How appliable is aikido for self-defense?

[drop bear103]

Do you practice destructions?

Yes they are called joint locks done fast. Have you seen a double leg over arm bar done fast. that is a bodyweight rolling into a joint.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

Yes they are called joint locks done fast. Have you seen a double leg over arm bar done fast. that is a bodyweight rolling into a joint.

That doesn't make it a destruction, but it's a good example of a lock that can be used as a destruction. It's partly about intent. If you are specifically trianing it so it can be done fast WITHOUT destruction (as submissions are used), then you're training so it can be used reasonably safely in competition. That's a good thing, by the way, if you plan to compete. But the Arm Bar is a good example of a lock that can be used as a submission. There's a fairly long range of pain before any significant damage occurs. There are shoulder locks that do that, too. Here's the issue, though: we don't spend much time training those for submission. Can I use them that way? Sure. But probably about as well as a BJJ blue belt, because I'm more focused on how to apply it to actually injure. There's a difference in the approach, in where you want their weight, and in some other small considerations in the technique. Because I train to use it as a break, I'm not as good at using it to submit. Then, on top of that, I'm spending some attention to make sure I'm using it right to submit, so I will miss some of the openings you would probably see (both openings to do something else, and opening I've given to you).

There are some locks that, so far as I can tell, cannot be reasonably used for submission, because the difference between pain and break is too slight. Of course, for that very reason, you don't see these show up in competitions.

This isn't a personal thing. It's a technical thing. I practice for a context that's not the context you practice for. You should be better than me in your context. You have more tools that apply there (or, more to the point, fewer that don't apply there). You've practiced scenarios that are likely to occur in that context, and many of those haven't been a regular part of my practice, because I'm practicing scenarios that aren't likely to happen in that context.

 

[drop bear103]

That doesn't make it a destruction, but it's a good example of a lock that can be used as a destruction. It's partly about intent. If you are specifically trianing it so it can be done fast WITHOUT destruction (as submissions are used), then you're training so it can be used reasonably safely in competition. That's a good thing, by the way, if you plan to compete. But the Arm Bar is a good example of a lock that can be used as a submission. There's a fairly long range of pain before any significant damage occurs. There are shoulder locks that do that, too. Here's the issue, though: we don't spend much time training those for submission. Can I use them that way? Sure. But probably about as well as a BJJ blue belt, because I'm more focused on how to apply it to actually injure. There's a difference in the approach, in where you want their weight, and in some other small considerations in the technique. Because I train to use it as a break, I'm not as good at using it to submit. Then, on top of that, I'm spending some attention to make sure I'm using it right to submit, so I will miss some of the openings you would probably see (both openings to do something else, and opening I've given to you).

There are some locks that, so far as I can tell, cannot be reasonably used for submission, because the difference between pain and break is too slight. Of course, for that very reason, you don't see these show up in competitions.

This isn't a personal thing. It's a technical thing. I practice for a context that's not the context you practice for. You should be better than me in your context. You have more tools that apply there (or, more to the point, fewer that don't apply there). You've practiced scenarios that are likely to occur in that context, and many of those haven't been a regular part of my practice, because I'm practicing scenarios that aren't likely to happen in that context.

For 20 years I practiced to beat the tar out of people bouncing. And have broken limbs In really real fights. And can still train with a guy without crippling him.

I train with pro fighters. Ex soldiers. Police And people who could cripple me if they chose to. And they train for the ring. Or for the street. And some of them for war. And they can train without crippiling each other.

What context do you train for that requires you to be such a finely tuned hurtin, machine?

There are no more Akido guys training for self defence as there are guys from any other style. Never has been. There are no more Akido guys with any more real self defence experience than any other style. Also never has been.

 

[Tony Dismukes103]

That doesn't make it a destruction, but it's a good example of a lock that can be used as a destruction. It's partly about intent. If you are specifically trianing it so it can be done fast WITHOUT destruction (as submissions are used), then you're training so it can be used reasonably safely in competition. That's a good thing, by the way, if you plan to compete. But the Arm Bar is a good example of a lock that can be used as a submission. There's a fairly long range of pain before any significant damage occurs. There are shoulder locks that do that, too. Here's the issue, though: we don't spend much time training those for submission. Can I use them that way? Sure. But probably about as well as a BJJ blue belt, because I'm more focused on how to apply it to actually injure. There's a difference in the approach, in where you want their weight, and in some other small considerations in the technique. Because I train to use it as a break, I'm not as good at using it to submit. Then, on top of that, I'm spending some attention to make sure I'm using it right to submit, so I will miss some of the openings you would probably see (both openings to do something else, and opening I've given to you).

