conversation is sparring not kata.

[drop bear]

Tony already covered this pretty thoroughly, but to put it very simply, I'd say that forms, as I train them, are not unlike verbal recitation, while sparring is comparable to debate. Both are valid methods of learning. Verbally, recitation of great works provides a model to follow, while debate allows us to engage with others and test our ideas and logic against theirs. My training requires both methods ...and others as well.

yeah but on the internet if you are treating the conversation like kata. You are basically patronising people.

this conversation we are exploring an idea. You are not patiently educating me. I am not educating you.

seriously. How demeaning is that phrase.

some people don't like kata. And you don't have to do be a martial artist.

 

[Buka]

I think some of you guys just like to fight with each other. But that's me.

 

[drop bear]

Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion. Not everyone's opinion is correct however. If you opinion is every other style is inferior to yours because you can't find a clip in youtube if that style in the "cage" then you spend all your time going from subsection to subsection of this forum asking why do we see _________style in the cage we see BJJ in the cage but not ___________. Well your opinion is wrong.

if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.

and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point.

eg. The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage. But apparently that is not the real knee exploding kick that is successful in the street

so i got educated on a kick that nobody had thrown successfully.

the cage reference is valid. There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.

 

[drop bear]

I think some of you guys just like to fight with each other. But that's me.

I do.

i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported. I want my martial arts to work. And that means sometimes getting punched in the face.

 

[drop bear]

I agree, DB speaks from a different level of experience that several of us than have participated in these discussions. Does he have the right to voice his opinion? Sure. I would ask though, at what point is a person voicing his opinion and at what point is he simply trolling? I believe that is a valid question. DB and Hanzou severely lack experience in this area. That isn't condescending, and I've made that point clear in the past. It is observation. I severely lack experience in how points are scored in Thailand during a MT match, therefore I'm not going to start a dozen threads about it. If I were truly interested I would start ONE thread and allow those that are familiar with it educate me on the way points are scored. Then I'd say thank you for the education.

This isn't the case here.



I quite agree.


On this I respectfully disagree in one regard. I agree it is pointless to argue with someone with a closed mind. However, this thread will be read by more people than just him and Hanzou. Of these people, some will be quite open minded and desire to look into the matter on a deeper level. This will enhance their own training considerably. It is for the benefit of these folks that I will enter the thread. If at some point DB and/or Hanzou truly wish to expand their knowledge base on kata (and a few other topics) then I will gladly assist them as I can. I have nothing against them, only the inane comments with no factual basis.



On the parts of some I quite agree. But not for all parties involved. For example, one may claim that kata training is not an efficient way to train for realworld self-defense. However, if someone that uses kata as a basis for realworld self-defense, and has been successful int that regard for decades, and clearly expresses this information, it is not ego-driven, it is factually based. If on the other hand the original person who made the statement, with no real world experience in this regard still makes the erroneous claim, it is now ego-drive and not factually based. Quite a difference.

Either DB wants to know more about kata training and why it is effective or he doesn't. If he is interested he need only reread the multitude of threads already devoted to the subject and them respectfully ask any question he may have to gain clarity. If he's not interested...then why is this yet another thread on the same thing with a different title? I think that is a valid question.

Do let's ask the question and see what the answer may be. This would be for DB as well as Hanzou. Are either of you truly interested in kata (as in what it is, how it is used and why it is so effective a training method)? Honest, straight-forward question. Can we hear what your response is please?

i see the point of kata. I know good fighters who do it and have had a reasonable practical explanation why. I don't like it and find other methods.

your explanation that sparring is detrimental because it does not reflect a fight. Is hanzou,s explanation of why kata is detrimental.

And i have disagreed with both of you on this subject.

you cant keep the logic that sparring is not realistic but kata is. That just does not make sense.

and that is basically how you lost me regarding respectfully asking your opinion on kata and its effectiveness.

 

[Transk53]

I do.

i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported. I want my martial arts to work. And that means sometimes getting punched in the face.

Yeah, but not on the internet though

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, but not on the internet though

it a metaphor.

and if people really believed that we wouldn't have arguments.

i think there may be some subjectivity regarding that.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.

Are you seriously going to suggest to the membership of Martial Talk that if a video of what they do isn't on Youtube then it has no evidence to support its validity? If you need to go to Youtube for your training philosophy then I truly feel sorry for you. You're not going to find a lot, if anything on YT concerning all the elements of SPEAR, PCR or Boatman edged weapon defense. Yet a multitude of government entities (i.e. Police & Military) use the full system (or selected elements of the full system depending upon their needs) very successfully. In fact, I've discussed the statistical efficiency of several of these systems here in the past, the method of training and the retention in long term memory.

