Training half of martial arts bugs me.

[drop bear]

Sound. The sound it makes. You can't make sound inside a vacuum. Since the metaphor was too much for you, let me put it this way: your logic is not sound. It's not as poetic, but it's hopefully said in such a way that even you can understand it.

It was a bad metaphor. Just let it go.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

When your opponent punches at you, you can:

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (your opponent can punch you again).
2. Block, wrap, and ... (your opponent cannot punch you again).

IMO, 1 < 2.

IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No we have had this argument before. You can do some pretty terrible resisted training from within your own school if you are not open to outside influence.

So you could be sneaky and say you do resisted training or even sparring or even mma. But if we don't have a level to compare it to. Then it is a claim that could mean anything.

So if someone makes that claim I would ask for further information.

There is sparring and there is sparring.

And it's level of competency greatly effects the feedback.

You can't jump on the mat and kramer a bunch of guys and be able to make a truthful climate of competency.

And we've talked about the contiuum of outside influence available, too. You seem to be once again in binary mode, where "best" and "worst" are all that exist. I actually agree that live contests and actual fights (including self-defense) are the best for verifying skill. They are also among the most dangerous. Everything is compromises, mate. There is no single "best" in this.

We've discussed some of who I've trained with in the past, but you're blind to the advantages of being in the room with them, though you talk a fair amount about the value of having some of those folks in the room. It makes you tough to talk to.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

No I am saying this is a culture issue. So for whatever reason you can't do the technique. And instead of fixing the technique so you can or changing the technique so it works. Someone will invent a clever logical story about how it would work if only whatever.

In some cases, they may actually be right. There are techinques that are complete crap until you actually do them right and in a situation where they make sense. Pretty much all techniques, really. But sometimes folks are making apologies for something when it'd be better to just admit it's a fun technique that has limited application.

It is of course dishonest.

Only if they know it to be untrue. There's a difference between being wrong and being dishonest.

So basically if they are striking and you are striking and you use shots to set up a throw. That is a claim you can make that striking is this viable thing.

But if they are not striking and you suddenly bend the rules and add striking it is a cheap ego stroking way of winning without ever having to develop yourself to where you learn the technique.

It is a very common argument that is almost always used as a fallacy.

It is how martial artists create an environment that produces deceptive results.

Yeah, that would be a misleading chain. Are you implying that's what I do - use striking when they aren't, to get results that are unrealistic? If so, you've pretty much misunderstood everything I've said about the importance of strikes.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It was a bad metaphor. Just let it go.

Ah, you do know what a metaphor is.

 

[dvcochran]

IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.

I like #1 best. Rule #1 should be 'don't get hit'. I know that is not always practical but it is best case scenario.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.

It's a simple "mind set". When your opponent punches at you, do you think about

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (temporary solution)? or
2. Block, wrap, and ... (long term solution)

The issue is if you don't try hard to achieve 2, you will never reach it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

It's a simple "mind set". When your opponent punches at you, do you think about

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (temporary solution)? or
2. Block, wrap, and ... (long term solution)

The issue is if you don't try hard to achieve 2, you will never reach it.

I think this more depends on if you're mainly a grappler or a striker. If I block, wrap, etc. then I'm now entangled with the person, which works if we're around the same grappling ability or I'm better. If they're better, I screwed myself. If I dodge by moving my head, nothing is preventing me from throwing out a strike at the exact same time.

 

[isshinryuronin]

IMO, 1 is more reliable than 2. If you can get 2, I love it, but it's much harder to acquire against someone with any movement.

When your opponent punches at you, you can:

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (your opponent can punch you again).
2. Block, wrap, and ... (your opponent cannot punch you again).

IMO, 1 < 2.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why not do both? Can't you slip/slide-step off-line from the attack, AND at the same time block & grab/trap/wrap or otherwise Immobilize? You are then in the best position to control and counter. Seems like the thing to do. No need to choose between evasion and engagement.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why not do both? Can't you slip/slide-step off-line from the attack, AND at the same time block & grab/trap/wrap or otherwise Immobilize? You are then in the best position to control and counter. Seems like the thing to do. No need to choose between evasion and engagement.

When your opponent attacks you, at that moment, you can either

- reduce the distance by moving in, or
- increase the distance by moving away.

I believe it's a binary choice there.

You don't want to repeat the following pattern and waste time and energy:

- Your opponent moves in, you move back.
- You move in, your opponent moves back.

You want to create a head on collision. Your opponent moves in, you move in at the same time. This way, you only have to move in 1/2 way. Your opponent will move in the other 1/2 way for you.

Your opponent attacks you, you attack him at the same time. Either you win, or you lose. It's just as simple as that.

In the following clip, you can see that the moment that your opponent starts to dodge and move around, the fight can take a long time.

 

[drop bear]

But you can generalize whatever you like, apparently.

