I think this here is way better than wing chun

[drop bear]

I agreed, except that focus does matter. Yes, running a faster 100-meter sprint will work. Running a little slower and being able to dodge around things will work better. Doing that and staying aware of the people around you (in case one is trying to grab you for his friend) will work better yet.

Focus does matter. That doesn't make other training irrelevant. Cross-training is an important component in almost all effective physical training.

Street excuses for being slow.

 

[drop bear]

Why did you address all the things he didn't talk about, rather than the point he actually made? His point is valid, as is yours. Discussion is not a zero-sum game.

No his point is not valid. He made the distinction.

Self defence is not defined by specific techniques. A groin kick is not any more self defence than a face punch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Street excuses for being slow.

Sloppy attempt to avoid the point being made.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No his point is not valid. He made the distinction.

Self defence is not defined by specific techniques. A groin kick is not any more self defence than a face punch.

No, but it is a self-defense technique that can be useful, but not so in competition.

 

[drop bear]

Sloppy attempt to avoid the point being made.

Yeah. Ok. So we have usain bolt and you.

Do i train with him and then learn to run around obstacles if that floats my boat. Or do i train with you because anecdotaly you out ran some guys. But have a specific system.

Wait. Mabye you have been running for fifty years.

 

[drop bear]

No, but it is a self-defense technique that can be useful, but not so in competition.

They are both self defence techniques that can be useful. And it is an important distinction. Because it depends where you are getting your information from. You are either looking at the best representation of an idea. Or you are discarding that for a buch of stories.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yeah. Ok. So we have usain bolt and you.

Do i train with him and then learn to run around obstacles if that floats my boat. Or do i train with you because anecdotaly you out ran some guys. But have a specific system.

Wait. Mabye you have been running for fifty years.

You're comparing an extreme to an average. Poor comparison doesn't prove any point. A similar example would be to say that training to defend against a knife attack is foolish, because a world knife-fighting champion can still kill you. You are smart enough to make more reasonable arguments than that.

Let's try a more realistic example. I'm 47, with iffy knees. I still run, and am a bit faster than average. I could work really hard to train my 100M sprint time, and I'll get a bit faster. Or, I can train half that hard on the sprint and the other half on agility and awareness. Since the latter training better fits the situation, I'm more likely to escape by that method of training.

Is it a huge difference? That depends upon the person (how agile/aware are they to start with?) and the situation (how many obstacles/people are between me and the door?). There's definitely a gain to be had by the straight sprint training. There's definitely advantage to be had from training for the situation. Combining the two may be the best answer.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

They are both self defence techniques that can be useful. And it is an important distinction. Because it depends where you are getting your information from. You are either looking at the best representation of an idea. Or you are discarding that for a buch of stories.

Or you're ignoring real-world evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not "a bunch of stories". It's a term for evidence that doesn't come in large enough numbers to be statistically analyzed. In SD terms, anecdotal evidence is people's experience. A cop can provide anecdotal evidence of what works in a lot of situations. If he makes a lot of arrests against resisting suspects, he may be able to do more than provide anecdotal evidence, since he'd have enough examples to draw analytical conclusions.

In other words, anecdotal evidence isn't just reading stories on the internet, it's what we get when we debrief someone about their experience. Like when my instructor took down a druggie robbing the pharmacy he worked at. Like when a youth student avoided a bully's punch at school. Like when I used my Judo to drop a guy who grabbed me from behind. Like when I escorted a belligerent drunk out of a college bar before he could start any real trouble.

 

[Juany118]

Or you're ignoring real-world evidence. Anecdotal evidence is not "a bunch of stories". It's a term for evidence that doesn't come in large enough numbers to be statistically analyzed. In SD terms, anecdotal evidence is people's experience. A cop can provide anecdotal evidence of what works in a lot of situations. If he makes a lot of arrests against resisting suspects, he may be able to do more than provide anecdotal evidence, since he'd have enough examples to draw analytical conclusions.

