Fight Science! Did anyone watch this?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, if you are going to arrogantly dismiss any suggestion that your training may not already be totally perfect in any way as "woo fantasies" then do not expect to be engaged in debate.

The statement you are using as an excuse to avoid discussing this was an if/then statement. If that's not what you are doing, then my remark does not apply. If that is what you are doing, you had nothing to bring to a debate anyway.

And did I say that it wasn't full-contact training? Some of it is but please try to read what I say then reply to it.

Allow me to rephrase my question then. Evidence that you are doing something that better prepares you psychologically for a fight than MMA-style full-contact training does please.

Ummm, okay. I call that grappling training.

It's necessary but utterly insufficient. If you don't wrestle full contact as well you can do the compliant-partner stuff until you get a 5th dan in Japanese jujitsu and you still won't be able to fight worth a bean compared to someone who does MMA for six months.

 

[Wudang]

Allow me to rephrase my question then. Evidence that you are doing something that better prepares you psychologically for a fight than MMA-style full-contact training does please.

Well one I like is doing say 10 minutes continuous "pig in the middle" between 2 attackers both keeping pressure on. You take one down, turn and deal with the other. It's the attackers responsibility not to get hurt, not the defender so the defenders doesn't waste time lowering his opponent on the mats. The idea is that the defender has to keep turning to face something. You start simple, only punches to the face allowed, say. Then speed it up. As people get more into the swing widen the range of techniques allowed. You also start to reduce the "grace period" that the next attacker leaves before moving in.
There's no emphasis on textbook techniques, anything you can do that works well enough to get you to the next bit undamaged is okay. The key bit is that it forces you stick to stuff that you can make work, you don't have any chance to plan what you do, you can't take your time on one guy as the other guy will smack you and you've lost.
And you need to watch out for accidents and the "red mist" coming down when you whip round into an oncoming fist.
It's not perfect by any means but it's one more thing that helps.
Btw - I am not and never have argued that it will make you a fighter. All training is about preparation. You know never what will happen until it happens.

 

[NateTG]

In typical situations cops aren't going to be grappling with the intent to subdue someone. There are several reasons, but the primary one is that it's dangerous. A cop (and anyone sane) would rather use body armor, a shield and a club, or pepper spray, or a gun. Policemen also generally don't use techniques which make it easy for people to hurt themselves, which eliminates a whole lot of stuff. Similarly, cops generally don't want to use holds that make it difficult to move people which pretty much eliminates anything that involves using the legs to tie someone up.

Notably, the only footage that I've seen of policemen actually grappling to subdue someon involves the tactic of everyone grab a limb and hold on, and that's obviously only useful in very limited circumstances.

Regarding the viability of non-MMA techniques I should like mention that track is a martial art. The art of running really fast has a glorious and famous history, is actively practiced today, and is clearly effective in a very wide variety of situations, but isn't particularly practical in the ring for some strange reason. MMA competitions have also, over time, become somewhat more restrictive - with various leagues banning things like kicking a down opponent, or headbutting (which has won MMA fights).

Regarding wrist locks specifically - in order to get a wrist lock from an open situation, you need to control an opponents arm well enough to get your body positioned around it, so it's very hard for me to believe that it's ever going to be easier to get a wrist lock than an elbow lock (a.k.a. arm bar) unless you're already tied up.

Since the hand is short and piant, it's difficult to control it using the legs or feet. That means it's difficult to get the back, leg, or hip muscles working to control it, moreover, because the hand is short, the leverage is going to be poor. That means that wrist locks are a poor choice against larger or stronger opponents.

Wrist locks can apparently be situationally useful, for example against an opponent who has taken your back and is reaching around your body to try to establish a hold too carelessly and exposes his wrist and elbow.

I'm not claiming that wrist locks cannot be effective, but it's hard for me to see how, aside from desperation and surprise use, they can ever be anything but an inferior alternative to something else.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well one I like is doing say 10 minutes continuous "pig in the middle" between 2 attackers both keeping pressure on. You take one down, turn and deal with the other. It's the attackers responsibility not to get hurt, not the defender so the defenders doesn't waste time lowering his opponent on the mats. The idea is that the defender has to keep turning to face something. You start simple, only punches to the face allowed, say. Then speed it up. As people get more into the swing widen the range of techniques allowed. You also start to reduce the "grace period" that the next attacker leaves before moving in.
There's no emphasis on textbook techniques, anything you can do that works well enough to get you to the next bit undamaged is okay. The key bit is that it forces you stick to stuff that you can make work, you don't have any chance to plan what you do, you can't take your time on one guy as the other guy will smack you and you've lost.
And you need to watch out for accidents and the "red mist" coming down when you whip round into an oncoming fist.
It's not perfect by any means but it's one more thing that helps.
Btw - I am not and never have argued that it will make you a fighter. All training is about preparation. You know never what will happen until it happens.

