What am I supposed to say to Drop Bear?

[Gerry Seymour]

Just read the threads around here. Any time a real world example is shared, whether from a news article or anecdotally, it falls into one of the four categories above.

I shared a story about a woman who was training for American Ninja Warrior who was assaulted. A guy held a knife to her throat, attempting to rape her. She fought back and credits the confidence, strength and agility gained from training for saving her life. So, according to the general line of reasoning, we should be able to conclude that parkour is effective for self defense. The establishment suggested she was lucky.

Other threads have titles like "proof karate works for self defense" which are grounded in stories like the one above. But in these cases, because there is a stake, it's actual evidence,

Bottom line, I believe if you don't see how every self defense story falls into one of the categories above, it's because you're too close to it and in your blind spot.

I think there is a number 5, which is that micro level stories are unreliable, and to measure the efficacy of a self defense program, it must address a specified need and actually track progress against the measurable goal.

Regarding the slam about sounding like drop bear, that's beneath you. You're far too reasonable, I think, for that. We may fundamentally disagree with some of the "experts" here, but I think martial arts, and self defense experts in general, can easily fall into a dangerously myopic view. I think much of the kerfuffle around drop bear is from people who are used to saying things with authority and not being questioned.

And, separately addressing the last part:

Okay, I'll accept that that comment sounded harsher than intended. My point was that your post literally sounded like one of Drop Bear's to me. I didn't feel like you were actually responding to what I was saying, but to what you'd experienced in other conversations, and that makes it very difficult to respond without being dragged off-point.

 

[Steve]

You are talking about the responses to the incident, rather than the value of the incident, itself.

I'm talking about the usefulness of the incident as evidence that a program works or doesn't work, unless that incident is a part of a statistically meaningful trend.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm talking about the usefulness of the incident as evidence that a program works or doesn't work, unless that incident is a part of a statistically meaningful trend.

Except that all the things you posted were people's reactions to the report. It is absolutely true that people can fail to use a report meaningfully and can get defensive, dismissive, etc. The report itself, however, has value if we care to approach it objectively. The same is true of video, as you referenced in your post.

Let's say I post a video and person 1 says, "Well, she just got lucky" while person 2 says, "I think X is why she survived that encounter". Person 1 hasn't gained any useful information. Person 2 may have - they would have to dig deeper and look for input from similar kinds of incidents as well as experimenting in a controlled environment with what seemed to work in the incident. The same goes for incidents of failure to defend. We can use it for what it is - evidence that seems to support or contradict a point. By itself, it's not sufficient to draw conclusions, but if we pair it with other evidence - more incidents, trends (as you mentioned), what we can see in well-designed sport, and experimentation in a controlled environment - we can get useful information from them. It's why I like to hear input from folks who appear to have needed their physical skills more often than I have, like Drop Bear and Juany, as well as the folks I know who have acted in similar roles where those were put to a test.

It's a piece of information we can either use, mis-use, or ignore. The latter two seem irresponsible to me if we are discussing self-defense use. Heck, they'd be irresponsible in sport, too, because it would be like refusing to use the information from prior fights (incidents of sport usage).

 

[Steve]

Except that all the things you posted were people's reactions to the report. It is absolutely true that people can fail to use a report meaningfully and can get defensive, dismissive, etc. The report itself, however, has value if we care to approach it objectively. The same is true of video, as you referenced in your post.

Let's say I post a video and person 1 says, "Well, she just got lucky" while person 2 says, "I think X is why she survived that encounter". Person 1 hasn't gained any useful information. Person 2 may have - they would have to dig deeper and look for input from similar kinds of incidents as well as experimenting in a controlled environment with what seemed to work in the incident. The same goes for incidents of failure to defend. We can use it for what it is - evidence that seems to support or contradict a point. By itself, it's not sufficient to draw conclusions, but if we pair it with other evidence - more incidents, trends (as you mentioned), what we can see in well-designed sport, and experimentation in a controlled environment - we can get useful information from them. It's why I like to hear input from folks who appear to have needed their physical skills more often than I have, like Drop Bear and Juany, as well as the folks I know who have acted in similar roles where those were put to a test.