There are some locks that, so far as I can tell, cannot be reasonably used for submission, because the difference between pain and break is too slight. Of course, for that very reason, you don't see these show up in competitions.

I'd put it a bit differently.

"Submission" is the term for the application of a joint lock in competition. If I ever have to apply one in a self-defense scenario, it will be a destruction, because I don't trust a mugger to tap out and then not try to hurt me again if I let go.

We have joint attacks in BJJ where the margin between pain and injury is just as small as for an Aikido wrist lock. The heel hook would be a prime example. In fact, even some of the locks which are usually considered to have a wider transition between pain and damage can have that margin made really small if applied with the right technique.

The difference that I see, is in the control of the opponents body which can be established before the actual lock is applied. In order to both improve my students' success rate and reduce the incidence of damage, I teach them that every "submission" can be regarded first as a control position. If I'm showing how to apply an arm bar from mount, I don't have the students spin into the arm bar position and then drop their weight immediately into cranking on the arm. I show how I can enter into the juji-gatame position, but not lay back or apply any force at all to the elbow. Then I invite the other person to try to escape. Unless they are extremely skilled and/or incredibly strong I can hold them for a long, long time without applying any damaging pressure to the arm. This means that when I do apply the arm bar I can do it as slowly as possible to give my partner time to tap and not worry about him escaping. Likewise for the afore-mentioned heel hook. If I have the proper leg entanglement applied, I can invite my partner to try escaping, punching me, whatever he wants to do. Then I can apply the heel hook nice and slowly. (Actually, I generally don't need to really apply the heel hook. Once I have the position secured, most experienced training partners know to tap before I even apply pressure.)

(I've been thinking about making a short video to illustrate this concept. Maybe I can put one together this week if I have time.)

In aiki arts, it seems that such control of your opponents body that you have for applying the locks is temporary and dynamic, based on how well you've managed to momentarily disrupt their structure by capturing their energy. This is what makes the margin between pain and injury so small for a resisting opponent - you don't have the option of applying the lock slowly while adjusting to counter full-speed escape attempts. Unfortunately, that also means you don't get the experience of safely practicing thousands of locks against fully resisting opponents. If we had holodeck technology so that Aikido practitioners could practice fully applying their techniques against non-compliant attackers without any real people getting hurt, then we'd probably have a lot more badass Aikido practitioners walking around.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

For 20 years I practiced to beat the tar out of people bouncing. And have broken limbs In really real fights. And can still train with a guy without crippling him.

I train with pro fighters. Ex soldiers. Police And people who could cripple me if they chose to. And they train for the ring. Or for the street. And some of them for war. And they can train without crippiling each other.

What context do you train for that requires you to be such a finely tuned hurtin, machine?

There are no more Akido guys training for self defence as there are guys from any other style. Never has been. There are no more Akido guys with any more real self defence experience than any other style. Also never has been.

You're confusing my argument. I never said someone who trains for competition can't cripple. It's easier to add force to the end of a technique than to remove before you get there (we all have to do that with most of our techniques). Many competition-trained individuals have the capability to destroy joints and do a lot of damage - they just train specifically NOT to do that under high speed and resistance. We don't. Destructions can never be practiced fully, since full practice would destroy a joint, nor can most of them be practiced safely at anything resembling full speed.

The main difference is that many of those training for competition train more hours than those training in other contexts. That higher level of training is the primary advantage of training for competition. More training and higher intensity will usually yield a better result.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

I'd put it a bit differently.

"Submission" is the term for the application of a joint lock in competition. If I ever have to apply one in a self-defense scenario, it will be a destruction, because I don't trust a mugger to tap out and then not try to hurt me again if I let go.

We have joint attacks in BJJ where the margin between pain and injury is just as small as for an Aikido wrist lock. The heel hook would be a prime example. In fact, even some of the locks which are usually considered to have a wider transition between pain and damage can have that margin made really small if applied with the right technique.