That's interesting, because it's very similar to things we've done in BJJ class.

One I've participated in is to have everyone in a circle with one person in the middle. The instructor calls out names semi-randomly and whoever is called charges in with a committed takedown attempt. The person in the middle deals with it, or gets taken down, and immediately stands up for the next person to take their shot. Once everyone has had a go at the person in the middle, they swap out and someone else is designated target. (All full contact of course, that should go without saying).

Speaking generally, not of your stuff in particular (because based on what you've said in other threads the stuff you do sounds interesting) if there's a good idea for a training method floating around in woo-MA land there's an excellent chance a sport MAer has seen it and pinched it. An awful lot of us did an awful lot of woo-MA back in the day. The woo-MAers like to think we came down in the last shower and landed in a padded ring with judges and ring girls, but I've never run in to such a person.

ETA: Welcome to the forums, NateTG. You sound like a clued-in person.

 

[Wudang]

In typical situations cops aren't going to be grappling with the intent to subdue someone.

My experience is all UK where things are different. I've watched cops restrain rowdy drunks enough to get them in the wagon.

Regarding the viability of non-MMA techniques I should like mention that track is a martial art.

To quote a pal - "I have a black belt in track. I beat my last opponent by 2 blocks". The martial art of nike-do has its place.

Regarding wrist locks specifically - in order to get a wrist lock from an open situation, you need to control an opponents arm well enough to get your body positioned around it, so it's very hard for me to believe that it's ever going to be easier to get a wrist lock than an elbow lock (a.k.a. arm bar) unless you're already tied up.

Since the hand is short and piant, it's difficult to control it using the legs or feet. That means it's difficult to get the back, leg, or hip muscles working to control it, moreover, because the hand is short, the leverage is going to be poor. That means that wrist locks are a poor choice against larger or stronger opponents.

I'm not claiming that wrist locks cannot be effective, but it's hard for me to see how, aside from desperation and surprise use, they can ever be anything but an inferior alternative to something else.

They are a good starter against someone not too trained in resisting them. The ideal point to grab in my experience is - let your middle 2 fingers slide down your arm until your hand stops them then grip. You've got a decent grip that makes it more difficult for him to clench his hand and you have a lever on his forearm. You're still in a good position for an armbar but if you can get a wrist lock on he can be easier to steer.
I guess that might qualify under your "surprise" category?

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ken,

I am asking you to support your claim that nobody can.

Isn't that just like asking someone to support their claim that nobody has psychic powers?

Sure, why not? I have no problem supporting that claim. Do you? Note that simply stating that you have never seen anything which you are convinced constitute psychic powers, doesn't cut it. One has to actually provide a compelling argument for why the available evidence supports the claim that nobody has such powers.

I have yet to see any legitimate argument for why the cited evidence (lack of video footage) supports the claim that nobody can make things like wrist locks work reliably in a real fighting situation.


Kevin,

Ummm, okay. I call that grappling training.

It's necessary but utterly insufficient. If you don't wrestle full contact as well you can do the compliant-partner stuff until you get a 5th dan in Japanese jujitsu and you still won't be able to fight worth a bean compared to someone who does MMA for six months.

Any teacher or school which would grant a 5th dan to somebody without them both having done significant training for full contact, and them having demonstrated their capabilities in a full contact situation, should be ashamed of itself. I honestly don't see where you get off implying that Japanese Jusitsu schools work this way. It is especially ludacrous given your response to the link I showed you. You immediately disregarded it because it is not in Australia, where you can easily go see them for yourself. Australia!!. I can only infer from this that your opinion of Japanese Jujitsu is based on what you have seen there. Now I have no idea what the Jujitsu situation is like down under. Maybe there aren't any decent schools there at all. But how can you presume to speak authoritatively for the whole world, when your access to information is so very limited?

By the way, this issue is not just a point of disagreement. This person whose competency you are so trivially dismissing is somebody who I have a great deal of respect for, both as one of my teachers, as a fellow martial artist, and as a personal friend. For you to simply assert that she can't fight, without knowing anything about her other than that she trains Japanese Jujitsu, is both ignorant and insulting. The same goes for several other practitioners of Japanese Jujitsu who I personally know can fight, and whom I have a great deal of respect for.