It's a piece of information we can either use, mis-use, or ignore. The latter two seem irresponsible to me if we are discussing self-defense use. Heck, they'd be irresponsible in sport, too, because it would be like refusing to use the information from prior fights (incidents of sport usage).

I hear what you're saying, and disagree. I don't think much useful information can come out of a single incident, unless it is in the context of a larger, statistically significant, measurable group of incidences which can establish a reliable trend.

Simply put, you can look at any incident and draw whatever conclusions you would like. It's self serving because it is inherently subjective. I think you're perspective is laudable, but misguided in that you believe you can objectively analyze an incident.

In sport, any conclusions drawn are supported by a body of feedback. Not any one instance, but a history of instances along with feedback on the practical effect of any changes in technique made. This is the advantage sport has over "street." In sport arts, you can test your theories and find out if you are right or wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I hear what you're saying, and disagree. I don't think much useful information can come out of a single incident, unless it is in the context of a larger, statistically significant, measurable group of incidences which can establish a reliable trend.

Simply put, you can look at any incident and draw whatever conclusions you would like. It's self serving because it is inherently subjective. I think you're perspective is laudable, but misguided in that you believe you can objectively analyze an incident.

In sport, any conclusions drawn are supported by a body of feedback. Not any one instance, but a history of instances along with feedback on the practical effect of any changes in technique made. This is the advantage sport has over "street." In sport arts, you can test your theories and find out if you are right or wrong.

Any body of feedback is made up of single incidents. When you watch fight video, you look at an incident that seems to indicate something (the fighter makes a mistake while passing guard), then look for other incidents that support that (does he make that same mistake often? are there similar errors in other situations that indicate he has a habitual flaw?). It all starts from a single incident. You are right that you can't use a single incident on its own - there are too many variables. But it is impossible to start without a single incident. If you're lucky, you don't have to pick it - you notice a trend after seeing a few fights with the same fighter, but that trend is something you recognized from a series of single incidents. That's my point.

I never said I drew conclusions from a single incident. I said there's information in it, and you combine that information with other sources (other incidents, and other types of sources) to see if there's a trend.

I think we're actually saying the same thing. Neither of us would trust a single incident to either prove or disprove (nor, normally, to provide significant support for) any theory. It's just a piece of data that goes into the mix of other data.

EDIT: To add one piece, "the street" isn't our training ground. It's what we prepare for when we train physical self-defense, but the proving ground is still in the dojo (and, for some, in sport settings). I can absolutely test changes I make. I do it all the time. Sometimes I test them against a skilled opponent doing everything they can to stop me. Sometimes I test them against a specific kind of feedback or resistance (when that's what I'm trying to adjust to). Sometimes I test them without telling the other person (no placebo effect from that side, anyway), and sometimes I tell them in advance so they can pay attention to the difference and give me more organized feedback. But to implement something without testing is just random swapping.

 

[Tez3]

When you watch fight video, you look at an incident that seems to indicate something (the fighter makes a mistake while passing guard), then look for other incidents that support that (does he make that same mistake often? are there similar errors in other situations that indicate he has a habitual flaw?).

Exactly what a good coach looks at when researching their fighter's opponent before planning the tactics for the fight......

 

[Steve]

Any body of feedback is made up of single incidents. When you watch fight video, you look at an incident that seems to indicate something (the fighter makes a mistake while passing guard), then look for other incidents that support that (does he make that same mistake often? are there similar errors in other situations that indicate he has a habitual flaw?). It all starts from a single incident. You are right that you can't use a single incident on its own - there are too many variables. But it is impossible to start without a single incident. If you're lucky, you don't have to pick it - you notice a trend after seeing a few fights with the same fighter, but that trend is something you recognized from a series of single incidents. That's my point.

I never said I drew conclusions from a single incident. I said there's information in it, and you combine that information with other sources (other incidents, and other types of sources) to see if there's a trend.

