Become a fighting machine

[JowGaWolf]

So one fits your internal script?

Thats pretty dodgy.

So what you are spewing doesn't fit your internal script?

 

[drop bear]

So what you are spewing doesn't fit your internal script?

If there was evidence i wouldn't get to apply one.

See greysemors idea like a lot of things work both ways. So my script could be due to evidence you are telling tall tails or spar substandard guys or even spar at a pace that nobody ever gets knocked out.

It opens a door that you may not want to go through.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So one fits your internal script?

Thats pretty dodgy.

"Internal script"? I spoke of existing evidence, not of what's in my head.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It should be noted that sparring and training with your classmates (JGW) isn't the same as fighting someone trying to take your head off (Bey vs MMA).

Agreed. We have seen him spar people outside his school, though that's still sparring and not quite the same as a contest someone is trying to win by taking your head off. I'm just saying that JGW being able to spar successfully with someone outside his school is not an unreasonable statement. It is similar to situations we've seen video evidence of. The statement about 10 Hung Gar people isn't consistent with existing evidence, which makes it a more extreme claim. Attempting to make them equivalent is, I believe, a form of the strawman fallacy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If there was evidence i wouldn't get to apply one.

See greysemors idea like a lot of things work both ways. So my script could be due to evidence you are telling tall tails or spar substandard guys or even spar at a pace that nobody ever gets knocked out.

It opens a door that you may not want to go through.

Wow. So you have an internal script that's valid. But if someone else has one, it's dodgy.
If you tell a personal experience then it's valid, but if someone else gives their personal experience it's a tall tale.

Well I'm just going end this convo and take it that you get knocked out every time you spar. Which is why you believe that someone else can't spar without getting knocked out. It's the only logic that makes sense to me of why someone doesn't think it's possible to spar with an amateur MMA fighter without being knocked out. In your Amateur MMA fighters always knock out the people who are sparring so anything different than that is a tall tale.

 

[JowGaWolf]

though that's still sparring and not quite the same as a contest someone is trying to win by taking your head off.

Not sure why this is a hard concept to understand.

 

[drop bear]

"Internal script"? I spoke of existing evidence, not of what's in my head.

Same thing.

 

[drop bear]

Wow. So you have an internal script that's valid. But if someone else has one, it's dodgy.
If you tell a personal experience then it's valid, but if someone else gives their personal experience it's a tall tale.

That. Pretty much. Not sure why you hsve an issue with it.

It has been what you were defending for the last page and a half.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Same thing.

So now video evidence is an "internal script"?

 

[drop bear]

So now video evidence is an "internal script"?

Yeah. It falls under the same umbrella as "facts" and "physics"

You know when you use a word like "evidence" and there is no actual evidence.

And that is a fact. Because of physics.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. It falls under the same umbrella as "facts" and "physics"

You know when you use a word like "evidence" and there is no actual evidence.

And that is a fact. Because of physics.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse again. I'll join you in another conversation when you're ready to talk something other than belligerent nonsense.

 

[drop bear]

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse again. I'll join you in another conversation when you're ready to talk something other than belligerent nonsense.

Insults wont really work on me. I dont have a very fragile ego.

 

[jks9199]

Perhaps, just maybe, we can drop the crap and baiting each other and go back to actually discussing the original topic. Before someone has to like go all moderator and issue points...

Yeah, that's a warning. I'm involved in the thread, so I've kicked it to the other staff for review.

 

[Kickboxer101]

I've read the last 2 pages of this thread and honestly it's ridiculous certain people who are meant to be experts are dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage. Any real martial artist shouldn't be dismissing anyone or any style. This thread is a guy asking for help based on his training and now all he's getting is an argument.

 

[drop bear]

I've read the last 2 pages of this thread and honestly it's ridiculous certain people who are meant to be experts are dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage. Any real martial artist shouldn't be dismissing anyone or any style. This thread is a guy asking for help based on his training and now all he's getting is an argument.

No.

The last two pages. (and the bulk of the thread). Is about misconceptions as it relates to self defence especially.

Because there is no end result for self defence. There are no fights. There are no tests. And the instructors performance is never put to task. The training relies a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability.

So people are less concerned about what works in the training room and more concerned about what works in the street.