It is one thing to say that you have never met a JJ practitioner who could fight, or even that you are skeptical that there are any. But to flat-out claim that they can't is both a direct insult and challange to pretty much every Japanese Jujitsu practitioner out there. Now I gather from your prior posts that you are perfectly happy presenting it as a challange for any of them to step up and prove to you that they really can fight. But are you in the habit of casually insulting people you know absolutely nothing about?


Dr. Stupid

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Any teacher or school which would grant a 5th dan to somebody without them both having done significant training for full contact, and them having demonstrated their capabilities in a full contact situation, should be ashamed of itself. I honestly don't see where you get off implying that Japanese Jusitsu schools work this way.

Because to the best of my knowledge they do?

It is especially ludacrous given your response to the link I showed you.

That's a laugh. Your link contained absolutely no information at all. You just said "Here's a link to a content-free page. I believe these people call themselves jujitsu and train full contact". If it's true they are very unusual, and I still want to know if they are really a reformed branch of JJJ or whether they are a modern eclectic style called JJJ.

You immediately disregarded it because it is not in Australia, where you can easily go see them for yourself. Australia!!. I can only infer from this that your opinion of Japanese Jujitsu is based on what you have seen there. Now I have no idea what the Jujitsu situation is like down under. Maybe there aren't any decent schools there at all. But how can you presume to speak authoritatively for the whole world, when your access to information is so very limited?

Because it's not exactly a new topic of conversation to anyone who didn't come down in the last shower? Around here someone brings up John Edwards every few months, and on rec.martial-arts someone would regularly ask "Say, since Brazilian jiujitsu is the good stuff, Japanese jujitsu must be pretty good too right?".

To which the response would always be "They have the same techniques, they have the wrong training method, no one here has ever seen a school that could fight".

By the way, this issue is not just a point of disagreement. This person whose competency you are so trivially dismissing is somebody who I have a great deal of respect for, both as one of my teachers, as a fellow martial artist, and as a personal friend. For you to simply assert that she can't fight, without knowing anything about her other than that she trains Japanese Jujitsu, is both ignorant and insulting. The same goes for several other practitioners of Japanese Jujitsu who I personally know can fight, and whom I have a great deal of respect for.

It is one thing to say that you have never met a JJ practitioner who could fight, or even that you are skeptical that there are any. But to flat-out claim that they can't is both a direct insult and challange to pretty much every Japanese Jujitsu practitioner out there. Now I gather from your prior posts that you are perfectly happy presenting it as a challange for any of them to step up and prove to you that they really can fight. But are you in the habit of casually insulting people you know absolutely nothing about?

This is boringly predictable. "You have offended the honour of my my teacher, who is awesome, and my style, which is full of people who could kick your arse! Thus you are wrong!". I'm sure you can see why it's a fallacious argument.

But sure, I'd be thrilled if an Nth dan in jujitsu or hapkido or some such style showed up to class and I got to wrestle them. In fact, I wrestled a black belt in hapkido when I was a beginner. However I only found out he was a black belt in hapkido much later, because you sure couldn't tell on the mat. Big kudos to him for taking up BJJ as well.

Whereas I'd be equally thrilled for different reasons if an Nth dan judo black belt showed up. Those guys are good.

 

[pipelineaudio]

To be fair to KL, in light of the sweeping gun ban in australia, perhaps long ago there was a sweeping "fist ban" a ways back, that MMA schools have managed to get around somehow?

This might explain why he believes that TMA's dont do full contact.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

You immediately disregarded it because it is not in Australia, where you can easily go see them for yourself. Australia!!. I can only infer from this that your opinion of Japanese Jujitsu is based on what you have seen there. Now I have no idea what the Jujitsu situation is like down under. Maybe there aren't any decent schools there at all. But how can you presume to speak authoritatively for the whole world, when your access to information is so very limited?

Because it's not exactly a new topic of conversation to anyone who didn't come down in the last shower? Around here someone brings up John Edwards every few months, and on rec.martial-arts someone would regularly ask "Say, since Brazilian jiujitsu is the good stuff, Japanese jujitsu must be pretty good too right?".

To which the response would always be "They have the same techniques, they have the wrong training method, no one here has ever seen a school that could fight".