Show me where I have generalized?

 

[drop bear]

And we've talked about the contiuum of outside influence available, too. You seem to be once again in binary mode, where "best" and "worst" are all that exist. I actually agree that live contests and actual fights (including self-defense) are the best for verifying skill. They are also among the most dangerous. Everything is compromises, mate. There is no single "best" in this.

We've discussed some of who I've trained with in the past, but you're blind to the advantages of being in the room with them, though you talk a fair amount about the value of having some of those folks in the room. It makes you tough to talk to.

No. It is completely unknown when you say sparring or resisted training what you mean.

And you do that on purpose.

You have created another weasel word.

There is a single best here. And that is evidence of what level you spar at. That is better than no evidence. Better than weasel words. Better than hypotheticals, stories and rationalisations.

This is binary.

Something is better than nothing.

 

[drop bear]

Yeah, that would be a misleading chain. Are you implying that's what I do - use striking when they aren't, to get results that are unrealistic? If so, you've pretty much misunderstood everything I've said about the importance of strikes.

To use striking in the manner suggested you have to win the striking exchange. Not just dab at the concept. Which basically means you have to box at some point with guys who have half an idea on how to fight.

Is that something you do,

 

[drop bear]

And we've talked about the contiuum of outside influence available, too. You seem to be once again in binary mode, where "best" and "worst" are all that exist. I actually agree that live contests and actual fights (including self-defense) are the best for verifying skill.

Ok. So when we look at videos of mat Thornton, rokus and my own experience. You will see this consistent idea that an average blue belt generally handles everyone who walks in the door regardless as to their previous experience.

The Mat Thornton one is quite specific and it shows high level krav maga guys being schooled in basically krav maga. By people with about a year of training.


What this is designed to point out is If I am a high level krav guy. And my method works because sparring or resisted training. I may be getting a false result as the collective standard really isn't there.

I have a lot more success with techniques when I spar people who can't fight. I do not use those sparring sessions to justify consistency of success.

 

[drop bear]

Again, I try not to live in a scary world that everybody all try to kill me. The day when I found out that I could scare others, I don't get scare that easy any more. If you pull out a .38, I'll pull out a .44 magnum.

One time I got someone in a head lock in the street in Hawaii, the guy screamed, "Please, Please don't kill me."

One night I (A long hair China man with leather jacket and blue jean) stood in a dark street alley of Rio de Janeiro, Everybody walked on the other side of the street and tried to keep distance away from me.

One time I was in a taxi from Taipei airport. The taxi driver asked me (a long hair China man) what I was doing in Taiwan. I joked about and said, "I come to help my friend to take care some personal business". Just about 3 days ago, the head of the 4 seas Chinese gang leader was killed by an assassin hired from outside Taiwan. The Taxi driver thought I was that assassin. When I paid him my taxi fare, he didn't take my money, and left quickly.

Sometime I don't know who is more scary, a long hair China man,

or a bold head white guy.

Bald headed white guy obviously.

They are sexier as well.

 

[drop bear]

Actually Gerry's art isn't a lineage of what most people call Aikido (Morohei Ueshiba's art). It just happens to share part of the same name. It's a cousin, in that it's partially derived from Daito Ryu Aikijutsu, but it's also partially derived from Judo, so you could say it's a cousin of BJJ in the same way.

Yeah. But that would be like saying traditional jujitsu is like judo.

Just with more Kata and no emphasis on live training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's a simple "mind set". When your opponent punches at you, do you think about

1. Dodge his punch by moving your head/body (temporary solution)? or
2. Block, wrap, and ... (long term solution)

The issue is if you don't try hard to achieve 2, you will never reach it.

I don't think it's an "or" situation. Which I'm looking for depends on the situation. If they're coming with competent movement and good power, I'm not going to wade in for an arm wrap.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think this more depends on if you're mainly a grappler or a striker. If I block, wrap, etc. then I'm now entangled with the person, which works if we're around the same grappling ability or I'm better. If they're better, I screwed myself. If I dodge by moving my head, nothing is preventing me from throwing out a strike at the exact same time.

My first NGA instructor's main tenet was, "If they want to box, I'll grapple. If they want to grapple, I'll box." It's essentially the same thing your'e saying here: don't play to their strengths if you're not stronger there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why not do both? Can't you slip/slide-step off-line from the attack, AND at the same time block & grab/trap/wrap or otherwise Immobilize? You are then in the best position to control and counter. Seems like the thing to do. No need to choose between evasion and engagement.

Yes. He presented it as a choice, so I went with his set-up. But you're right. If I slip in off-line, I'm probably trying to get in for some tight grappling, and wrapping an arm is one way to transition into it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Show me where I have generalized?

Maybe all those places in this thread where you talk about problems with self-defense schools. Or those places where you've talked about problems with Aikido, even generalizing it to the whole branch of arts.