I think we're actually saying the same thing. Neither of us would trust a single incident to either prove or disprove (nor, normally, to provide significant support for) any theory. It's just a piece of data that goes into the mix of other data.

EDIT: To add one piece, "the street" isn't our training ground. It's what we prepare for when we train physical self-defense, but the proving ground is still in the dojo (and, for some, in sport settings). I can absolutely test changes I make. I do it all the time. Sometimes I test them against a skilled opponent doing everything they can to stop me. Sometimes I test them against a specific kind of feedback or resistance (when that's what I'm trying to adjust to). Sometimes I test them without telling the other person (no placebo effect from that side, anyway), and sometimes I tell them in advance so they can pay attention to the difference and give me more organized feedback. But to implement something without testing is just random swapping.

first, not to sound like a broken record, but the very idea that there is film once again points to the functional advantage a competitive art has over others. Having this body of evidence is foundational. you can draw reasonable generalizations about which techniques and strategies work and which don't because there is a ton of objective feedback. Not just anecdotal.

I highlighted where I think we are losing each other. What yo suggest there is exactly the opposite of what I would suggest. You say the fighter makes a mistake and you then look for that mistake in other film. That is exactly what leads to confirmation bias.

I would say, provided you are in solid ground and actually have objective evidence of what works in general, you start with a goal, not a problem. And then work to achieve the goal. For example, in the case of that fighter, the goal is to pass guard, and success would be measured accordingly. It's a fine distinction, I realize, but I think it's an important one. Focusing on finding support for a pre-determined position can lead one to wackiness.

 

[drop bear]

When I talked about using personal reports of incidents, you passed it off as "stories" and not useful evidence. This has repeated in at least two separate threads now - and has been EXACTLY what I was talking about here, which you worked very hard to say was useless as evidence and was just "urban myths".

If you didn't meant to claim personal reports of an incident were not useful information, I'm not sure how we ended up in this rabbit hole.

Personal reports or actual incidents?

 

[drop bear]

Just read the threads around here. Any time a real world example is shared, whether from a news article or anecdotally, it falls into one of the four categories above.

I shared a story about a woman who was training for American Ninja Warrior who was assaulted. A guy held a knife to her throat, attempting to rape her. She fought back and credits the confidence, strength and agility gained from training for saving her life. So, according to the general line of reasoning, we should be able to conclude that parkour is effective for self defense. The establishment suggested she was lucky.

Other threads have titles like "proof karate works for self defense" which are grounded in stories like the one above. But in these cases, because there is a stake, it's actual evidence,

Bottom line, I believe if you don't see how every self defense story falls into one of the categories above, it's because you're too close to it and in your blind spot.

I think there is a number 5, which is that micro level stories are unreliable, and to measure the efficacy of a self defense program, it must address a specified need and actually track progress against the measurable goal.

Regarding the slam about sounding like drop bear, that's beneath you. You're far too reasonable, I think, for that. We may fundamentally disagree with some of the "experts" here, but I think martial arts, and self defense experts in general, can easily fall into a dangerously myopic view. I think much of the kerfuffle around drop bear is from people who are used to saying things with authority and not being questioned.

The dogma that i reference so much.

 

[drop bear]

Except that all the things you posted were people's reactions to the report. It is absolutely true that people can fail to use a report meaningfully and can get defensive, dismissive, etc. The report itself, however, has value if we care to approach it objectively. The same is true of video, as you referenced in your post.

Let's say I post a video and person 1 says, "Well, she just got lucky" while person 2 says, "I think X is why she survived that encounter". Person 1 hasn't gained any useful information. Person 2 may have - they would have to dig deeper and look for input from similar kinds of incidents as well as experimenting in a controlled environment with what seemed to work in the incident. The same goes for incidents of failure to defend. We can use it for what it is - evidence that seems to support or contradict a point. By itself, it's not sufficient to draw conclusions, but if we pair it with other evidence - more incidents, trends (as you mentioned), what we can see in well-designed sport, and experimentation in a controlled environment - we can get useful information from them. It's why I like to hear input from folks who appear to have needed their physical skills more often than I have, like Drop Bear and Juany, as well as the folks I know who have acted in similar roles where those were put to a test.

