that eventually any business that is lying about what it has to offer will get found out, and go under. A restaurant that isn't offering quality meals will see a decrease in people showing up. A tutoring service that isn't helping their students, even if they sign a contract, will stop gaining new students and go under. A hospital that doesn't treat people well will stop having people show up there. And a martial arts studio that doesn't teach people martial arts will eventually not get new students and go under.

You seem to think that martial arts is this magic voodoo that goes against the free market, and I guess I just don't understand why.

I disagree with the statement about a martial arts studio. With a restaurant you're getting immediate feedback, with a Martial Arts school that is not always the case.

I don't visit new dojos any more, but I sure did visit a lot of them back in the day. I have known some that were so deplorably bad it boggles the mind. Yet they existed, thrived, and made sheet loads on money while teaching crap designed to make students think they were pretty awesome. And they lasted for decades. Decades.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I disagree with the statement about a martial arts studio. With a restaurant you're getting immediate feedback, with a Martial Arts school that is not always the case.

I don't visit new dojos any more, but I sure did visit a lot of them back in the day. I have known some that were so deplorably bad it boggles the mind. Yet they existed, thrived, and made sheet loads on money while teaching crap designed to make students think they were pretty awesome. And they lasted for decades. Decades.

I'm currently thinking of one on route 20 near Worcester Mass

 

[Buka]

I'm currently thinking of one on route 20 near Worcester Mass

I haven't been out that way in a long time. But I have a guess. And...yeah.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Nope. If the defence isn't there and they have put an eye gouge in its place that is a pretty obvious sign they don't know the defence.

And it is common. You get guys who can't fight try and trick their way out.

Like that single leg defense.

Yeah, there's that generalization again. See, I gave you a specific example of eye gouges being taught NOT as a gap-filler, but as "you could also do this here". But you believe what you believe, and that's how it's gonna stay.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which we can test by either seeing it work. Seeing it not work or having the guy who claims it works start looking for ways never to show their method.

Or, for the sake of discussions, we can just listen a bit and see if there's something useful to discuss.

You seem to think we all owe you some proof. Nobody does, except maybe the folks who train you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you make a claim you should be able to show evidence for it. Or i can reasonably say what you are claiming is false.

This is the logical fallacy you keep falling into. This is essentially argument from ignorance. It would be different if you said you choose not to believe what is said without evidence, but your stance here (and just as explicitly in other threads) is that if the evidence isn't provided (in the way you demand it), then the claim is false. "False" is not the same as "unproved".

Then you just turn loose your bias to do the rest.