In other words, anecdotal evidence isn't just reading stories on the internet, it's what we get when we debrief someone about their experience. Like when my instructor took down a druggie robbing the pharmacy he worked at. Like when a youth student avoided a bully's punch at school. Like when I used my Judo to drop a guy who grabbed me from behind. Like when I escorted a belligerent drunk out of a college bar before he could start any real trouble.

The problem is some people ignore anecdotal evidence, and try to twist the definition, when it contradicts either their own experience or, more often, when it contradicts a preconceived notion that has not actually been tested. People often confuse such notions with opinion because they don't recognize the fact that an opinion isn't just something you think or believe, it is something that must be informed by facts that you can test and demonstrate.

To quote Harlan Ellison, "you do not have a right to an opinion. You have a right to an informed opinion, no one is entitled to be ignorant."

Now when changing topics, moving goal posts, strawmaning etc fail the next step often is to engage in hyperbole. Often it is hyperbolic enough to again stray into the land of strawmaning but not always.

In the end however all these methods simply illustrate that there is no actual experience or data to defend the notion being presented. I actually find it kinda sad how many people today miss a basic rule of discussion/debate. If you have a position you wish to support the way you actually support it by defending it. You present facts and/or experiences that validate your position. When you are reduced to only attacking the opposing position, especially with the tactics I note in brief above, you illustrate that either A) your position is actually indefensible and can't stand on its own or B) you are arguing for argument's sake, aka trolling.

 

[Ironbear24]

) you are arguing for argument's sake, aka trolling.

I see that a lot on this site and on the internet in general.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I see that a lot on this site and on the internet in general.

Yes. Unfortunately, it seems to draw out the arguy-ness (I seem to be using a lot of neologisms these days) in some folks. I come here to discuss, sometimes debate, get new ideas and even corrections, and hopefully to occasionally change someone's mind - as often as not, my own.

 

[drop bear]

You're comparing an extreme to an average. Poor comparison doesn't prove any point. A similar example would be to say that training to defend against a knife attack is foolish, because a world knife-fighting champion can still kill you. You are smart enough to make more reasonable arguments than that.

Let's try a more realistic example. I'm 47, with iffy knees. I still run, and am a bit faster than average. I could work really hard to train my 100M sprint time, and I'll get a bit faster. Or, I can train half that hard on the sprint and the other half on agility and awareness. Since the latter training better fits the situation, I'm more likely to escape by that method of training.

Is it a huge difference? That depends upon the person (how agile/aware are they to start with?) and the situation (how many obstacles/people are between me and the door?). There's definitely a gain to be had by the straight sprint training. There's definitely advantage to be had from training for the situation. Combining the two may be the best answer.

No that is the realistic comparison. because usain bolt is a champion in sport that is why he is an expert.

Who is the expert in self defence running?

Pretty much anybody who says they are.

The comparison quite often is usain bolt and you.


I train under a champion sports fighter who is an expert. You are a self defence expert.

 

[Ironbear24]

I train under a champion sports fighter who is an expert. You are a self defence expert.

I smell a superiority complex.

 

[drop bear]

I smell a superiority complex.

Not at all. It is how i decided who i would put my faith in and why.

I am explaining my logical prosess.

 

[Ironbear24]

Not at all. It is how i decided who i would put my faith in and why.

I am explaining my logical prosess.

So how is it different from what gpseymor did?

 

[drop bear]

So how is it different from what gpseymor did?

What do yoi mean?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No that is the realistic comparison. because usain bolt is a champion in sport that is why he is an expert.

Who is the expert in self defence running?

Pretty much anybody who says they are.

The comparison quite often is usain bolt and you.


I train under a champion sports fighter who is an expert. You are a self defence expert.

Usain Bolt can probably teach you to run fast. But he cannot teach you to run around obstacles unless that's something he has done. A football (US) coach would be a better choice for that. Why? Because their agility training is closer to the situation. So, rather than compare a champion athlete to someone in a sector with no comparison (there are no champion self-defense instructors), compare a champion athlete to a champion coach in a better sector. A football coach is used to teaching not just speed, but also agility. Since that's closer to the situation you're training for, he'd be a better choice than a champion sprinter. And it would be better for another reason: his skill is producing skill, rather than showing it. If I want to train for a competition, I don't need a prize fighter; I need someone who has trained prize fighters. If I want to train for self-defense (and not take the physical beating of competiion), then I go to someone who has trained effective defenders.

