Joe Rogan smack talking TMA's like kung fu

[drop bear]

What do you have that shows your system is valid?

Competition.

 

[drop bear]

Because I understand basic physics and because there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise or that it is even possible.

There is no evidence to show something that is untested works?

That is because it is untested.

 

[drop bear]

So more data = an improvement, if you can extract the information you need and use it.

More data and less noise. The Internet helps. It mean I can talk to a ufc fighter or a kung fu grand master a lot more easily.

 

[renc]

People take martial arts for different reasons

Right, the human factor. Training follows interest and enjoyment, which feeds back into dedication, time spent and quality of training, which feeds back into 'effectiveness'. Makes me wonder what a universal 'effectiveness' measure for a martial art could achieve. Argus threw this spanner in the experiment way back...

I find that the specific TMA's that I study fit my psychology and learning style far better than most sportive arts such as western boxing, or even some contrasting TMAs that I appreciate but nonetheless don't practice. And while I don't have anything against such arts, I simply feel that the particular TMA methods that I study cater better to my learning style, and my natural skills, goals, psychology, and physiology. I do consider myself a bit of an oddity in this respect, and I see where many people struggle with or get hung up on the very methods that I find helpful, however.

I think that there's much to be said for practicing the martial art(s) that are most in line with your particular learning style, general psychology, and/or goals, and that some tend excel in styles that others simply don't, and vice versa. And for that reason (and others), I think it's very important to get as wide and diverse an experience in the martial arts as you can, in order to learn about yourself and how you can better reach your goals and potential.

All arts have something to offer. And all arts offer something better for some people than others.

Demanding what people's motivations 'should' be is not realistic. As you've noted before Joe Rogan stipulates that people 'should' want to be training to fight a trained killer. A noble aim.

So an objective 'effectiveness' measure could - theoretically - be a factor in decision making. Then the question becomes effect sizes - how much more/less effective would Jow-Ga need to be than other arts to make a difference to your choice - 0.1%, 5%, 10%, 50%? Theoretically - a future where the 'effectiveness of a martial art' is meaningfully defined, assumptions justified, metrics chosen, the various signals, noise and confounding factors in observational data accounted for, everything which hasn't been done is done.

In the meantime I have no idea what people hope to - realistically - achieve by soapboxing on the relative 'effectiveness' of TMA.

 

[drop bear]

Right, the human factor. Training follows interest and enjoyment, which feeds back into dedication, time spent and quality of training, which feeds back into 'effectiveness'. Makes me wonder what a universal 'effectiveness' measure for a martial art could achieve. Argus threw this spanner in the experiment way back...



Demanding what people's motivations 'should' be is not realistic. As you've noted before Joe Rogan stipulates that people 'should' want to be training to fight a trained killer. A noble aim.

So an objective 'effectiveness' measure could - theoretically - be a factor in decision making. Then the question becomes effect sizes - how much more/less effective would Jow-Ga need to be than other arts to make a difference to your choice - 0.1%, 5%, 10%, 50%? Theoretically - a future where the 'effectiveness of a martial art' is meaningfully defined, assumptions justified, metrics chosen, the various signals, noise and confounding factors in observational data accounted for, everything which hasn't been done is done.

In the meantime I have no idea what people hope to - realistically - achieve by soapboxing on the relative 'effectiveness' of TMA.

A martial arts school makes claims of effectiveness. Are you saying they shouldn't deliver on a promise.

What you suggest also validates me selling chi balls to the general public.

 

[JowGaWolf]

A martial arts school makes claims of effectiveness. Are you saying they shouldn't deliver on a promise.

What you suggest also validates me selling chi balls to the general public.

A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective. They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective using TKD matches? It's like me selling a gun to you. I can tell you that it's effective but it's up to you to do the training so that you can shoot accurately. A gun by itself is only as effective as the user's ability to use it and only in the context for which the gun was designed for. This is the same with non McDojo martial arts. The martial art is only as effective as the fighter's ability to use it and only in the context of which the Martial Art is designed for.

Joe Rogan may have been a beast against other fighting styles had he taken a martial art system that was designed for more for self defense than for sport like some of the TKD schools out there. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective in TKD competitions? If so, then his school delivered on them being effective in the sporting arena of TKD which is probably the main focus of all of his training back then.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Competition.

Since you do a competition style that is hardly surprising, however not all arts are interested in competition.

 

[RTKDCMB]

There is no evidence to show something that is untested works?

That is because it is untested.

That is because the concept of throwing Chi balls is inconsistent with physics and biology, just like farting rainbows.

 

[drop bear]

A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective. They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective using TKD matches? It's like me selling a gun to you. I can tell you that it's effective but it's up to you to do the training so that you can shoot accurately. A gun by itself is only as effective as the user's ability to use it and only in the context for which the gun was designed for. This is the same with non McDojo martial arts. The martial art is only as effective as the fighter's ability to use it and only in the context of which the Martial Art is designed for

Ahh. Good. Another argument that supports my chi balls for self defence. The method obviously works but the individual failed to employ it properly.

 

[drop bear]

That is because the concept of throwing Chi balls is inconsistent with physics and biology, just like farting rainbows.

And there would be evidence of that. Being from a physicist and biologist a peer reviewed article would be fine.

 

[drop bear]

Since you do a competition style that is hardly surprising, however not all arts are interested in competition.

That's fine I didn't say you have to be. So evidence that your style works in areas it is interested in is fine.