I will take departmental efficiency statistics for real world altercations over randomly chosen YT videos.

and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point.

I've asked you in the past, respectfully, to use capitalization, punctuation and complete sentences. You get offended. But if you're going to take the time to write something, and then expect someone to take the time to read it...then have some respect for the person reading it. The above is just ONE example of a fragmented sentence that makes no sense. I'm not going to assume what you're trying to say, I expect you to be able to express yourself in an adult fashion using correct grammar. That isn't too much to ask of anyone. Capitalization, punctuation and complete sentences are your friend and show you respect the person reading. An occasional misspelled word is to be expected.

There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.

Many sporting fights get recorded. The vast number of real world altercations do not get recorded. Sporting fights are scheduled ahead of time and have many cameras and angles and good lighting etc. An attack in a parking lot or alley or car isn't scheduled and if it is caught on video it is the exception and not the rule. Let me repeat so the point isn't lost on you; the vast number of real world altercations (be it military, police or private citizen) are not on a YT video. Looking to YT as your sole means of credibility is pure ignorance in the extreme.

The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage.

Because you lack real world experience and the means to research statistically proven techniques. I like YT, I really do. But it is not the bastion of knowledge you'd like it to be.

i see the point of kata. I know good fighters who do it and have had a reasonable practical explanation why. I don't like it and find other methods.

No, I don't think you see or understand the point of kata despite the fact it has been explained, in detail, numerous times by a multitude of members. You betray you motives with your statement that you don't like kata. That's fine, you don't have to like it. You don't have to train using kata. But your dislike and misunderstanding is not a basis for creating multiple threads on the same thing in a vain attempt to justify your decision. If you don't like kata...and if you don't want to learn it's benefits...then stop creating so many threads about it. You're only demonstrating your lack of understanding.

your explanation that sparring is detrimental because it does not reflect a fight.

You clearly have NO understanding of what has been explained to you multiple times, in several threads. Once again, you're being dishonest and disingenuous.

i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported.

Yes, you really are.

you cant keep the logic that sparring is not realistic but kata is. That just does not make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Sparring (in the manner you have previously described) requires:

• A referee
• A mutually agreed upon rule set
• A single opponent
• No weapons (improvised or conventional)
  
• No verbal de-escalation
• No opportunity for escape or evasion
• A well-lit, flat, dry surface
• Safety gear

A kata, when broken down into bunkai:

• Can be used without a referee
• Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use
• Can be against a single or multiple attackers
• Can often be used regardless of the position of the victim and attacker(s)
• The bunkai can be used with scenario based training that allows more real world factors to be inserted for realism i.e. looking for pre-fight indicators, opportunity to de-escalate, diffuse, evade, escape the situation
• Can be trained anywhere, at anytime on any terrain and in any condition

So which one is more realistic for the street? Seriously. If your training requires you to observe a specific rule set in training....and requires the opponent to abide by the same rule set...and limits to a weaponless one-on-one sparring match inside a school....well that's just not realistic now is it.

Sparring can be one limited element of training, but that's all it is. It in no way, shape or form prepares you for the totality of a real world attack. Kata training....proper kata training (not to be confused with the cookie-cutter/learn a kata for the next colored belt/class filler variety) can be a more widely useful training tool since it does NOT require either party to subscribe to a specific rule set and has the flexibility to be tailored extensively to realistic training.

Do you NEED kata? Nope. Kata is merely a catalog of training drills (bunkai). Do you need sparring? Nope. To limited if that is the ONLY tool you use. I DON'T spar (in the way your many YT videos have displayed) and my 'record' over three decades indicates I'm not missing a thing.

This boils down to sparring vs. scenario based training (again). Sparring is great for sport because the elements and focus are limited. Sparring is NOT great for self defense because the elements and focus are limited. Scenario based training is great for self defense because it mirrors real world events far better in the totality of what is needed. Scenario based training is NOT great for sport for the same reason. Kata training (proper kata training) when broken down into bunkai (proper bunkai training) can be inserted quite efficiently into scenario based training.