You apperantly missed the point, which is that you are making broad generalizations about a large number of people based on your extremely limited interactions with a small group of them.

That's a laugh. Your link contained absolutely no information at all. You just said "Here's a link to a content-free page. I believe these people call themselves jujitsu and train full contact". If it's true they are very unusual, and I still want to know if they are really a reformed branch of JJJ or whether they are a modern eclectic style called JJJ.

Then ask them. That link was hardly content free. It provides you with everything you need to know to find the answers to your questions. Again, this is part of my point. You do not appear to be interested in making any kind of effort to test your own extremely overgeneralized preconceptions. It is much easier to sit back and demand that anybody that doesn't agree with you spoon-feed you proof that you are wrong.

This is boringly predictable. "You have offended the honour of my my teacher, who is awesome, and my style, which is full of people who could kick your arse! Thus you are wrong!". I'm sure you can see why it's a fallacious argument.

Absolutely. It is also not the argument I have presented. It is yet another strawman used to evade my actual point.

By the way, my style is not Japanese Jujitsu. I do not do Japanese Jujitsu, and aside from attending some seminars, I have not trained Japanese Jujitsu. And my point about you insulting huge numbers of people has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are wrong or not. It has to do with you making completely unjustified claims about people you know nothing about.

But sure, I'd be thrilled if an Nth dan in jujitsu or hapkido or some such style showed up to class and I got to wrestle them. In fact, I wrestled a black belt in hapkido when I was a beginner. However I only found out he was a black belt in hapkido much later, because you sure couldn't tell on the mat. Big kudos to him for taking up BJJ as well.

I wonder if you would be so rude as to tell them to their face before the match that Japanese Jujitsu people can't fight?

Again, this isn't about whether you are right or wrong. It is about whether you are justified in your claim. You clearly are not. You simply do not have substantial evidence to back up the claim that Japanese Jujitsu people can't fight. So to authoritatively state that they can't is not only presumptuous and naive, but also extremely insulting to the people you are making these generalizations about.

By the way, if you did make such a comment before the match, I doubt they would be interested in wrestling you. Why should they play your game? Most likely, they would just want to beat the cr@p out of you.

But I guess you don't need to worry about that, since none of them can fight.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You apperantly missed the point, which is that you are making broad generalizations about a large number of people based on your extremely limited interactions with a small group of them.

Plus those I've interacted with second hand, sure. I'm happy to continue to do so until I encounter a counterexample.

Then ask them. That link was hardly content free. It provides you with everything you need to know to find the answers to your questions.

Not that I could see. I couldn't see anything there about sporting competitions or full contact training.

I wonder if you would be so rude as to tell them to their face before the match that Japanese Jujitsu people can't fight?

Why not? What are they going to do, except possibly prove me wrong?

By the way, if you did make such a comment before the match, I doubt they would be interested in wrestling you. Why should they play your game? Most likely, they would just want to beat the cr@p out of you.

But I guess you don't need to worry about that, since none of them can fight.

Ah, the age-old cry of the threatened woo-MAer. "You wouldn't dare diss us if we were right there, because we'd beat you up!". Well, I'm not there, so too bad. Enter your JJJ buddies in an MMA competition and if they win I'll happily say I was completely wrong. Otherwise stick to the evidence, not your fantasies of someone beating me up for you.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

You apperantly missed the point, which is that you are making broad generalizations about a large number of people based on your extremely limited interactions with a small group of them.

Plus those I've interacted with second hand, sure. I'm happy to continue to do so until I encounter a counterexample.

And therein lies the problem. Rather than basing your position on what the evidence actually justifies, you have jumped to an unjustified conclusion, and are perfectly happy to cling to it until somebody proves to you that it is wrong. A very convenient way to avoid challenging your beliefs, especially when you not only make no effort to challenge this belief yourself, but also aggressively attack anybody who tries to challenge them, rather than giving objective consideration to what they have to say.

Then ask them. That link was hardly content free. It provides you with everything you need to know to find the answers to your questions.

Not that I could see. I couldn't see anything there about sporting competitions or full contact training.

Like I said, then ask them. You don't need to be spoon-fed everything. If you want to know, then make the effort to find out. If you don't want to know, then don't pretend that you do by insincerely asking for counter-examples when you have no intention of actually looking into any of them.

I wonder if you would be so rude as to tell them to their face before the match that Japanese Jujitsu people can't fight?

Why not? What are they going to do, except possibly prove me wrong?

So your behavior towards people is based entirely on whether or not you think you will be punished?

