With respect sparring is not self defence, in fact it is quite the opposite. In addition, being exposed to violence does not make you better at SD. It probably gives you a better understanding, but not necessarily a better coach. What do you have to underpin your SD qualifications? Do you have professional qualifications, or is what you have based on experience? Does the legal responsibility of the student come into your training, or are you just interested in the student getting home safely? In terms of your own defence it does seem to me that you are heavily weighted on your front foot. That is fine if you make contact with the attackers lead hand, but any devation has you off balance. It seems that of the attacker did Aikido he could angle away from your own lead arm and have you in a heap of trouble. Of course it is very easy to be critical of any short video, but as you are so keen to point out the fault with Aikido, you seem not to be paying attention to your own balance.
FunctionalSD what does 'thats ok....until its not mean'? Until I have defeated a crazed psycho wielding a double sawn off chainsaw/grenade launching combo, took on evil murderous Ip Man or pulled off a perfect one inch death punch on the terminater? What kind of an attack are you talking about and what other martial art would breeze through it? And theres the old MMA dig, elements of it are used but of course when someone says 'oh did you see that aikido move he just pulled' someone else will quickly say 'ah yes but that move is also used in Judo, therefore its deffo not aikido' even tho the move is identical in both arts it is quickly wrenched from soft old aikido and claimed as rock ard judo! Why would you use aikido on a child? Surely BJJ is better?
To a large degree I agree with you. Agreed. As I mentioned in a prior post, I've got black belts in a couple of karate based styles, and taught one of them for a couple of years before branching out. But experience is ALWAYS more important than any qualification. And by experience I mean training and teaching with an open mind, and experimenting...not being attached or blinded by any one style/teacher/concept...but a willingness to change when you realize you are wrong. I'm not doing any defense in the video. I'm the guy who is punching at the guy in the white shirt. And yeah, the video is just a demo. Most definitely! The first two sections on my site (and correspondingly in my teaching) are on violence and prevention, and I mention the legality of self defense often. Prevention should be 95% or more of self defense, and if you don't understand legal ramifications...you could end up more trouble than losing a "fight".
I mean that it's ok as long as it doesn't fail. Traditional aikido is a VERY low % style for functional self defense...the way it's commonly taught. All you need to do is search YouTube for aikido practitioners fighting others to see how poorly it works against an uncooperative attack. I understand that self defense and "fighting" are two different things. But the very distinct lack of functional aikido vs. most other styles should be an indication to you. There's a good reason for that dig coming up again and again. Think about it. I wouldn't. But it would have a better chance of working on a child compared to an adult...as long as you are an adult yourself.
So if I am reading this correctly you have branced out into the world of SD based on a some street fighting encounters, or did your Karate based systems teach SD? Experience is necessary, but are you backed by any legal or professional organisations or qualifications? You do add links and make reference to the legal side of SD, but whay is your understanding? Is it a "one size fits all". Here in the UK we have the human rights act, among other acts. In America do different states have different rules? If they do then do you take this into account? This is where you need to be legally underpinning the advice you give and teach, surely. That's fine, but someone in YOUR video is structurally weak and you are criticising US. It may just be a demonstration, but you are using it to point out weaknesses in others.
I also notice that you are demonstrating your techniques against a compliant partner, which for training is fine; we all need to go to work unharmed the next day. What do you do though to up the anti. Hw do you train against a non compliant partner? Do you train in any kind or armour and go "all out"? If not then how, apart from getting into a street fight, do you test what works and what doesn't?
Man its like banging your head against a wall! Ok aikido is crap, it will never work, MMA is king (even tho aikido moves have been used - ignored tho of course), the dude in the pub was obviously paraletic, slow, disorientated and only 5 years old, everyone who has ever trained in aikido did so against the human version of a wrag doll, my way works but traditional aikido never will as I showed in my vid that had no aikido in it, I hope you never have to REALLY defend yourself... blah blah blah same old bashing etc etc. This is just getting silly now! As I have said before if aikido is trained as a martial art it works as a martial art. Shock horror even against..........wait for it...........none compliant attackers!!! AAARRGGGHHHHH!!!!! It can't be true?!?!?!