So the bottom line take home message is this:

• If you don't understand real kata training, and have no inclination to learn real kata training....don't do it
• If you think sparring is the ultimate training tool...do it
• If you think YT is your ultimate guru...surf it instead of actually training
• If you don't want to hear other people's experience, training or perspective...don't post threads

But above all, have a nice day. I'm going to go 'get down with my bad self'. Peace out.

 

[Transk53]

Are you seriously going to suggest to the membership of Martial Talk that if a video of what they do isn't on Youtube then it has no evidence to support its validity?..............

.......................If you don't want to hear other people's experience, training or perspective...don't post threads. But above all, have a nice day. I'm going to go 'get down with my bad self'. Peace out.

Well that is more than a definitive answer. The answer!

 

[drop bear]

Are you seriously going to suggest to the membership of Martial Talk that if a video of what they do isn't on Youtube then it has no evidence to support its validity? If you need to go to Youtube for your training philosophy then I truly feel sorry for you. You're not going to find a lot, if anything on YT concerning all the elements of SPEAR, PCR or Boatman edged weapon defense. Yet a multitude of government entities (i.e. Police & Military) use the full system (or selected elements of the full system depending upon their needs) very successfully. In fact, I've discussed the statistical efficiency of several of these systems here in the past, the method of training and the retention in long term memory.

I will take departmental efficiency statistics for real world altercations over randomly chosen YT videos.



I've asked you in the past, respectfully, to use capitalization, punctuation and complete sentences. You get offended. But if you're going to take the time to write something, and then expect someone to take the time to read it...then have some respect for the person reading it. The above is just ONE example of a fragmented sentence that makes no sense. I'm not going to assume what you're trying to say, I expect you to be able to express yourself in an adult fashion using correct grammar. That isn't too much to ask of anyone. Capitalization, punctuation and complete sentences are your friend and show you respect the person reading. An occasional misspelled word is to be expected.



Many sporting fights get recorded. The vast number of real world altercations do not get recorded. Sporting fights are scheduled ahead of time and have many cameras and angles and good lighting etc. An attack in a parking lot or alley or car isn't scheduled and if it is caught on video it is the exception and not the rule. Let me repeat so the point isn't lost on you; the vast number of real world altercations (be it military, police or private citizen) are not on a YT video. Looking to YT as your sole means of credibility is pure ignorance in the extreme.



Because you lack real world experience and the means to research statistically proven techniques. I like YT, I really do. But it is not the bastion of knowledge you'd like it to be.



No, I don't think you see or understand the point of kata despite the fact it has been explained, in detail, numerous times by a multitude of members. You betray you motives with your statement that you don't like kata. That's fine, you don't have to like it. You don't have to train using kata. But your dislike and misunderstanding is not a basis for creating multiple threads on the same thing in a vain attempt to justify your decision. If you don't like kata...and if you don't want to learn it's benefits...then stop creating so many threads about it. You're only demonstrating your lack of understanding.



You clearly have NO understanding of what has been explained to you multiple times, in several threads. Once again, you're being dishonest and disingenuous.



Yes, you really are.



It makes perfect sense. Sparring (in the manner you have previously described) requires:

• A referee
• A mutually agreed upon rule set
• A single opponent
• No weapons (improvised or conventional)
  
• No verbal de-escalation
• No opportunity for escape or evasion
• A well-lit, flat, dry surface
• Safety gear

A kata, when broken down into bunkai:

• Can be used without a referee
• Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use
• Can be against a single or multiple attackers
• Can often be used regardless of the position of the victim and attacker(s)
• The bunkai can be used with scenario based training that allows more real world factors to be inserted for realism i.e. looking for pre-fight indicators, opportunity to de-escalate, diffuse, evade, escape the situation
• Can be trained anywhere, at anytime on any terrain and in any condition

So which one is more realistic for the street? Seriously. If your training requires you to observe a specific rule set in training....and requires the opponent to abide by the same rule set...and limits to a weaponless one-on-one sparring match inside a school....well that's just not realistic now is it.

Sparring can be one limited element of training, but that's all it is. It in no way, shape or form prepares you for the totality of a real world attack. Kata training....proper kata training (not to be confused with the cookie-cutter/learn a kata for the next colored belt/class filler variety) can be a more widely useful training tool since it does NOT require either party to subscribe to a specific rule set and has the flexibility to be tailored extensively to realistic training.

Do you NEED kata? Nope. Kata is merely a catalog of training drills (bunkai). Do you need sparring? Nope. To limited if that is the ONLY tool you use. I DON'T spar (in the way your many YT videos have displayed) and my 'record' over three decades indicates I'm not missing a thing.

