Aikido hate

[Martial D]

No, I didn't invent them. And I wasn't arguing the definitions. What I said was if you agree to go out into the pub car park and fight someone that has nothing to do with self defence. You maintained that because it was a fight it also counts as self defence because fighting and self defence are the same thing.

I also note you ignored all the other points I made. I wonder why that would was.

So, if you did not make up yourself your definition of fighting, being that a fight must be mutually agreed upon or it's not a fight(the premise from which everything else you have written flows), where did you get it?

Fighting and self defense ARE the same thing. The only difference is in reasons for doing so. The act itself..punches, kicks, throws, all fighting..regardless of reasoning.

By the way, the law makes no distinction between fighting and self defense either, that's assault you are thinking of..and assault doesn't have to be fighting. Spitting on someone is considered assault, but not fighting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

By the way. Can you see how nuts conversations regarding self defence gets. Because nobody has the grounding and everyone is trying to beat some sort of drum. The information you actually get is so unreliable.

It is like trying to argue what colour pants god wears.

This is a very big aspect of the Aikido hate. Or any martial art that relies on this justification.

We are comparing this mentally with people who will justify their Method by grabbing you and hurting you until you have to stop.

Which is such a compelling argument as compared to what martial artists are generally used to.

Actually, I find only a few people get lost in the rhetoric of such a discussion. Most are able to have a meaningful discussion - understanding the verification issues exist but do not make the entire endeavor a waste of time.

Difficulty in agreeing on a definition, difficulty identifying a valid method of validation, difficulty practicing certain techniques and/or attacks in a fully realistic manner. These are all issues anyone who teaches for self-defense must grapple with. None of them make it impossible, improbable, or unrealistic to train.

 

[Paul_D]

So, if you did not make up yourself your definition of fighting, being that a fight must be mutually agreed upon or it's not a fight(the premise from which everything else you have written flows), where did you get it?

Fighting and self defense ARE the same thing. The only difference is in reasons for doing so. The act itself..punches, kicks, throws, all fighting..regardless of reasoning.

By the way, the law makes no distinction between fighting and self defense either, that's assault you are thinking of..and assault doesn't have to be fighting. Spitting on someone is considered assault, but not fighting.

PM me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is why, they said, they spend most of their time training the skills they are least likely to use (the fighting skills).

No, they haven't said that, in any way I've seen it. Several of us have pointed out that the physical skills require practice and maintenance they will not get in normal life. Deescalation can be practiced in a lot of ways. Recognition and target hardening can't be practiced meaningfully over a large period of time in classes. De-escalation can be practiced in classes, but doesn't seem to degrade the way physical skills do, and seems to require less practice to become moderately effective, and is something that can be practiced quite often in settings other than classes. Those are among the reasons many people train the physical skills most. There are other reasons, some of which vary by person.

Using Paul's insistance on a non-standard definition of "fight" as an example of certain words being meaningless would be like me showing a video of a BJJ guy getting run over by a bicyclist and saying, "See? BJJ isn't very good 'on the street'!" I don't agree with his definition, but he and I are aware of that, and I usually just acknowledge his definition and move on when it creates a point of contention. We manage to discuss this and other topics reasonably well in spite of it all.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, I find only a few people get lost in the rhetoric of such a discussion. Most are able to have a meaningful discussion - understanding the verification issues exist but do not make the entire endeavor a waste of time.

Difficulty in agreeing on a definition, difficulty identifying a valid method of validation, difficulty practicing certain techniques and/or attacks in a fully realistic manner. These are all issues anyone who teaches for self-defense must grapple with. None of them make it impossible, improbable, or unrealistic to train.

Provided you are willing to accept dogma.

 

[JP3]

For the same reason I don't separate Texans and Americans as 2 completely separate entitys.

As much as the Texans would want you to believe that is a thing.

There are still people who beat on the Free Republic of Texas, it's serious stuff.

It'll never happen though, it'd cut down on football competition level, not having Florida and California high schools to grass root with.

 

[JP3]

I can't speak about US law, but pre emptive striking is legal in the UK.

Having done it states-side, if a doorman/bouncer gets the reputation of being a hit-first guy, pretty soon his bar owner gets a visit from the police and that guy is either asked to adjust his thinking or he is often out of a job. Granted, I've only worked the door in Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas, but that type of gentle... pressure from the police was present in each state.

Doorman is presumed sober, guest is presumed to have been drinking is the issue. At least, I think that was the issue. I never got the interview witht he Chief of Police I asked one cop for.