The difference that I see, is in the control of the opponents body which can be established before the actual lock is applied. In order to both improve my students' success rate and reduce the incidence of damage, I teach them that every "submission" can be regarded first as a control position. If I'm showing how to apply an arm bar from mount, I don't have the students spin into the arm bar position and then drop their weight immediately into cranking on the arm. I show how I can enter into the juji-gatame position, but not lay back or apply any force at all to the elbow. Then I invite the other person to try to escape. Unless they are extremely skilled and/or incredibly strong I can hold them for a long, long time without applying any damaging pressure to the arm. This means that when I do apply the arm bar I can do it as slowly as possible to give my partner time to tap and not worry about him escaping. Likewise for the afore-mentioned heel hook. If I have the proper leg entanglement applied, I can invite my partner to try escaping, punching me, whatever he wants to do. Then I can apply the heel hook nice and slowly. (Actually, I generally don't need to really apply the heel hook. Once I have the position secured, most experienced training partners know to tap before I even apply pressure.)

(I've been thinking about making a short video to illustrate this concept. Maybe I can put one together this week if I have time.)

In aiki arts, it seems that such control of your opponents body that you have for applying the locks is temporary and dynamic, based on how well you've managed to momentarily disrupt their structure by capturing their energy. This is what makes the margin between pain and injury so small for a resisting opponent - you don't have the option of applying the lock slowly while adjusting to counter full-speed escape attempts. Unfortunately, that also means you don't get the experience of safely practicing thousands of locks against fully resisting opponents. If we had holodeck technology so that Aikido practitioners could practice fully applying their techniques against non-compliant attackers without any real people getting hurt, then we'd probably have a lot more badass Aikido practitioners walking around.

This, as is often the case, appears to be a better explanation than I was giving, Tony!

Specifically, your reference to entering the technique in a way that is designed to allow the person to tap out. For me to have someone tap out, I have to slow down A LOT near the end of the technique (which is our normal way of ending), because we often enter the technique with the intent to destroy the joint.

As for the short transition, someday when I'm out that way I'll need you to show me that in some of the submissions, because the ones I'm familiar with have a transition similar to the Arm Bar. There are wrist locks that rival that transition, but I haven't experienced (that I recall, anyway) a submission lock that has a transition as short as the hand-lock I mentioned earlier. I've seen this one result in breaks on 3 occasions - two with resistance, and one simply because the recipient felt the pain too late. If you can show me a submission that has as short a transition, and how you move into it safely, then I may be able to allow some additional techniques during randori.

 

[Steve]

You're confusing my argument. I never said someone who trains for competition can't cripple. It's easier to add force to the end of a technique than to remove before you get there (we all have to do that with most of our techniques). Many competition-trained individuals have the capability to destroy joints and do a lot of damage - they just train specifically NOT to do that under high speed and resistance. We don't. Destructions can never be practiced fully, since full practice would destroy a joint, nor can most of them be practiced safely at anything resembling full speed.

The main difference is that many of those training for competition train more hours than those training in other contexts. That higher level of training is the primary advantage of training for competition. More training and higher intensity will usually yield a better result.

you are really confusing me here. You don't trian to destroy a joint. You train to pretend to destroy joints with partners who are pretending they are untrained. It may or may not work should you ever give it an actual go, but until then, it's theory.

In most schools, untrained sparring partners are called white belts. Maybe newbie, new guy or something else, if it's like boxing where there are no belts. No one pretends to be untrained or simulates attacking unpredictably. It just is unpredictable, because they are actually untrained.

Don't get me wrong. My impression is you probably run a pretty awesome program. But this specific line of reasoning is really shaky.

 

[drop bear103]

This, as is often the case, appears to be a better explanation than I was giving, Tony!

Specifically, your reference to entering the technique in a way that is designed to allow the person to tap out. For me to have someone tap out, I have to slow down A LOT near the end of the technique (which is our normal way of ending), because we often enter the technique with the intent to destroy the joint.