It's a piece of information we can either use, mis-use, or ignore. The latter two seem irresponsible to me if we are discussing self-defense use. Heck, they'd be irresponsible in sport, too, because it would be like refusing to use the information from prior fights (incidents of sport usage).

Look at how juany uses his personal experiences. It is specifically that sort of thing I try to avoid.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Any body of feedback is made up of single incidents. When you watch fight video, you look at an incident that seems to indicate something (the fighter makes a mistake while passing guard), then look for other incidents that support that (does he make that same mistake often? are there similar errors in other situations that indicate he has a habitual flaw?). It all starts from a single incident. You are right that you can't use a single incident on its own - there are too many variables. But it is impossible to start without a single incident. If you're lucky, you don't have to pick it - you notice a trend after seeing a few fights with the same fighter, but that trend is something you recognized from a series of single incidents. That's my point.

I never said I drew conclusions from a single incident. I said there's information in it, and you combine that information with other sources (other incidents, and other types of sources) to see if there's a trend.

I think we're actually saying the same thing. Neither of us would trust a single incident to either prove or disprove (nor, normally, to provide significant support for) any theory. It's just a piece of data that goes into the mix of other data.

first, not to sound like a broken record, but the very idea that there is film once again points to the functional advantage a competitive art has over others. Having this body of evidence is foundational. you can draw reasonable generalizations about which techniques and strategies work and which don't because there is a ton of objective feedback. Not just anecdotal.

I highlighted where I think we are losing each other. What yo suggest there is exactly the opposite of what I would suggest. You say the fighter makes a mistake and you then look for that mistake in other film. That is exactly what leads to confirmation bias.

I would say, provided you are in solid ground and actually have objective evidence of what works in general, you start with a goal, not a problem. And then work to achieve the goal. For example, in the case of that fighter, the goal is to pass guard, and success would be measured accordingly. It's a fine distinction, I realize, but I think it's an important one. Focusing on finding support for a pre-determined position can lead one to wackiness.

Okay, I understand your difference in approach, I think, but I'd argue it comes down to the same thing, if you are careful about your conclusions. You go to look for a way to pass guard. At some point, you have to stop at a bit of information and say something like, "Hey, see how that guy passed his guard? I wonder if others have had success with that same move on him." And then you go looking for both evidence that it has worked and evidence that it hasn't. The latter is what I mean about being careful. Confirmation bias can be controlled by specifically seeking out contradictory information. This is precisely what scientists do when trying to establish a theory - they look for information that would contradict the theory. Contradiction is more important than confirmation, for just the reason you point out.

If you don't start with a premise when planning an approach, then how do you start? I realize you set a goal - so do I. I might go looking at videos of street attacks looking for fights that start at a given distance. My goal might be to look for whether there are some attacks that are more common at those distances. After looking at a number of videos, I may have a working hypothesis (It looks like there are a lot of lunging punches from that distance), so I look for other evidence - perhaps by asking folks I know who are bouncers, to see if they have recollections that fit what I'm looking for. If they do, again, I'm looking for a contradiction with what I've already seen. If the attacks I'm looking at have something in common with sport arts, I'll take a look at those (understanding the context and combatants are not the same, but it's still some info to work with), again looking for contradictions. If I find no strong contradictions, then my hypothesis is strengthened, and if there's no more evidence to use, then it may be time for me to think about how that affects my defensive tactics.

How is that so very different from planning for sport? The major difference (as you point out) is that there's much more video available from the sport perspective. I do wish I had more to work with for defensive purposes, but that's not going to happen and wishing for it won't help. So, I make use of sport video where I can find analogous situations and similar techniques. It's not what I wish it was, but it's what there is. This is, by the way, not a weakness in self-defense oriented styles - it's a lack of evidence for self-defense that's common to ALL arts. We can all make use of what's available from the sport arena (more direct sport feedback is available, obviously, in schools that participate in sport), but none of us who wish to be effective at self-defense have the level of real-world input we would wish to have.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Personal reports or actual incidents?