And there is no street. There is no well if it was concrete and eye gouging it would have worked.

There is you getting dumped on your butt in training while trying to dump them on theirs. That is where the reality is.

Your reputation of a thousand street fights won't help. The black belt,military record or whatever doesn't make you more durable. Being more durable does.

And all of that occurs in the reality of your training hall. Not in the fiction of the street.

And people wonder why i shake my head at stories.

 

[Kickboxer101]

No.

The last two pages. (and the bulk of the thread). Is about misconceptions as it relates to self defence especially.

Because there is no end result for self defence. There are no fights. There are no tests. And the instructors performance is never put to task. The training relies a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability.

So people are less concerned about what works in the training room and more concerned about what works in the street.

And there is no street. There is no well if it was concrete and eye gouging it would have worked.

There is you getting dumped on your butt in training while trying to dump them on theirs. That is where the reality is.

Your reputation of a thousand street fights won't help. The black belt,military record or whatever doesn't make you more durable. Being more durable does.

And all of that occurs in the reality of your training hall. Not in the fiction of the street.

And people wonder why i shake my head at stories.

This is my point exactly I wasn't even saying anything about any style yet you still jump to your styles defence

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No.

The last two pages. (and the bulk of the thread). Is about misconceptions as it relates to self defence especially.

Because there is no end result for self defence. There are no fights. There are no tests. And the instructors performance is never put to task. The training relies a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability.

So people are less concerned about what works in the training room and more concerned about what works in the street.

And there is no street. There is no well if it was concrete and eye gouging it would have worked.

There is you getting dumped on your butt in training while trying to dump them on theirs. That is where the reality is.

Your reputation of a thousand street fights won't help. The black belt,military record or whatever doesn't make you more durable. Being more durable does.

And all of that occurs in the reality of your training hall. Not in the fiction of the street.

And people wonder why i shake my head at stories.

Most of that is a strawman argument, DB. Let me present the counter to as many as I can without losing my train of thought:

We do our best to present realistic attacks, with reasonable intent (within the bounds of safety) to test the techniques and the students' ability to use them. My students challenge my approach on a regular basis. I encourage them to think for themselves and to ask both "why would you do that" and "why wouldn't you do this instead". And if they have a point, we experiment.

I have no idea what you mean by "a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability". That's a too-general statement to even reply to. If you give some specifics, I'll happily point out which I agree with (it happens) and which I disagree with, at least for my program and those I've been involved with.

There is, in fact, a street. It's a term used to refer to the world where real attacks may occur, as opposed to what goes on inside the training space or competitive space. And yes, some techniques won't be very devastating on mats, but will be on concrete - do you really want to take a fall on concrete? Or is there perhaps a reason why we train on mats? As for eye-gouging, it is an over-used argument, often by people trying to dismiss the skill involved in ground-fighting in arts like BJJ. That said, the chance of being attacked by a blue belt or higher in BJJ is pretty danged slim, so eye gouges might in fact solve some of the attacks by those less-trained. But I wouldn't count on it.

The idea that an attack will look anything like what happens in the ring, or in sparring in school, is a fallacy for the vast majority of attacks. That's what the video evidence shows us. We need that competitive bit - trying to take each other down - to hone skills needed for the street (yep, there's that word), but it's not the be-all and end-all of training or validation. To train for other types of attacks, we have to deliver those other types of attacks, including those we (being trained) wouldn't personally choose, because video evidence shows us that some attackers do choose them. And there are responses we can realistically expect NOT to see (flying triangles, BJJ grounded arm-bar are a couple that come to mind), because it's simply unlikely someone with the actual ability to pull those off will be attacking on the street. Those are largely fiction as far as street defense is concerned.

You're creating a false dichotomy between SD training and competition training. The only difference should be the context it's training for. If I were a seasoned MMA fighter and wanted to train folks for SD, I could review the available evidence, maybe take a few SD-oriented seminars to pick up some training ideas (both what looks useful and what looks sketchy), and then weed out a few techniques and defenses that are specific to competition. Then I'd simply make a few changes to how I train people and go about business. It's not nearly so big a difference as you imply, if you start from the same base.

 

[drop bear]

This is my point exactly I wasn't even saying anything about any style yet you still jump to your styles defence

Really? quote that bit for us please.