As for the short transition, someday when I'm out that way I'll need you to show me that in some of the submissions, because the ones I'm familiar with have a transition similar to the Arm Bar. There are wrist locks that rival that transition, but I haven't experienced (that I recall, anyway) a submission lock that has a transition as short as the hand-lock I mentioned earlier. I've seen this one result in breaks on 3 occasions - two with resistance, and one simply because the recipient felt the pain too late. If you can show me a submission that has as short a transition, and how you move into it safely, then I may be able to allow some additional techniques during randori.

you are talking about s locks?

MMA has that mechanic. in some movements. but does not allow that sort of gratuitous use. bjj will wrist lock the crap out of you if they get the chance.

so these sort of wrist locks you can't do live?

The issue here is that you are setting up perfect scenarios for these locks then comparing them to resisted locks. And suggesting that there is more time in the resisted verson. Part of that dynamic is because it is resisted.

I have muscled on wrist locks and finger locks all sorts of things.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

you are really confusing me here. You don't trian to destroy a joint. You train to pretend to destroy joints with partners who are pretending they are untrained. It may or may not work should you ever give it an actual go, but until then, it's theory.

In most schools, untrained sparring partners are called white belts. Maybe newbie, new guy or something else, if it's like boxing where there are no belts. No one pretends to be untrained or simulates attacking unpredictably. It just is unpredictable, because they are actually untrained.

Don't get me wrong. My impression is you probably run a pretty awesome program. But this specific line of reasoning is really shaky.

As I said before, you can't perform most techniques on a new person. They can't take the throws, so by the time you get to practice the technique on them, they are no longer untrained. You lose that element, so you have to study how people react before training and use those reactions in simulations later. It's not about unpredictability in physical reactions - untrained people are more driven by natural reflex than trained people are, so the reactions I'm speaking to are actually more predictable with them. They're just not always the first reaction of a trained person (they are part of what we train away).

As for the first point, don't confuse training method with what you train to do. We train to break, and have methods of avoiding the break during training. The three most important (not all used at the same time) are: 1) the uke escapes the break because he knows the technique that's being used, 2) we slow way the hell down at the very end of the technique (requires the uke become compliant at the end, so that we can go slow-motion at that point) and apply the technique to the point of pain, 3) we release the grip and simulate the follow-through at speed (so, I loosen my grip and let the hand go, but complete the motion as if I were still holding it). None of these is perfect, but the combination creates a workable solution to the problem of training destructions without hurting anyone. There's a fourth solution for some of the locks, like the Arm Bar and our shoulder lock called Come-Along, in that we can train them as submissions (which, of course, can be extended into a destruction if desired). Some of the locks, however, aren't realistic as submissions (with some arm bars, you'd be trying to hold a position that's untenable), so this ends up being another example of the first solution in those cases.

 

[Gerry Seymour10]

you are talking about s locks?

MMA has that mechanic. in some movements. but does not allow that sort of gratuitous use. bjj will wrist lock the crap out of you if they get the chance.

so these sort of wrist locks you can't do live?

The issue here is that you are setting up perfect scenarios for these locks then comparing them to resisted locks. And suggesting that there is more time in the resisted verson. Part of that dynamic is because it is resisted.

I have muscled on wrist locks and finger locks all sorts of things.

Where did I suggest there is more time in the resisted version? That's the opposite of the point I've been making. Time gets compressed, so there's less time to control the lock - that's what makes some of these more risky to the recipient when they resist.

With the exception of the shoulder lock (interesting use of what we call the Come-Along!), those in the BJJ video are all joint compressions of one sort or another. The one in the other video is the dangerous one - that's actually acting on the small bone in the hand. Part of the issue, too, comes with the positions used for destructions. If I'm planning to submit you, I have to get into a position where I can hold the lock and apply at the point where the pain tells you I've won. Destructions don't require I be able to hold it. Two of my favorite Arm Bar destructions have positions that give great leverage for breaking, but are lousy positions to try to stand in and submit them. Those destructions simply cannot be used effectively as submissions. There are some other destruction uses where the leverage applied comes in too sharply, with too much of the body weight committed into it (I'm thinking of a wrist compression I teach that drops the entire body weight into the wrist on the ground). Those can't be applied gradually at speed, because they depend upon the body weight drop to be effective. If someone resists those, you either don't use them, or you destroy with them, which means they aren't useful for sparring.