Why not? How about because it is not an appropriate way to behave? How about because it gives people the impression than you are simply an arrogant jerk?

By the way, if you did make such a comment before the match, I doubt they would be interested in wrestling you. Why should they play your game? Most likely, they would just want to beat the cr@p out of you.

But I guess you don't need to worry about that, since none of them can fight.

Ah, the age-old cry of the threatened woo-MAer. "You wouldn't dare diss us if we were right there, because we'd beat you up!".

Oh give me a break. This kind of nonsense just proves my point. You are behaving like an arrogant child, not an experienced martial artist.

Well, I'm not there, so too bad. Enter your JJJ buddies in an MMA competition and if they win I'll happily say I was completely wrong. Otherwise stick to the evidence, not your fantasies of someone beating me up for you.

Your fantasies about my fantasies are quite amusing. I especially enjoy how you attempt to twist anything anybody says into your little cookie-cutter mold of Woo-MAers with no fighting experience whining about how well their magical chi-powers work against armed ninjas. You appear to be completely incapable of actually having a reasonable discussion about anything which challenges your beliefs. The fact that you clumsily attempt to disguise this as skeptism by throwing in appeals to non-existent evidence and demands for evidence you will never bother to check out anyway, just makes it all the more amusing.


Dr. Stupid

 

[T'ai Chi]

Enter your JJJ buddies in an MMA competition and if they win I'll happily say I was completely wrong.

Where can we see Kevin Lowe's MMA fight results?
(notice Kevin again bases his value of martial arts on sport/entertainment events, not real life)

Otherwise stick to the evidence, not your fantasies of someone beating me up for you.

Is that anything like your fantasy of no jujitsu person being able to fight ever?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And therein lies the problem. Rather than basing your position on what the evidence actually justifies, you have jumped to an unjustified conclusion, and are perfectly happy to cling to it until somebody proves to you that it is wrong.

Or I happen across a counterexample myself, sure.

Like I said, then ask them. You don't need to be spoon-fed everything. If you want to know, then make the effort to find out. If you don't want to know, then don't pretend that you do by insincerely asking for counter-examples when you have no intention of actually looking into any of them.

So when you say "That link was hardly content free. It provides you with everything you need to know to find the answers to your questions." what you actually mean is "It provides contact details for some people".

Whatever happened to the "Your evidence, your legwork" rule? I guess it doesn't apply to you. I also have to point out that you have avoided mentioning the issue of whether the place you linked to is a reformed JJJ school or a modern eclectic style with JJJ on the label, which implies to me that (at best) you don't know which it is. I feel safe in assuming that if you knew that it was indeed a traditional JJJ style with a direct lineage to the early jujitsu ryu then I would have heard about it from you.

So your behavior towards people is based entirely on whether or not you think you will be punished?

So you ask a lot of dumb questions based on straw men?

Why not? How about because it is not an appropriate way to behave? How about because it gives people the impression than you are simply an arrogant jerk?

Feel free to assume for the puposes of this argument that I am the most arrogant jerk who ever jerked, then get back to talking about the evidence instead of the fact that I am mean.

Oh give me a break. This kind of nonsense just proves my point. You are behaving like an arrogant child, not an experienced martial artist.

Your fantasies about my fantasies are quite amusing. I especially enjoy how you attempt to twist anything anybody says into your little cookie-cutter mold of Woo-MAers with no fighting experience whining about how well their magical chi-powers work against armed ninjas. You appear to be completely incapable of actually having a reasonable discussion about anything which challenges your beliefs. The fact that you clumsily attempt to disguise this as skeptism by throwing in appeals to non-existent evidence and demands for evidence you will never bother to check out anyway, just makes it all the more amusing.

Your problem is that you are trundling out all the same old argument that terms like ninjas-in-a-carpark-with-lava were coined to mock.

You've trundled out the "maybe we can't beat one guy under ideal conditions, but I bet we could beat five guys in a dark alley if any of them could pull knives at any moment, because we train for that and MMAers don't!" idiocy. You've appealed to hypothetical violence from your buddies as an argument. You've appealed to the authority of your local guru as evidence that certain techniques work as advertised when there is no other evidence, presumably because instructors have never been wrong or misled their students before, and cited things that happened in non-full-contact events as evidence regarding what can happen in a real fight.

These are not original ideas, they are very silly arguments that most members of the wider reality-based MA community are already sick of. If you make cookie-cutter arguments you get cookie-cutter responses.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

So when you say "That link was hardly content free. It provides you with everything you need to know to find the answers to your questions." what you actually mean is "It provides contact details for some people".