 

[JP3]

That would explain why so often I find people sparring from what seems "out-of-range". I'm able to move back a small amount and evade their strikes enough to keep them off their strategy. If their distancing (ma-ai from my discussion with JP in this thread) is influenced by sword work, that would be a reasonable conclusion.

Or... they're afraid of being hit, so stay so far away that they can't hit you.

 

[JP3]

There are definitely opportunities to enter on a strike. What I'm referring to is when the entry is meant to catch the arm almost on the backswing. So, with your round attack example, it would catch that arm far enough back that the elbow would be near or behind the plane of the body. That's an unlikely position to get to by decision, unless they wind up like a major league pitcher. In most cases, getting in on a strike that early is simply lucky timing, or a bad decision that turned out well.

I see what you are driving at. The parallel to jamming a kick, but against the punch/strike. Yeah, if you get "there" you got lucky or you can read the guy's thoughts.

 

[JP3]

That's a different interaction than between two grappling styles (like Judo and Aikido). What you're talking about is more inline with the integration of my striking and my grappling (both primarily from NGA).

Or... my integrating in with my aikido hand stuff the footsweep techniques of judo, but with the Thai leg kick as the "sweeping" action.

That is a blender.

 

[JP3]

A definition of fighting is not a "manufactured idea". Words have definitions, and it can be helpful to clarify what definition is being used, since there are often multiple options, even if we stick to the dictionary (which is a record of common usage, not an arbiter of correct usage).

Gerry, there you go cheating with vocabulary technique again.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Provided you are willing to accept dogma.

I'm not sure where any of that requires the acceptance of dogma.

 

[drop bear]

I'm not sure where any of that requires the acceptance of dogma.

You have to rely on belief. Someone is giving you information that never gets tested properly. You are not out there getting mugged to see what work and what doesn't.

Even Geoff Thompson isn't out there getting mugged.

So somewhere this information is coming in that you have no way to varify. But for your system to work you have to accept it. Which is why from my perspective there are these really strange ideas that come out.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You have to rely on belief. Someone is giving you information that never gets tested properly. You are not out there getting mugged to see what work and what doesn't.

Even Geoff Thompson isn't out there getting mugged.

So somewhere this information is coming in that you have no way to varify. But for your system to work you have to accept it. Which is why from my perspective there are these really strange ideas that come out.

Nope. We've had that discussion before. You have this dogma you're stuck on.

 

[drop bear]

Nope. We've had that discussion before. You have this dogma you're stuck on.

Dogma is very hard to see when you are invested. And where there is no real experts to tell you otherwise.

Sun goes around the earth? Hey why not?

It is not like anyone could prove otherwise.

You don't think there is a reason why almost nobody can practically demonstrate Aikido?

I mean I can go to a boxing, bjj, judo, karate school and all of them can do it. They may do it to different levels of ability but they could show there art working against new or experienced guys.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Dogma is very hard to see when you are invested. And where there is no real experts to tell you otherwise.

Sun goes around the earth? Hey why not?

It is not like anyone could prove otherwise.

You don't think there is a reason why almost nobody can practically demonstrate Aikido?

I mean I can go to a boxing, bjj, judo, karate school and all of them can do it. They may do it to different levels of ability but they could show there art working against new or experienced guys.

What, precisely, does any of that have to do with my statements about self-defense instruction? You're lost in a discussion we aren't in the middle of, DB.

 

[Steve]

What, precisely, does any of that have to do with my statements about self-defense instruction? You're lost in a discussion we aren't in the middle of, DB.

Perfect quote. I should have said this exact thing in another thread.

 

[JP3]

Applies doesn't have the same meaning as same.

You keep adding random stuff that doesn't apply.

Self defense doesn't help you if you are drowning. Swimming does.

You have to understand the difference.

Unless... you're being held under by a person who does not like you very much. Just sayin'...

 

[JP3]

How about you adress the misleading hyperbole.

I get the impression that Geoff has some striking training, but his "system" is designed behind (pun intended) his Fence defense?

I could very easily be wrong, and be ignorantly minimizing the training he's had, I've no clue. I've not run across a resume or biography that talks about training, specifically. Not what he did, but what he trained.

 

[JP3]

But it does apply. You just don't understand why because you think men brawling in the street or a bar is SD.

Paul... a question --

If I'm stood with my wife in a pub, and some fellow decides for whatever reason to attempt pre-emption and succeeds in lamblasting me while I'm involved in staring at her, in the initial moments we end up rolling around on the floor, is that not an SD situation to you? Pre-emptive strike, hit from surprised, slight recovery... etc?

I'm trying to wrap my head around where you define the "line" to be and... I'm having trouble.