Well, the karate based styles were primarily concerned with SD. However, I repeat, experience through honest training and experimenting is more important, and certainly was for me. What I was training and teaching at first was sub-optimal. Not trying to preach here! But, you seem to be stuck on the idea that it's necessary to be backed by an organization. Organizations are made up of people, and many of them are deeply flawed. Plenty of individuals unattached to anything other than themselves, have come up with excellent material. It all has to start somewhere. Did you read what I linked to...on my website? It's fairly comprehensive and details my understanding. In the US, different states do have different laws. However, all self defense law as far as I'm aware allows you to defend yourself when you or any other reasonable person would fear for your life with no opportunity to escape, and where you weren't a cause in the conflict. As I mentioned in the captions...the TECHNIQUES that my partner is demonstrating in the video are functional techniques. It's irrelevant if his execution isn't perfect. No one's execution is perfect, and it's unnecessary to be perfect. In self defense, you need high % techniques, and training methods to support them. THAT is the point of my video. What I am criticizing is definitely not weaknesses in others. I'm criticizing training methods and techniques that have a very low chance of leading to functional skills. There's a big difference. So in the video where my partner does the techniques...I first show them completely cooperative, and then more uncooperative. Keep in mind, they are technical demonstrations and not uncooperative training examples. However, in a couple of the examples where my partner tries the techniques against me, where I'm wearing the boxing gloves, I am indeed trying to hit him with multiple strikes. The crashing or "smack and hack" entries ram me though, and put me in a position where I am unable to follow up...due to getting pulled and pushed around (with realistic control!). Multiple ways...and if you take a look at my training page I go into detail on that. But briefly: 1. We train non-compliance with no gear but lowered intensity to keep from getting injured. 2. We train with gear and high intensity. Neither method is perfect, but by doing both you can balance out the negative aspects of the other. Then we should end our mini-conversation, because continuing would be like both of us banging our heads against a wall. Good luck with your training.
I'm not stuck at all and I do not mean organisations such as Karate clubs. I mean an understanding and certification in things such as self defence associations, physical restraint, weapons instruction, self defence instruction. Anyone can call themselves an instructor; I am trying to understand what qualifies you to tell me what I am doing wrong. As far as you are aware. Not what your research has shown you and not what you could argue was justified in a courtroom. Would your above arguement stand up to examination under all conditions? You broke someones arm, you knocked them unconscious, you killed them etc. Do you understand SD from a legal standpoint, because if you don't and you are teaching students who may use your techniques to disable someone, then you may be involved further that you may wish. What equipment do you use and what do you call high intensity?
My Aikido days may be passed me now (dickie back and joints at 53 is no laughing matter) - so my comments aint the be all and end all. However I cannot recall seeing a video with content "Aikido" being quite as devoid as this one in question (repeated below for anyone wondering what this fairly pointless thread is about) for the relevant subject matter i.e. there is no Aikido in the vid - nada, nothing, zip. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0NfBLXbJHMk#[/ame]! So this begs the question, what is the point in putting this type of cat-burp onto youtube land and yacking tosh about it on MAP? Maybe tosh-talk is moving from Taichi threads to Aikido threads.
You seem like a nice guy. I'm sure we'd have fun. That's right, anyone can call themselves anything. What determines whether you should listen to what I'm saying or not, is your judgment of the content of my message...and nothing else, ideally. Really, nothing else matters. I'm pretty confident that if you read what I've written with an open mind, or take some time to read what I've presented on my site, you'll see that it makes a heck of a lot of sense. But I wouldn't stop there. Is there any reason you'd prefer not to test what I'm proposing yourself? Get a training partner, and give it a go! It's free. And it will work. No...what I meant by that is, what I am aware of based on my research. Not only did I teach New Orleans police and a number of attorneys who I talked about these things, but also read my local laws. Additionally, I have taken seminars that included legal self defense. I've read self defense laws in a variety of countries, as I no longer spend most of my time in the US. And every one I've read has had this in common: You can defend yourself if you reasonably believe you are in danger and cannot escape. You can only use a level of force appropriate to remove that danger...and no more. It's pretty universal, based on my research. Yep. I've used just about everything, from boxing gloves + mouthpiece + cup to full body gear. The amount and quality of gear depends on the particular training drills...with or without weapons...hard vs. padded vs. rubber weapons, airsoft vs. rubber guns, etc., etc. Responding to this more than I'm doing with this sentence would be a waste of my time and yours.
I think your site is critical of a lot of arts unfairly. I looked at your knife defence that is critical of Pikiti Tersia. You point out faults in regard to the lead arm, forgetting to take into account the different ranges. There are times when a lead arm defence is necessary and times when it is not. My suggestion would be to promote your own ideas while being a little less critical of others. Who said I've never tested either myself or my art? Plenty of videos on MAP of me doing just that.
Again, my goal is to help people learn to apply what they've trained in self defense. And I find the best way to do that...to an already existing market...is to point out what doesn't work in order to demonstrate what does. The first section of my site is purely about self defense, not other styles. The second section focuses on the pros and cons of various martial arts as they relate to self defense. Most people I come in contact with are both receptive and appreciative...although not all of course. My goal is not to be critical, but realistic. Some styles were NOT made for self defense...many sport styles for instance. Some martial arts weren't either. I'm sure you're aware of the transition that was made from various forms of bujutsu to various forms of budo in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Many of the Japanese martial arts around today...forms of budo...were NOT designed for self defense. However, many of them are promoted that way. I think people need to understand the purpose of what they're doing, and it's important to realize what does and does not work in self defense. Not me. I was sincerely asking. I hope you will!