It provides contact details for the people you should be talking to if you were really interested in finding out anything about them. It also provides links to pages with more information, and it provides you with the information you need to search for more details yourself.

Whatever happened to the "Your evidence, your legwork" rule? I guess it doesn't apply to you.

Like I said before, I did not present it as evidence of anything. I posted it in response to your request for the names of any Japanese Jujitsu schools which actually do full contact training. Apparently that request was insincere.

I also have to point out that you have avoided mentioning the issue of whether the place you linked to is a reformed JJJ school or a modern eclectic style with JJJ on the label, which implies to me that (at best) you don't know which it is.

If you had bothered to read the information I linked to, you would already have the answer to that question.

I feel safe in assuming that if you knew that it was indeed a traditional JJJ style with a direct lineage to the early jujitsu ryu then I would have heard about it from you.

Perhaps instead of making such assumptions, you should try looking for the answers yourself?

Why not? How about because it is not an appropriate way to behave? How about because it gives people the impression than you are simply an arrogant jerk?

Feel free to assume for the puposes of this argument that I am the most arrogant jerk who ever jerked, then get back to talking about the evidence instead of the fact that I am mean.

OK. Let's get back to the evidence. I am still waiting for you to present the evidence which supports your claims that any techniques which are not seen in MMA competitions are "woo-MA" and don't work in real fights. I am still waiting for you to present the evidence which supports your claim that the training methodology for MMA competitions is the optimal training methodology for other types of fighting. And I am still waiting for you to present the evidence which supports your claim that Japanese Jujitsu practitioners can't fight.

Your problem is that you are trundling out all the same old argument that terms like ninjas-in-a-carpark-with-lava were coined to mock.

You've trundled out the "maybe we can't beat one guy under ideal conditions, but I bet we could beat five guys in a dark alley if any of them could pull knives at any moment, because we train for that and MMAers don't!" idiocy.

What a complete load of BS. I have already responded to this nonsense at least twice in this thread. The fact that you continue to toss around this obvious strawman just demonstrates your dishonest tactics in this discussion.

For the third time, I am not suggesting that anybody is going to be able to use a technique against multiple armed opponents that he cannot make work against a single unarmed opponent. That is ridiculous.

You've appealed to hypothetical violence from your buddies as an argument. You've appealed to the authority of your local guru as evidence that certain techniques work as advertised when there is no other evidence, presumably because instructors have never been wrong or misled their students before, and cited things that happened in non-full-contact events as evidence regarding what can happen in a real fight.

These are not original ideas, they are very silly arguments that most members of the wider reality-based MA community are already sick of. If you make cookie-cutter arguments you get cookie-cutter responses.

Wow. Mister "Japanese Jujitsu practitioners can't fight" is accusing me of making cookie-cutter arguments. That's rich.

Again, please present your evidence. Stop demanding that others refute your ridiculous claims, and present your evidence. Stop mischaracterizing other people's telling you why they disagree with your claims as failed attempts to refute them, and present your evidence. Stop twisting every example people give of situations in which your claims would not reasonably be expected to hold, into silly strawman arguments, and present your evidence.

You keep going on an on about skepticism and evidence. Well, let's see it.


Dr. Stupid

 

[T'ai Chi]

You've appealed to the authority of your local guru as evidence that certain techniques work as advertised when there is no other evidence,

Actually, he's appealed to the evidence first and foremost, and then to a well-respected teacher who has experience (more than Kevin has) second. He simply hasn't judged all of martial arts by the limited and artificial arena of sports/entertainment like you have attempted to do.

Kevin, do Japanese martial arts historians agree with you that no Japanese jujitsu person could fight? Why the need for your attempt at historical revisionism?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It provides contact details for the people you should be talking to if you were really interested in finding out anything about them. It also provides links to pages with more information, and it provides you with the information you need to search for more details yourself.

Like I said before, I did not present it as evidence of anything. I posted it in response to your request for the names of any Japanese Jujitsu schools which actually do full contact training. Apparently that request was insincere.

If you had bothered to read the information I linked to, you would already have the answer to that question.

I clicked on every button that worked for me and found no such information. That's why I referred to it as "content free".

If you think the information is there please state exactly how you think you get to it.

Perhaps instead of making such assumptions, you should try looking for the answers yourself?