This boils down to sparring vs. scenario based training (again). Sparring is great for sport because the elements and focus are limited. Sparring is NOT great for self defense because the elements and focus are limited. Scenario based training is great for self defense because it mirrors real world events far better in the totality of what is needed. Scenario based training is NOT great for sport for the same reason. Kata training (proper kata training) when broken down into bunkai (proper bunkai training) can be inserted quite efficiently into scenario based training.

So the bottom line take home message is this:

• If you don't understand real kata training, and have no inclination to learn real kata training....don't do it
• If you think sparring is the ultimate training tool...do it
• If you think YT is your ultimate guru...surf it instead of actually training
• If you don't want to hear other people's experience, training or perspective...don't post threads

But above all, have a nice day. I'm going to go 'get down with my bad self'. Peace out.

sparring has been proven as an effective self defence tool.

because there are documented accounts of sports trained being effective in self defence. Which for some reason you continue to ignore.

so again you have lost me.

sorry your conclusions don't add up.

 

[drop bear]

Kong soo do.

"•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"

This would be a description of kata?

 

[RTKDCMB]

if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.

That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?

and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point

What makes you think non-competitive martial arts are not evidence based? That argument sounds familiar.

eg. The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage. But apparently that is not the real knee exploding kick that is successful in the street

Did the person getting kicked get his or her leg broken? If not then it was not the knee exploding kick you speak of.

so i got educated on a kick that nobody had thrown successfully.

That you know of.

the cage reference is valid. There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.

The cage reference is valid for a sport, its validity is somewhat reduced for self defense. Context is important.

 

[drop bear]

The cage reference is valid for a sport, its validity is somewhat reduced for self defense. Context is important.

ok read that last statement. Then apply your first one.

"That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?"

and you will understand where i am suggesting that people may not be applying evidence to their training.

 

[RTKDCMB]

ok read that last statement. Then apply your first one.

"That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?"

and you will understand where i am suggesting that people may not be applying evidence to their training.

So, as you see it, it is harder to find evidence that satisfies you that self defense arts work for self defense than it is to find evidence that competitive arts work in competition because they are more likely to be put on video. it is like wanting to find evidence that a speedboat works well in the water by trying to use it on dry land. Self defense arts are not faith based like you probably think, they just have different standards of evidence.

 

[drop bear]

So, as you see it, it is harder to find evidence that satisfies you that self defense arts work for self defense than it is to find evidence that competitive arts work in competition because they are more likely to be put on video. it is like wanting to find evidence that a speedboat works well in the water by trying to use it on dry land. Self defense arts are not faith based like you probably think, they just have different standards of evidence.

sort of this quote from a master trainer explains the concept a bit better.

Zahabi:" Then how do you know them? I’ll tell you one thing: Look at when man was trying to fly. People jumped off buildings because they believed so much that their device would work. The first man who attempted to fly jumped off a building and broke his back. Theory is one thing, but you haven’t been cross examined yet, and that’s the beauty of philosophy. People ask me, “Why did you get a degree in philosophy? What’re you going to do with that?” I use my degree every single day, because it taught me how to cross examine and test the truth value of any statement. To say that to punch one way or to punch another way or to attack you this way is better than another is a truth statement. We have to cross examine it. If I tell you, “Get in this airplane.” You ask, “Has it been tested?” “No, but don’t worry, the guy who made it is 100 percent sure it’s going to work.” “Well, what’s the guy’s background? How many planes has he made before?” “First time, but he thinks he knows.” “Has it been tested?” “No, no testing.” I wouldn’t get in that plane; and it’s crazy, because even when we’re testing things, still one in a million times something happens that you never saw coming. Fighting is the same way, man. It’s very hard to control. There are so many factors. Anything can happen in a fight, so to understand the chaos of fighting and the millions of variables, you have to taste them, taste the action itself. Bruce Lee said, “If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water.” He said that. He was a philosopher. He was a thinker. He understood the importance of experience."

 

[Chris Parker]

How do you think, Chris? You're a bright guy.

Look, I know how this is going to read, and really, that's probably going to be a fair assessment, but yeah, I'm a bright guy. Frankly, a lot more intelligent than you seem to understand… and I get what you think you were saying. But I wanted you to specifically answer the question… I wanted you to enunciate what you were meaning… not get me to read into your little snide dig. Which, I note, you added to… with even more passive aggression.