Both. Personal reports are reports of actual incidents. We've already discussed the potential weaknesses in those reports, but those weaknesses do not entirely invalidate them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Look at how juany uses his personal experiences. It is specifically that sort of thing I try to avoid.

He has as much personal experience using things in the real world as some fighters have using theirs in competition. Why should he not use that experience?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm talking about the usefulness of the incident as evidence that a program works or doesn't work, unless that incident is a part of a statistically meaningful trend.

Your post didn't address the actual report. It addressed the dogmatic responses to the report.

 

[drop bear]

Any body of feedback is made up of single incidents. When you watch fight video, you look at an incident that seems to indicate something (the fighter makes a mistake while passing guard), then look for other incidents that support that (does he make that same mistake often? are there similar errors in other situations that indicate he has a habitual flaw?). It all starts from a single incident. You are right that you can't use a single incident on its own - there are too many variables. But it is impossible to start without a single incident. If you're lucky, you don't have to pick it - you notice a trend after seeing a few fights with the same fighter, but that trend is something you recognized from a series of single incidents. That's my point.

I never said I drew conclusions from a single incident. I said there's information in it, and you combine that information with other sources (other incidents, and other types of sources) to see if there's a trend.

I think we're actually saying the same thing. Neither of us would trust a single incident to either prove or disprove (nor, normally, to provide significant support for) any theory. It's just a piece of data that goes into the mix of other data.

EDIT: To add one piece, "the street" isn't our training ground. It's what we prepare for when we train physical self-defense, but the proving ground is still in the dojo (and, for some, in sport settings). I can absolutely test changes I make. I do it all the time. Sometimes I test them against a skilled opponent doing everything they can to stop me. Sometimes I test them against a specific kind of feedback or resistance (when that's what I'm trying to adjust to). Sometimes I test them without telling the other person (no placebo effect from that side, anyway), and sometimes I tell them in advance so they can pay attention to the difference and give me more organized feedback. But to implement something without testing is just random swapping.

Training for the ring the dojo and the street is like training for the ring and the cage. There is a tactical difference but the core premis is still the same.

The same sort of nuance when a mate of mine went from big gloves muay Thai to small gloves CMT.

There is no major technical difference. There are minor clean ups.

The basic skills are what is utilized and in general are solid regardless of the environment. Training for the street is a tactical change far more often than a technical on. So when people do less technical sound technique and think that they are getting some sort of advantage in a street fight. Mostly they are fooling themselves.

What this means is when your partner is required to come at you with some sloppy schoolyard attack in order for your street defence to work. You are not really training in an efficient manner.

What you want to do is focus on the few moves that bridge the gap between dealing with an experienced fighter and an inexperienced fighter regardless. These are core basics.

The techniques that have really real evidence against quality oponants.

Then if you want to get fancy on top of that you can go buck wild. hypothesize. work off stories whatever. But it should relate back to what you can do. Not excuse what you cant do.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Training for the ring the dojo and the street is like training for the ring and the cage. There is a tactical difference but the core premis is still the same.

The same sort of nuance when a mate of mine went from big gloves muay Thai to small gloves CMT.

There is no major technical difference. There are minor clean ups.

The basic skills are what is utilized and in general are solid regardless of the environment. Training for the street is a tactical change far more often than a technical on. So when people do less technical sound technique and think that they are getting some sort of advantage in a street fight. Mostly they are fooling themselves.

What this means is when your partner is required to come at you with some sloppy schoolyard attack in order for your street defence to work. You are not really training in an efficient manner.

What you want to do is focus on the few moves that bridge the gap between dealing with an experienced fighter and an inexperienced fighter regardless. These are core basics.

The techniques that have really real evidence against quality oponants.