In any investigation, especially a casual one, once you have a healthy amount of evidence then you fix an opinion until a counterexample comes along. You don't dedicate the rest of your life to the search for a leprechaun, unicorn, or full-contact Japanese jujitsu school.

OK. Let's get back to the evidence. I am still waiting for you to present the evidence which supports your claims that any techniques which are not seen in MMA competitions are "woo-MA" and don't work in real fights.

There's no proof of that claim, since it's by nature a global negative. However I think a person is a fool if they believe a martial artist's claim about what works in the absence of video evidence, especially if they espouse techniques which have been universally discarded by the people who aren't afraid to show their abilities on camera.

I am still waiting for you to present the evidence which supports your claim that the training methodology for MMA competitions is the optimal training methodology for other types of fighting.

As before, evidence that any other kind of training works nearly as well for unarmed combat is nonexistent. Past a certain point you stop checking under the bed for unicorns and start mocking the people who think they have a unicorn.

Although calling your theory a unicorn is being too generous, because it implies specificity. You have absolutely no idea what techniques or training methods might work better than MMA, nor any idea what situations those techniques might work better in. You just want me to disprove every possible imaginary animal that might possibly be hiding anywhere.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I like how Stimpy tries to lay the burden of finding evidence for his claims upon you, Kevin.

 

[Wudang]

However I think a person is a fool if they believe a martial artist's claim about what works in the absence of video evidence, especially if they espouse techniques which have been universally discarded by the people who aren't afraid to show their abilities on camera.

See my previous point about wrist-locks. The fact that police use them shows that they work well enough for the polices level of training. This is UK police whose weapons are extensible batons and pepper spray and strict guidelines on their use.
My previous points about defusing a potential fight by restraining someone rather than pounding them is another.
I'm sorry but you and Ken are just showing a lack of experience of situations outside the ring.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Kevin,

I clicked on every button that worked for me and found no such information. That's why I referred to it as "content free".

If you think the information is there please state exactly how you think you get to it.

The link I posted contains a link to the Danzan-Ryu Jujitsu homepage:

http://www.danzan.com/

This page contains detailed information about the origin and history of the style, as well as contact information for a great number of people who could provide you with whatever additional information you might want.

In any investigation, especially a casual one, once you have a healthy amount of evidence then you fix an opinion until a counterexample comes along. You don't dedicate the rest of your life to the search for a leprechaun, unicorn, or full-contact Japanese jujitsu school.

A "healthy amount of evidence" should be more than just your observation of a few schools in your area. If my belief that leprechauns and unicorns did not exist was bases solely on the fact that I have never found one in St. Louis, Missouri, that would not be valid either.

Your conclusion simply doesn't follow from the evidence you have.

OK. Let's get back to the evidence. I am still waiting for you to present the evidence which supports your claims that any techniques which are not seen in MMA competitions are "woo-MA" and don't work in real fights.

There's no proof of that claim, since it's by nature a global negative.

I did not ask for proof. I asked for evidence supporting your claim. If there is no evidence supporting your claim, then you should not make that claim.

However I think a person is a fool if they believe a martial artist's claim about what works in the absence of video evidence,

I would say that they are a fool if they believe it in the absense of any evidence. But again, video evidence isn't the only kind of evidence. Seeing it work for yourself, for example.

And a person is equally a fool to believe that a claim is false simply because they haven't seen video evidence for it, especially if it is not the kind of claim you would expect to see video evidence for.

especially if they espouse techniques which have been universally discarded by the people who aren't afraid to show their abilities on camera.

Well, in this case, they aren't. You claim that they have been universally discarded by MMA competitors, but as I already pointed out, that fact (assuming it is true), does not support your claim, because MMA competition is very specific and limited.

I am still waiting for you to present the evidence which supports your claim that the training methodology for MMA competitions is the optimal training methodology for other types of fighting.

As before, evidence that any other kind of training works nearly as well for unarmed combat is nonexistent. Past a certain point you stop checking under the bed for unicorns and start mocking the people who think they have a unicorn.

Again, you are the one shifting the goalpost to strictly unarmed combat here. In fact, if you go one little step further, and restrict you claim to apply only to unarmed combat against a single opponent in a ring, I would agree that there is strong evidence to support the claim that MMA competition training is optimal for this.

But such a shifted claim no longer has any relevance to real fighting, and no longer says anything at all about the efficacy of other training methodologies for real fights. It also no longer has any relevance whatsoever to the issue of whether techniques which you don't see in MMA competitions can still be effective and useful in real fights.