Steve, I heartily recommend you stop thinking you can read into what's being said, and just read what's actually being said. You've been assigning motives to a number recently, and you've been fairly off-base consistently. It doesn't help.

But, that said, I was going to leave geezer's post as it stood… but, if you're going to think it's accurate and applies to my posting, then we should take a look at it… specifically with regards to myself, and my posts.

@ Drop Bear: There is sparring between buddies or well intentioned acquaintances directed at both parties learning from the experience. Then again, there are those occasions when you enter into what you think will be such a productive session, and your opponent has such an attitude of disdain for your skill and experience that you can either continue and engage in a fight, or bow out and seek another partner to work with.

So, here's the problem with this idea.

What you've presented there is two extremes, and sure, they can fit sparring in a class… but they don't necessarily equate to conversation at all… which is the actual premise of the thread. The first scenario, yeah… but the second isn't a conversation… it's kinda the opposite, really. But, more importantly, we should take this to the context of the thread.

You talk about entering into "what you think will be a such a productive session"… which is really the last thing that drop bear could have thought this would be. He's brought the idea of "conversation equals sparring" up a number of times before… and each time, he's been informed (again and again) that, no, it's not. He expressed his idea as involving the idea of "smashing" or "crushing" his "opponent's" (in conversation), as that's his take on what conversation (sparring) is, or is meant to be. It's not meant to be a productive session… he has almost literally said that he only wants to beat people down with his take on things, and expects others to respond in kind (he mentioned that he learns by being beaten down). You then continue to say that the other person (the opponent), having such an attitude of "disdain for your skill and experience", makes it a "fight"… to which he can bow out and seek another person to work with.

No.

Drop bears very idea, by his own definition, is combative. That's how he's seeing "conversation" here. And it's far from my having any attitude of "disdain for his skill and experience", it's that the very premise is incorrect, not to mention destructive to the aims of the forum. And, as far as him leaving to "work with another", that's really not a solution either, as it denies the very reality of the situation.

On a thread when someone responds to your OP with, "Oh, dear lord..." I would guess that you are dealing with the verbal equivalent of the second scenario above. Really not worth pursuing. You won't "win", and the thread will go down the toilet.

No, he's not dealing with the second scenario, he's dealing with someone having to repeat the same damn thing again, as he's refusing to let yet another incorrect idea go. It's got nothing to do with "winning" or anything of the kind… and, as far as the direction of the thread, you did notice that the OP itself has 5 negative ratings, yeah? It was heading in that direction from before the first response.

hey, geezer. You were right. Should we continue the metaphor by discussing the dangers of unchecked ego within sparring?

No, Steve, you shouldn't. As, well, it's completely irrelevant, and again a case of you reading things that aren't actually present.

Great post, geezer.

It's been my experience that both sides have valid points. Where opinions and experiences are involved, it's very possible to have contradictory opinions that are both 'right'.

It's also equally possible that the person observing has so little understanding that they think both are equally "right"… when, frankly, that couldn't be further from the truth.

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some opinions are better grounded in fact than others. But there are plenty of times around here where two informed, fact based opinions are completely opposite Nd neither is wrong or all right.

An example, if you would?

This stuff, right here. Turns sparring into a real lesson. LOL

Not quite following you there… what sparring is going on, and what "real lesson" has it turned into?

yeah but on the internet if you are treating the conversation like kata. You are basically patronising people.

Who is "treating the conversation like kata"?!?! Seriously, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean…

this conversation we are exploring an idea. You are not patiently educating me. I am not educating you.

Well, you not getting educated is certainly true… but no, we're not exploring an idea… you presented one in your OP that you'd presented before, been corrected on, had the correction clarified, you brought up again, were corrected again, and you have now decided to make into a thread itself… since then, it's turned into yet another "kata is good, no it isn't" thread… which, bluntly, isn't anything to do with the OP or topic, other than you showing (again) in your OP that you don't get kata.

We've tried educating you. You don't seem to be interested in it.

seriously. How demeaning is that phrase.

Not at all, I'd say.

some people don't like kata. And you don't have to do be a martial artist.

Er… yeah… again, nothing really to do with anything here…

if your system is superior because of "the street" and then cant even find evidence of it working youtube or otherwise. Then there is no evidence to support your position.

You're kidding, right?