To get back to the original point of this thread, here's the larger issue for me. The resistance you'd see if the BJJ guy's partner was resisting is NOT the same resistance you'd likely get in the street. He knows what's coming, so he's already shifting shoulders and starting to move in a direction that protects his wrist. The attacker on the street normally won't see it coming, won't know what it is you're doing to them, so their resistance will often run INTO the destruction (trying to punch while you're starting the lock, for instance). This is what I was talking about earlier with needing to simulate untrained reactions. If I only train for someone who can recognize the lock, I miss training for a whole set of reactions that are actually more likely to occur. So, in addition to training with a partner who's trying to stop you (sparring/randori), we also train with a partner who's continuing to attack, regardless of what we do, rather than countering the technique. This is where things get really dicey and practice has to slow down, because this requires the "attacker" ignore what he can see (because of his training) is coming, and give a reasonable continuation of his attack, regardless of the fact that it's going to lead his wrist right into the lock/destruction.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well everything looks convincing within the confines of a dojo. Look at Dillman's no-touch knockout stuff for further evidence of that. Aikido itself has its own brand of no-touch nonsense which also appears within the confines of a dojo or demonstration.

Again, the majority of my experience with Aikido exists outside of an Aikido dojo, and it mirrors Roy Dean and other people's perception of the art.

I've never seen anything like a no-touch knockout in an aikido class. Just hands-on, rough-and-tumble.

I have witnessed some classes that I was unimpressed with. But that is an issue with the teacher, not the style.

 

[Flying Crane]

Just to he clear. I said YouTube is evidence but im not suggesting its the only kind of evidence.

It documents an event. Whether or not that video is truly evidence of anything, other than the event itself, is debatable. Maybe yes, maybe no.

 

[Hanzou]

I've never seen anything like a no-touch knockout in an aikido class. Just hands-on, rough-and-tumble.

I have witnessed some classes that I was unimpressed with. But that is an issue with the teacher, not the style.

 

[Steve]

It documents an event. Whether or not that video is truly evidence of anything, other than the event itself, is debatable. Maybe yes, maybe no.

Just as with anything else, one example is evidence. Several examples can suggest a trend. A lack of evidence leaves a void that leads to reasonable skepticism.

Context matters, certainly. But saying YouTube videos aren't helpful at all is a stretch.[/QUOTE]

 

[Flying Crane]

somehow, when you write it, it sounds like you mean the opposite.

Just as with anything else, one example is evidence. Several examples can suggest a trend. A lack of evidence leaves a void that leads to reasonable skepticism.

Context matters, certainly. But saying YouTube videos aren't helpful at all is a stretch.

They are less helpful than a lot of people believe. They are helpful within a limited context.

If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good? Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.

It's easy to find bad examples. YouTube is filled with them. That doesn't mean it all sucks.

 

[drop bear103]

They are less helpful than a lot of people believe. They are helpful within a limited context.

If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good? Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.

It's easy to find bad examples. YouTube is filled with them. That doesn't mean it all sucks.

Says the car salesman.

Actually kind of aplicable.

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm on my phone and not going to waste my data on watching videos, but for the moment I will accept on faith that the video shows what you suggest it shows.

Do you believe all aikido schools do that? As I've said, I've never witnessed it. Are you insightful enough to recognize that bad schools and bad teachers exist, as well as good ones? Are you insightful enough to understand that? A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Spinedoc]

Watanabe isn't really taken seriously anymore in the greater Aikido community because of this. Here was the eminent Tissier Shihan's statement on this a few years back...

Sensei Christian Tissier visited South America last December, Article, Christian Tissier Shihan 7° Dan Aikïkaï, Aïkido

"Mario Lorenzo - In South America we can see that those who emphasize too much on the “KI” in their practice are not technically serious. Do you see this in other countries? And what do you think of Watanabe Sensei‘s “no touch Aikido”?
Sensei Tissier : They are two different things. On the one hand people who talk about ki, and on the other the ones who practise aikido like Sensei Watanabe. He developed something in which he is especially interested in: it isn’t a ki work but one of anticipation, sensations, whether you like it or not, or whether it works or not. It works when you know the code, but martially it doesn’t work. Being in Japan I worked a lot with him, Watanabe wasn’t like this before. He is a physically solid practicant who wanted to develop something different. I think that if I were head of an examination table I wouldn’t take what he produces.