Although calling your theory a unicorn is being too generous, because it implies specificity. You have absolutely no idea what techniques or training methods might work better than MMA, nor any idea what situations those techniques might work better in.

This is simply not true. I have given many specific examples. They just weren't of the form of "In precise situation X technique A is better than technique B", because that sort of thing is nonsense to begin with.

You just want me to disprove every possible imaginary animal that might possibly be hiding anywhere.

No, I want you to recognize that your assertion requires you to provide some evidence to back it up. If the situation were really analogous to the unicorn example, then this would mean something along the lines of providing a compelling argument for why we should expect every technique which is useful and effective in real fighting to be represented in MMA competition. Or maybe some evidence for why we should expect there to be video evidence of every technique which can be useful and effective in a real fight being applied and successfully used in full contact match. I don't expect either of these things to be true, and see no reason why I should assume that they are, which is what I would have to do to accept that your claim is actually justified by the evidence.

And as for the "Jujitsu people can't fight" garbage, if you want a claim like that to be justified, then you do need to show evidence that none of them can fight. The fact that this is not practical just demonstrates the absurdity of making such a claim.


Ken,

I like how Stimpy tries to lay the burden of finding evidence for his claims upon you, Kevin.

You seem to have things backwards, Ken. Kevin is the one who has tried to lay the burden of finding evidence for his claims on me. When I ask for evidence to support his claims, he instead demands that I provide counterexamples.

As for my claims, I explained my reasons for believing what I do. I never said that I was trying to convince anybody else to believe what I believe. I have absolutely no need to provide evidence that, for example, wrist locks can be effective in a real fight, or that whipping strikes are useful for fighting, or that limb destruction techniques are useful for real fighting. If you don't believe that they are, that's perfectly fine with me. I could not care less. I have seen the evidence which has convinced me of these things, and I have absolutely no expectation that somebody who has not seen that evidence is just going to take my word for it. But Kevin has made specific authoritative assertions, and has claimed that they are supported by evidence. So he needs to provide that evidence.


Dr. Stupid

 

[Roboramma]

I think Stimpy's got a point that shouldn't be missed in all the rhetoric of this thread. Basically, it's this: it's possible that there are some training methods that are more useful for preparing one for at least some of the self-defense situations that you could encounter in real life than mixed-martial arts.

The obvious example is the one that people have brought up already - being able to outrun your opponents is often much more likely to be possible than being able to outfight them. In that case, training to run fast is a good method.
Of course, that's not really an example of martial arts training.

So what is? I don't think that there's a suggestion of some magic training method that is useful against 10 armed ninjas on lava but not against one skilled opponent in a ring. But it's possible that there's a training method that's useful against a clueless guy who may or may not have friends around, but isn't useful against a skilled opponent in the ring.
I don't think there's any reason to rule out the existence of such a training method.

Now, if someone came to me and said, "I have a method that's really useful for such and such a scenario that you might encounter in the real world", I'd doubt it. I'd give them a chance to show the evidence that it is, but until they did I wouldn't beleive them on that specific case.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that I am justified in suggesting that there is no such case out there.

Similarly it's likely that there is some fish of more than 2m in length that's totally unknown to science happily swimming in the ocean. I would bet on it. (If you can't agree to that, though I imagine you can, adjust the 2m to a number that you can agree to, the argument remains the same).
Nevertheless, if someone came to me and said, "I recently caught a fish that's 2m long, and is totally unknown to science." They'd need to supply some evidence that they had actually done this before I beleived them.

Here's another example to make my argument clear- I think it likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe. I don't know what form that life takes, I don't know how it may have come about (except to say by physical processes), or really much about it. I don't know what's necessary for it. But based on what I do know, it seems likely that there is life of some form, somewhere else.
Yet if someone said to me, "I have some alien bacteria in my fridge." Or, "There is life on mars", I wouldn't believe them without evidence.

Kevin, I think you're entirely correct to disbelieve in any specific example of a "better than MMA" training program or technique until evidence that it is better is presented. However, I that's very different from saying, "no such thing exists". The first conclusion, which applies to specific examples, is valid, the second is not. I don't know that you're making the second conclusion (based on some of your comments on this thread, it seems not, based on others, it seems you are). I don't know if Stimpy is suggesting that the first conclusion is false (ditto here).

Anyway, that's the best I can make of this thread. Take it as you will. I'm only posting it because I thought maybe it would help clarify something I think was obscured by the ill-feelings.