There are many, many forms of evidence… in fact, there is a hierarchy of evidence… ranging from first-hand, to witness reports, experiential, testing of theories and hypotheses, circumstantial, contextual, and so on. Having something on you-tube is not necessarily even close to the better end of the scale, if it can be considered "evidence" at all (which will depend entirely on the content itself).

In other words, absolute garbage. You don't have the first clue about what evidence actually is.

and training for a million years if you don't train evidence based doesn't support a point.

Was that even meant to be a sentence? Or just a random assortment of concepts that you think have some connection? What point is meant to be "supported"? What does "evidence based" mean? Especially if you don't understand what can constitute evidence in the first place?

eg. The only example of kicking out a guys knee i found is in the cage. But apparently that is not the real knee exploding kick that is successful in the street

Yeah… you completely missed everything you were being told there… again…

so i got educated on a kick that nobody had thrown successfully.

No, you had a range of aspects, ideas, and more explained to you… I wouldn't say you got educated, though… and as far as "nobody had thrown successfully", is there anything to support that? Or are you simply taking the very small sample here as indicative of all attempts and applications ever, combining with your own lack of ability to see beyond the preconceived notions you already hold?

the cage reference is valid. There are a lot of fights that all get recorded. Those fights then get dissected and examined. It is a resource we have not really had before. And discounting that is pure ignorance.

Wow… no. To all of that. Just no.

The cage reference is only valid for the context of the cage (sport). Who gives a damn if they all get recorded… so do all professional football games… does that mean that no-one does anything in any football game not recorded didn't happen, as it wasn't recorded and dissected? A resource we have not really had before? Are you kidding me? What do you think kata are, if not a dissection of such things? Do you want me to quote Homer's The Iliad, and it's dissection and recording of the fight between Achilles and Hector? Do we discuss the examination of the battles of history from Tacticus onwards?

Pure ignorance, you say? Care to try again?

I do.

Then, once again, you're in the wrong place. I heartily recommend you either re-assess your take on communication, especially as it pertains to this forum ("friendly", remember…), or recognise that this is not the place to go around trying to start fights. Especially not the place to openly admit that that's what you're doing.

i am not here to have my opinions artificially supported. I want my martial arts to work. And that means sometimes getting punched in the face.

Your opinions are artificially supported. What you can get here is the opportunity to put your opinions and beliefs up against the knowledge, opinions, experience, understanding, and insight of a much larger pool than you could hope to attain on your own… in order to assess whether or not your opinions hold up, or could benefit from re-examination.

And it's great that you want your martial arts to work… you're hardly alone there… but, one more time, to "work" is a less-than-precise concept… it's highly contextually dependant. There isn't anything that's equally applicable ("works") in all contexts. I'll deal with the last sentence in a bit.

i see the point of kata. I know good fighters who do it and have had a reasonable practical explanation why. I don't like it and find other methods.

Honestly, I don't think you do see the point… or, more accurately, I don't think you understand the value and relevance to it. Which, really, is fine… you don't have to get it, or like it. Of course, telling people that what they're doing doesn't work when you don't understand it doesn't make you many friends…

your explanation that sparring is detrimental because it does not reflect a fight. Is hanzou,s explanation of why kata is detrimental.

Hanzou was wrong. It's really that simple.

But, here's the thing… both he and you are looking at the wrong aspect to find where a real encounter is reflected in kata.

And i have disagreed with both of you on this subject.

Right.

you cant keep the logic that sparring is not realistic but kata is. That just does not make sense.

Yes, it does. You don't understand it… which is not the same thing as it not making sense, you realise.

and that is basically how you lost me regarding respectfully asking your opinion on kata and its effectiveness.

Because you couldn't grasp what you were being told? Okay…

it a metaphor.

Sure… but it's also completely out of place here.

Look, the biggest issue here is that you're advocating a method of communication that flatly goes against the beliefs, aims, and ideals of this forum. If you want to treat all communication as a sparring match, looking to "smash or get smashed", looking to get metaphorically "punched in the face", you are seriously, seriously in the wrong place.

and if people really believed that we wouldn't have arguments.

No.

i think there may be some subjectivity regarding that.

Sure… but not so much when it comes to the forum here.

sparring has been proven as an effective self defence tool.

No, it hasn't. The best you can say is that sparring is an aspect, or part of the training methodology of some systems that have claimed some success in self defence… when it comes to the hierarchy of evidence, it's largely circumstantial, and would be classed as "post hoc ergo propter hoc", in a legal sense ("after it, therefore because of it", implying that while a connection is sometimes noticed, it is not a genuine causation relationship).

because there are documented accounts of sports trained being effective in self defence. Which for some reason you continue to ignore.