You seem to be claiming at the same time that competition is the best preparation for self-defense, and that any claim of effective self-defense is bunk. You can't have both of those. Either competition (including sparring/randori) is an effective measurement, or it isn't. Make a choice and stick to one argument.

 

[Juany118]

Usain Bolt can probably teach you to run fast. But he cannot teach you to run around obstacles unless that's something he has done. A football (US) coach would be a better choice for that. Why? Because their agility training is closer to the situation. So, rather than compare a champion athlete to someone in a sector with no comparison (there are no champion self-defense instructors), compare a champion athlete to a champion coach in a better sector. A football coach is used to teaching not just speed, but also agility. Since that's closer to the situation you're training for, he'd be a better choice than a champion sprinter. And it would be better for another reason: his skill is producing skill, rather than showing it. If I want to train for a competition, I don't need a prize fighter; I need someone who has trained prize fighters. If I want to train for self-defense (and not take the physical beating of competiion), then I go to someone who has trained effective defenders.

You seem to be claiming at the same time that competition is the best preparation for self-defense, and that any claim of effective self-defense is bunk. You can't have both of those. Either competition (including sparring/randori) is an effective measurement, or it isn't. Make a choice and stick to one argument.

Some people don't understand the concept that while many people can do something, even do it well, it doesn't mean they can teach it well. Also as you say, competition fighting and self defense are different. In a ring you are facing off, there is almost a script as to how things work. Not specific moves but an initial progression. In a self defense scenario however the instigation of violence can be ridiculously varied.

As for the last I have pointed this out before. If competition in the Octagon or Ring is valid then so is Lei Tai (full contact competition) at Kuo Shu. I can agree that light points sparing might not be relevant. I firmly believe in the "train like you fight" method and if your experience is limited to light point sparing you can developed he habit of not going "all in", the problem rises when people assume that this is the limit of self-defense/traditional martial arts sparing, it's not.

Lei Tai at Kuo Shu is a knockout fest, especially during the qualifiers. In the free weapons fighting (sticks) I have watched protective gear get broken, even though the sticks have padding. Thing is some people search for rationalizations to attack other things, without the requisite knowledge, when they are trying to justify a preconceived belief that "their way" is the "right way."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No his point is not valid. He made the distinction.

Self defence is not defined by specific techniques. A groin kick is not any more self defence than a face punch.

No, it isn't. But excluding training in valid self-defense techniques because they don't apply to a competition is LESS self-defense. He's not saying train one or the other - SD should include both. So, yes, his point is also valid.

 

[Argus]

Some people don't understand the concept that while many people can do something, even do it well, it doesn't mean they can teach it well. Also as you say, competition fighting and self defense are different. In a ring you are facing off, there is almost a script as to how things work. Not specific moves but an initial progression. In a self defense scenario however the instigation of violence can be ridiculously varied.

As for the last I have pointed this out before. If competition in the Octagon or Ring is valid then so is Lei Tai (full contact competition) at Kuo Shu. I can agree that light points sparing might not be relevant. I firmly believe in the "train like you fight" method and if your experience is limited to light point sparing you can developed he habit of not going "all in", the problem rises when people assume that this is the limit of self-defense/traditional martial arts sparing, it's not.

Lei Tai at Kuo Shu is a knockout fest, especially during the qualifiers. In the free weapons fighting (sticks) I have watched protective gear get broken, even though the sticks have padding. Thing is some people search for rationalizations to attack other things, without the requisite knowledge, when they are trying to justify a preconceived belief that "their way" is the "right way."

Juany, your last few posts leave me confused. They don't seem to relate directly to gpseymour's posts, which you seem to be criticizing. Actually, they almost seem to be directed at dropbear? I'm having trouble understanding your points and who you intend them for.

Gpseymour's points are very logically consistent and well constructed. If you see things differently, it may help to be more specific with where you think his logic is at fault. It may help to quote the particular parts that you're challenging so that we can appreciate your arguments.