- May 6, 2006
- Reaction score
MardiGras Bandit said:My problem with trying to expand upon aliveness is that I don't see it as an attempt improve a system. I see it as an attempt to redefine the term for the purpose of defending things which are not alive, and which the concept of aliveness actually stands against. Nothing constructive comes out of it, it is just a way for people who don't train alive to claim they do by expanding the definiton to suite their needs. I see it along the lines of "____ MA is too deadly for competition". Such arguments only lead to dead training and hurt the martial arts overall.
The point isn't that the definition of aliveness by Matt and say Bruce Lee are very different. As for martial arts being to deadly for what hurts the martial arts over all, that would be allot of things coming from all sides arguements.
MartiGras Bandit said:Example: Hitting students with a wiffle bat at random times, but not using this as a method of sparring. This is not aliveness. It might teach a lesson to students, but that lesson has nothing to do with aliveness because it involves no resistance. [/qhote]
MartGras, I also mentioned that several of my students pre-empively attack me when they see the wiffle bat coming. They dont sit around waiting on me to attack and some choose distance and evasion over counter-attacking. And you missed the point of what I was saying...
So it the definition of aliveness as only be resistance, which has nothing to do with self-defense or streetfighting.MartiGras Bandit said:2. Your definitions are very subjective. I don't agree with them.
But aliveness and resistance prepares you for "the street" and all of those articles were on the reality of the street. Some of them on training for seld-defense.MartiGras Bandit said:4. None of those articles have anything to do with aliveness. They bring up a variety of issues relevant to a discussion of overall self defense, but are not relevant to a discussion of aliveness.
Then you don't know that what you are doing can prepare you for anything, or what methods will.MartiGras Bandit said:5. I've never been in a serious fight, and though I've come close now and again I try to avoid them. I have trained with both with and without resistance and seen firsthand the dramtic difference it makes.
Only if you are a bookie or plan to live your life at a dog track. All those poeple who claim their MA is perfect because it was used by a 300 year old dead samurai are no less impressive then someone naming statistics.MartGras Bandit said:6. Statistics mean everything, the world runs on them.
MartiGras Bandit said:8. Facts are verifiable and refuteable. Internet stories aren't. Without pouring over police reports that probably dont exist (now statistics matter?) I can't say if people who spar have a higher incidence of survival and victory in the street, although I would suspect they do. But that fact is the best martial artists are those who engage in resistance training. The people who can consistently prove that they are able to do the things they are supposed to be able to invariably train this way. Despite what you may think, not everyone spars, although anyone who is serious about learning martial arts should. The term "aliveness" might just be marketing, but the concept is much more then that.
Every martial art uses resistance at some point, Some use non-resistant training as a step, or to teach openings. Some are just so watered down they don't teach anything effectively. But aren't you talking things subjectively yourself?
My point is if you are going to caim "this" will prepare you for real life, but forget the other stuff, you are going leave the other stuff. That becomes a really big issue...