And there are plenty of documented cases of non-sporting systems, even non-sparring systems being effective in self defence… which, for some reason you continue to ignore.

so again you have lost me.

Yes… I could see we had… (okay, maybe you need to hear that in Tim Roth's voice from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead…)

sorry your conclusions don't add up.

Yes, they do. Yours, on the other hand, are relying on a biased viewpoint from the outset, combined with an abject denial of anything anyone else has tried to explain to you.

Kong soo do.

"•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"

This would be a description of kata?

Yes, it certainly can be.

ok read that last statement. Then apply your first one.

"That is an entirely unreasonable criteria for the standard of evidence.You do realize that most martial artists do not go around challenging people to fights to record them for YouTube or walk round with camera crews just in case someone attacks them right?"

and you will understand where i am suggesting that people may not be applying evidence to their training.

No. What I can see is a lack of understanding of what constitutes evidence, how that evidence is rated, how it is applied, what it is applied to, and more.

To put it simply, there are many forms of evidence that you seem completely unwilling to recognise, and only a small, biased, and flawed form that you do.

sort of this quote from a master trainer explains the concept a bit better.

Zahabi:" Then how do you know them? I’ll tell you one thing: Look at when man was trying to fly. People jumped off buildings because they believed so much that their device would work. The first man who attempted to fly jumped off a building and broke his back. Theory is one thing, but you haven’t been cross examined yet, and that’s the beauty of philosophy. People ask me, “Why did you get a degree in philosophy? What’re you going to do with that?” I use my degree every single day, because it taught me how to cross examine and test the truth value of any statement. To say that to punch one way or to punch another way or to attack you this way is better than another is a truth statement. We have to cross examine it. If I tell you, “Get in this airplane.” You ask, “Has it been tested?” “No, but don’t worry, the guy who made it is 100 percent sure it’s going to work.” “Well, what’s the guy’s background? How many planes has he made before?” “First time, but he thinks he knows.” “Has it been tested?” “No, no testing.” I wouldn’t get in that plane; and it’s crazy, because even when we’re testing things, still one in a million times something happens that you never saw coming. Fighting is the same way, man. It’s very hard to control. There are so many factors. Anything can happen in a fight, so to understand the chaos of fighting and the millions of variables, you have to taste them, taste the action itself. Bruce Lee said, “If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water.” He said that. He was a philosopher. He was a thinker. He understood the importance of experience."

Er… no, it doesn't. It's a reducto ad absurdum argument, and in and of itself, flawed. Oh, and as for the Bruce Lee comment… all I have to say to that is Theodor Kaluza…

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Kong soo do.

"•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"

This would be a description of kata?

No, it would not. It is the exact polar opposite. Why are you failing to understand what has been thoroughly described to you multiple times?

sparring has been proven as an effective self defence tool.

When used as I've described it can be effective. When used as you describe it can be a detriment. That's an established fact. And the word is defense...with an 's' and not a 'c'. When you get the squiggly red line underneath a word it means you misspelled the word. Unfortunately there is nothing to remind you to capitalize the first word in a sentence.

By the way, you claim to be a bouncer IIRC. Did you post videos of yourself using your sparring in a self defense situation yet? If so, I missed it. Could you post them again in your next reply? I'd like to see them.

 

[drop bear]

No, it would not. It is the exact polar opposite. Why are you failing to understand what has been thoroughly described to you multiple times?



When used as I've described it can be effective. When used as you describe it can be a detriment. That's an established fact. And the word is defense...with an 's' and not a 'c'. When you get the squiggly red line underneath a word it means you misspelled the word. Unfortunately there is nothing to remind you to capitalize the first word in a sentence.

By the way, you claim to be a bouncer IIRC. Did you post videos of yourself using your sparring in a self defense situation yet? If so, I missed it. Could you post them again in your next reply? I'd like to see them.

you cant ask for proof apparently because it is trolling.

all the incidents are at our office. Which i believe is the same proof you have.

i am not sure how the other arguments you made are really helpful.

 

[Transk53]

This is getting rediculas. Does every thread have to now turn into an argument. Obviously so!

 

[drop bear]

Kang so do you have said this.

"when used as I've described it can be effective. When used as you describe it can be a detriment. That's an established fact"

how exactly is it an established fact?