Realistic in whos eyes? In this video you say WC in not effective. Take the technique at 1.03. http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/wing-chun/ You say that no real attacker if going to strike like that. I say that you have made the technique look weak. I taught this very technique at the MAP meet on Saturday and demonstrated that if the defender didn't defend well he was going to get a punch in the face. You don't even punch with enough intent to draw a flinch response. Later at 1.30 you do a technique but fail to mention how a rear cross could knock you out. It is easy to pick holes. You have just picked a few techniques and called them weak to promote your own ideas. Does Aikido work, yes. Does Aikido work, no. This is the same for all arts, yours inlcuded. Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.
No doubt there is a counter for every technique. And, every technique can be beaten. Nevertheless, there is a difference between possibility and probability. Because my focus is functional self defense, I'm interested in high probability vs. low possibility. What determines if something is high probability vs. low possibility? Training against a fully resisting, uncooperative opponent. All of these things can be demonstrated scientifically, through testing with a variety of people. I've done that. Many others have too...Matt Thornton, Burton Richardson, etc. Everyone who does will come to the same conclusions, because all people have the same body parts and there is only so much we can do that is functional. That's what I'm presenting on my site, and what I was trying to get across here...high percentage applications of techniques for self defense.
Yet you do it by picking aprt other arts, that is what I am against. I could quite as easily pick the techniques you show, de-construct them and show where the weaknesses are. I would prefer though to put across my techniques and theories without being critical of others. You make incorrect statements in regard to your knife defences and your ideas would be fine, but fot the fact you said the PT guys made mistakes. Not at certain ranges they don't. What you are pressing on your site is that everyone esle is wrong, while you are right. This is plainly incorrect.
Which is nothing new really and you are basically preaching to the choir here. It's the rest of it that is somewhat problematic. Out of interest what you do you do on de-escalation and verbal skills? How is it trained?
I think you're missing what I'm trying to do...or at least misinterpreting it. You brought up the WC video. Using that as an example, you said I wasn't punching with enough intention to draw a flinch response. Exactly! I agree. The beginning of that video was showing how NOT to train. It was purposefully lacking in forward drive, intention, etc. The reason it was lacking is because in my experience, that is how a great majority of WC practitioners train. I was explaining that fights/SD do not continue in that range for an extended period, so training there for an extended period is unrealistic if you have the expectation that it will go down that way. You know the saying...the first step is admitting you have a problem? If a person doesn't see the flaws in what they are doing, then they probably won't realize there is a problem. In my experience, that is very, very often true. I am pointing out flaws so people can see them, and additionally pointing out solutions to those flaws. I'm dealing more with training concepts than particular techniques. What I was showing in that WC video was the problem with RANGE...not the particular techniques. And I said that in the video...it's not that WC techniques don't work...they DO...it's that training in an artificial range without the right energy doesn't work. If you do train with realistic energy, a very significant amount of what's trained with unrealistic energy will no longer work. Thus, the problems with complex trapping. Complex trapping doesn't work...not because the techniques don't work...but because stringing them together doesn't happen in a REAL situation. There is too much pressure, too much chaos...too much confusion. Does trapping work? Sure. Can the individual techniques of WC work? Definitely. Do they work when layered together in a complex series at an artificial range? No. But people do practice them that way. MOST WC people practice them that way. Do a search on YouTube for WC techniques, and you'll see a TON of it. So by "being critical" I'm HELPING people to see why what they're doing won't work, and how to make it work. My purpose is not to be critical. It's to be helpful. But in order to be helpful, you have to point out problems. If you ignore problems, they don't go away. My PT knife tapping video was on PT knife tapping. It takes place in, for lack of a better phrase, trapping range. In that range, where the PT knife tapping drill is ALWAYS done, blocking with the primary hand first will get you stabbed under real pressure. Some PT instructors will tell you the same thing. Bill McGrath does, for example. I've talked to him about this in person, and although he begins teaching with the primary hand, he always tells students that's only a training progression. My PT knife tapping video explains EXACTLY what Bill McGrath will tell you if you take a class with him. And I hope you're not going to tell me that McGrath doesn't know how to do knife tapping. I don't mean to suggest that "everyone else is wrong while I am right". Again, I'm pointing out problems as they relate to self defense in order to identify them...so solutions can be trained. You MUST be critical in order to point out problems. It's not a bad thing. And it's not meant in an offensive way either.