 

[drop bear]

Fair point, correlation not causation. That's a tough one. What's a TMA to do? Someone whose personal experience gives them highly justified confidence that a) they can apply their art effectively and b) their training gives them an edge, but they cannot objectively demonstrate the worth of their art to the world at large. That's a frustration when people come trash talking their art. No random sampling to help out of street fights involving TMA-trained and untrained. They can adapt their art to a sport fighting event, and if MMA mix it in with other arts, and be a sample size of one. If they have the motivation, if they believe they can prove something. Or they can position on the sidelines, avoid overextending and snipe the Roganites claiming they got the thing wrapped up - perhaps not the most admirable but I think the most rational choice.

Diversity. It is still important it is not that martial arts need to change. But the dogma certainly does.

Mma gets beaten by mma all the time. Wrestling by judo judo by bjj and so on. But by courting loss they strip away some of the bs.

If you enjoy karate you don't have to pretend you can stop a wrestler taking you down.

 

[Steve]

If a martial art is trained in an unrealistic manner, it's like selling a gun that doesn't fire. No matter how earnestly you train, it won't work. ..[/QUOTE]

A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective. They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective using TKD matches? It's like me selling a gun to you. I can tell you that it's effective but it's up to you to do the training so that you can shoot accurately. A gun by itself is only as effective as the user's ability to use it and only in the context for which the gun was designed for. This is the same with non McDojo martial arts. The martial art is only as effective as the fighter's ability to use it and only in the context of which the Martial Art is designed for.

Joe Rogan may have been a beast against other fighting styles had he taken a martial art system that was designed for more for self defense than for sport like some of the TKD schools out there. Wasn't Joe Rogan effective in TKD competitions? If so, then his school delivered on them being effective in the sporting arena of TKD which is probably the main focus of all of his training back then.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Ahh. Good. Another argument that supports my chi balls for self defence. The method obviously works but the individual failed to employ it properly.

You are correct. Chi balls is your argument. Not mine. No where in any of my statements have I mentioned Chi balls or anything about chi. You can debate yourself.

 

[JowGaWolf]

If a martial art is trained in an unrealistic manner, it's like selling a gun that doesn't fire. No matter how earnestly you train, it won't work. ..

It just depends on what they are actually training for. If they are going to fight in the UFC then the training needs and the fighting system needs to reflect that goal. Don't go into a UFC fight by training hard with sport TKD. People need to pick the right tool for the job. If I train hard in a fighting system but can't use what I'm learning then my training is all wrong. This guy for example: 13 years training in martial arts and he still turns his back to his opponent? If he really has been studying martial arts for 13 years then he didn't train to spar or fight. If I'm wrong an he really did have sparring as part of his training, then it's clear that he was sparring incorrectly.

My Sifu wrote a good article about training Tradition vs Modern
This is a quote from his article. So many martial arts train this way. There have been so many times where I've watch this on youtube videos and thought. If someone really connected with the first shot then there's no way I'll still be in a position to get that third or 4th combo off. I'm either going to turn on my own or turn from the force of the hit" 2. Use common sense – If you’re partner performs one attack and you perform 2-5 counters while he stands there, then you’re doing it wrong. The exchange has to be realistic."

Training like this isn't going to go far.

 

[drop bear]

You are correct. Chi balls is your argument. Not mine. No where in any of my statements have I mentioned Chi balls or anything about chi. You can debate yourself.

I am using chi balls as a method to test an argument. So your argument would defend my use of chi balls as sefl defence. Something that is obviously made up. So the argument itself needs work.

Or it could be addressed directly as Steve just did. And your argument still needs work.

If I taught absolute rubbish and my student couldn't use my crap to defend himself how would that be the students fault?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I am using chi balls as a method to test an argument. So your argument would defend my use of chi balls as sefl defence. Something that is obviously made up. So the argument itself needs work.

Or it could be addressed directly as Steve just did. And your argument still needs work.

If I taught absolute rubbish and my student couldn't use my crap to defend himself how would that be the students fault?

Like I said. Chi Balls is your argument not mine. My argument doesn't defend chi balls as self defense. When I defend something I do it directly. I'm not here to go through a "debate team" nonsense. If you can't determine when my statements applies and when it doesn't then that's on you. If I have to explain everything to you like I would a child then I would recommend skipping my comments. If you want to get into a debate where everything is an argument then talk to hanzou.

 

[drop bear]

Like I said. Chi Balls is your argument not mine. My argument doesn't defend chi balls as self defense. When I defend something I do it directly. I'm not here to go through a "debate team" nonsense. If you can't determine when my statements applies and when it doesn't then that's on you. If I have to explain everything to you like I would a child then I would recommend skipping my comments. If you want to get into a debate where everything is an argument then talk to hanzou.

OK. We will skip the chi balls for now. Your two direct posts one being it is the student responsible for the effectiveness of the system and on being the system is responsible.

A martial arts school can claim effectiveness because it's the fighter that has to fill in that second part of being effective. They deliver on the promise that they will teach you but the rest is up to the student.

People need to pick the right tool for the job. If I train hard in a fighting system but can't use what I'm learning then my training is all wrong.

Which one is it.

 

[RTKDCMB]

And there would be evidence of that. Being from a physicist and biologist a peer reviewed article would be fine.

A quick search on Google Scholar did not find an article but I did find a patent for a Chi energy amplifier:

Patent US20070285325 - Chi energy amplifier

And here is the National Geographic Channel debunking it:

 

[RTKDCMB]

I am using chi balls as a method to test an argument.

You are using Chi balls as an argument for self defense arts having no evidence for claims of their effectiveness. Your argument is based on faulty logic..You are basically trying to say that because the use of Chi balls for self defense is not even remotely plausible then using a self defense art (that does not take part in competitions) for self defense is equally implausible. The two elements of that claim are not equivalent.