Now, people who talk and make constant reference on ki around the world are looking for something to justify their lack of technique. Because we all have ki, everything is ki (opening his arms), the problem with ki is its fluency. How does ki flow? When there is no block. When somebody is doing a technique and doesn’t handle it, this person doesn’t have an unblocked body. The objective of the technical aspect of the sport is to unlock every body part where there might exist a block. Someone who performs an exercise with stiff shoulders will not have a real ki flow."

Essentially, he is calling Watanabe's ki practice a fraud, just a in a rather polite way. Are there people like this in the Aikido world? Absolutely.....just like there are some in the Karate world, and fraudulent BJJ blackbelts...

That being said, I think many of you are missing something. I know of virtually no one in the Aikido world that is training to fight. No one. They are training for a whole host of other reasons...for some, it is a meditative practice, for others exercise and camaraderie, among a whole host of personal reasons.. In my dojo we actually tell new people that Aikido isn't really a self defense course that you can learn quickly and be good at. We try and downplay the self defense aspect. I tell people if that is all they are interested in, buy a good handgun.

 

[Steve]

They are less helpful than a lot of people believe. They are helpful within a limited context.

If I show you a video of a BMW with engine problems, do you automatically believe that all BMWs are junky cars, or are you insightful enough to understand that while some may have problems, that doesn't mean the brand as a whole is no good? Even if I saw a dozen or two dozen such videos, I would never jump to the conclusion that BMW sucks.

It's easy to find bad examples. YouTube is filled with them. That doesn't mean it all sucks.

The problem isn't the YouTube videos. It's that you are trying to prove something doesn't exist. Of course that's not going to work.

The connection to an MA discussion isn't "prove to me that all {insert style here} training is bad." Rather, it's "show me that SOME {insert style here} training is good." You can show me videos of bad BJJ or BJJ not working in various contexts. But I can also show many videos of very good, high level BJJ working in a variety of contexts, from street fights to MMA matches to BJJ matches to "style vs style" challenge matches. While we can be sure that some BJJ is not good, we can also determine without doubt that some is VERY good.

YouTube is great for substantiating the affirmative.

If you continually asserted that electric cars are slow, and I told you an all electric Datsun 1200 could run 10.4 seconds in the 1/4 Mile topping out at 117+MPH. Hard to believe. If I show you a video, we now have evidence.

If I said that it routinely beat the crap out of a lot of other cars, including corvettes:
[MEDIA]

Masaratis:

And even other electric cars, like this Tesla (quietest drag race EVER)

I could show you dozens of videos, and can invite you to find your own. I have provided, I think, AMPLE evidence that an electric car can be VERY fast. This video footage will support all of the other evidence, such as discussions about consistent torque, which also support a position.

The only thing that can't be recorded in this day and age are vampires. Are you saying that vampires are involved somehow?

 

[Flying Crane]

The problem isn't the YouTube videos. It's that you are trying to prove something doesn't exist. Of course that's not going to work.

The connection to an MA discussion isn't "prove to me that all {insert style here} training is bad." Rather, it's "show me that SOME {insert style here} training is good." You can show me videos of bad BJJ or BJJ not working in various contexts. But I can also show many videos of very good, high level BJJ working in a variety of contexts, from street fights to MMA matches to BJJ matches to "style vs style" challenge matches. While we can be sure that some BJJ is not good, we can also determine without doubt that some is VERY good.

YouTube is great for substantiating the affirmative.

If you continually asserted that electric cars are slow, and I told you an all electric Datsun 1200 could run 10.4 seconds in the 1/4 Mile topping out at 117+MPH. Hard to believe. If I show you a video, we now have evidence.

If I said that it routinely beat the crap out of a lot of other cars, including corvettes:
[MEDIA]

Masaratis:

And even other electric cars, like this Tesla (quietest drag race EVER)

I could show you dozens of videos, and can invite you to find your own. I have provided, I think, AMPLE evidence that an electric car can be VERY fast. This video footage will support all of the other evidence, such as discussions about consistent torque, which also support a position.

The only thing that can't be recorded in this day and age are vampires. Are you saying that vampires are involved somehow?

To be honest, I no longer know what you are trying to assert. All I know is, most of what happens in the world is never filmed and posted on YouTube. Is that something you can agree with?