Then if you want to get fancy on top of that you can go buck wild. hypothesize. work off stories whatever. But it should relate back to what you can do. Not excuse what you cant do.

I agree with most of this premise. The only place I would take exception is in the idea that sloppy schoolyard attacks aren't valid attacks. I've watched a lot of videos to get an idea of what attacks actually happen (so far as video has captured), and there are quite a few sloppy schoolyard attacks out there. And, interestingly, the physics they supply are different than those you'd get from a trained opponent. Why? Because they are sloppy. It turns out techniques have to be applied differently to these attacks (like tackles - what idiot would abandon all control and tackle in the ring?), so we have to train for them. There's little need to train for these idiotic attacks for sport, and the techniques of some styles (particularly striking styles) may require little adaptation - just a different defensive approach, perhaps. But for grapplers, that input is what we work with, so we practice even against sloppy attacks.

 

[drop bear]

He has as much personal experience using things in the real world as some fighters have using theirs in competition. Why should he not use that experience?

He makes insane logic links. So it is not just a personal anecdote that relates to a one time incident. It then justifies an entire belief system.

So i think it was this thread he mentioned evidence. well I said that he really is not going to be successful unarmed against a knife. Doesnt matter what system he does. His evidence was some sort of historical war in the Philippines that justified his ability to take knives of people.

I honestly did not think he was serious. It was just such a left field justification. Then he rage quit. So I never really found out how that panned out.

Anyway. about here.
Full Head Control vs. Untrained


Now I have de weaponed guys a couple of times and still wouldn't rate myself as being able to do it successfully.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

He makes insane logic links. So it is not just a personal anecdote that relates to a one time incident. It then justifies an entire belief system.

So i think it was this thread he mentioned evidence. well I said that he really is not going to be successful unarmed against a knife. Doesnt matter what system he does. His evidence was some sort of historical war in the Philippines that justified his ability to take knives of people.

I honestly did not think he was serious. It was just such a left field justification. Then he rage quit. So I never really found out how that panned out.

Anyway. about here.
Full Head Control vs. Untrained


Now I have de weaponed guys a couple of times and still wouldn't rate myself as being able to do it successfully.

Okay, but again here, you're not talking about the evidence itself, but about how someone used it. That's a different debate. Any evidence can be mis-used. I've seen people mis-use evidence from fights (see - that guy got kicked in the head and knocked out, so the only kicks you practice should be to the head). That has nothing to do with whether it's an incident in "the street" or "the ring". Someone's use or misuse of evidence doesn't change the value of the evidence, itself.

 

[drop bear]

I agree with most of this premise. The only place I would take exception is in the idea that sloppy schoolyard attacks aren't valid attacks. I've watched a lot of videos to get an idea of what attacks actually happen (so far as video has captured), and there are quite a few sloppy schoolyard attacks out there. And, interestingly, the physics they supply are different than those you'd get from a trained opponent. Why? Because they are sloppy. It turns out techniques have to be applied differently to these attacks (like tackles - what idiot would abandon all control and tackle in the ring?), so we have to train for them. There's little need to train for these idiotic attacks for sport, and the techniques of some styles (particularly striking styles) may require little adaptation - just a different defensive approach, perhaps. But for grapplers, that input is what we work with, so we practice even against sloppy attacks.

Depends what you are training for. A defence against a good attack will stop a sloppy one. A defence against a sloppy attack probably wont stop a good attack.

Or.

I can do pretty much anything I want against noobs. But I would not do those same moves if the stakes were high.

 

[drop bear]

Okay, but again here, you're not talking about the evidence itself, but about how someone used it. That's a different debate. Any evidence can be mis-used. I've seen people mis-use evidence from fights (see - that guy got kicked in the head and knocked out, so the only kicks you practice should be to the head). That has nothing to do with whether it's an incident in "the street" or "the ring". Someone's use or misuse of evidence doesn't change the value of the evidence, itself.

It does if the evidence has no verification. How do you know what is true and what isnt?