I can quote this.

"dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage."

Where you are getting style specific. and then direct you to the first page of the thread where everything I have referenced has been outside the cage.

 

[drop bear]

We do our best to present realistic attacks, with reasonable intent (within the bounds of safety) to test the techniques and the students' ability to use them. My students challenge my approach on a regular basis. I encourage them to think for themselves and to ask both "why would you do that" and "why wouldn't you do this instead". And if they have a point, we experiment.

which is good.

I have no idea what you mean by "a whole bunch of baggage that detracts from gaining fighting ability". That's a too-general statement to even reply to. If you give some specifics, I'll happily point out which I agree with (it happens) and which I disagree with, at least for my program and those I've been involved with.

Ok. specifically. You train sd techniques. But you cant really train them against people from the same club because they dont give the correct responses. So you have to train people to give pretend responses. which means you can only train resisted with guys who are only pretending to stop you. And all of that is based on some sort of assumption that is how a person will react in a different environment. Based on videos and mabye some anecdotal evidence.

add that to techniques you cant even train resisted because they cripple your partner.

And that becomes the lynch pin to your effective fighting.

And what you are left with is a system basde on a whole buch of guess work. Which is a whole bunch of baggaged compared to just two guys wreslting rolling or punching each other.

There is, in fact, a street. It's a term used to refer to the world where real attacks may occur, as opposed to what goes on inside the training space or competitive space. And yes, some techniques won't be very devastating on mats, but will be on concrete - do you really want to take a fall on concrete? Or is there perhaps a reason why we train on mats? As for eye-gouging, it is an over-used argument, often by people trying to dismiss the skill involved in ground-fighting in arts like BJJ. That said, the chance of being attacked by a blue belt or higher in BJJ is pretty danged slim, so eye gouges might in fact solve some of the attacks by those less-trained. But I wouldn't count on it.

Your training ground is the real world. The concrete does not help you defend takedowns. Takedown defence helps you defend takedowns.

You dont need training in eyegouging to successfully eye gouge. It is like saying you need to train to make a fist. (Ok sometimes you do but it 10% of your focus) Training in striking and grappling makes you good at eyegouging.

The idea that an attack will look anything like what happens in the ring, or in sparring in school, is a fallacy for the vast majority of attacks. That's what the video evidence shows us. We need that competitive bit - trying to take each other down - to hone skills needed for the street (yep, there's that word), but it's not the be-all and end-all of training or validation. To train for other types of attacks, we have to deliver those other types of attacks, including those we (being trained) wouldn't personally choose, because video evidence shows us that some attackers do choose them. And there are responses we can realistically expect NOT to see (flying triangles, BJJ grounded arm-bar are a couple that come to mind), because it's simply unlikely someone with the actual ability to pull those off will be attacking on the street. Those are largely fiction as far as street defense is concerned.

So we start from an internal scrip. An attack wont look like a sparring match because of "video evidence" And there is no evidence that comes with this statement. I am pretty sure I was the only person who showed actual video evidence of real attacks.

Remeber about baggage and stories?

You may not see BJJ flying triangles but. You will see. (And people forget the topic) MMA punching, kicking, takedowns and punching guys on the deck. The bulk of what someone should be training in self defence. It is a different sport. There are different emphasis on training time.

You're creating a false dichotomy between SD training and competition training. The only difference should be the context it's training for. If I were a seasoned MMA fighter and wanted to train folks for SD, I could review the available evidence, maybe take a few SD-oriented seminars to pick up some training ideas (both what looks useful and what looks sketchy), and then weed out a few techniques and defenses that are specific to competition. Then I'd simply make a few changes to how I train people and go about business. It's not nearly so big a difference as you imply, if you start from the same base.

Correct. But my argument is for the people who start from the same base. If you punched kicked and grappled well in that basic resisted manner and then applied that to self defence specific circumstances you would have a self defence system.

The training is different.

 

[Kickboxer101]

Really? quote that bit for us please.

I can quote this.

"dismissing styles and calling them useless because those techniques aren't used in a cage."

Where you are getting style specific. and then direct you to the first page of the thread where everything I have referenced has been outside the cage.

Who said I was talking about you