No, it's very obvious in this and the other cases that someone is replying to something I didn't remotely say. If you dispute this please explain exactly why instead of just making generalizations. Sure, if both parties agreed to it. See the kung fu/BJJ fight where the kung fu guy got his arm broken. He explicitly said in the next couple sentences that he exactly meant TKD rules and that he would win in them. Also, no mention of dissing was made by either he or me I believe. As for no rules: see above. How so? I'm getting the idea that there's a lot of crap TKD and WC from what the practitioners say themselves! Thus statistically speaking they're a "gray area" in that it's a bet that's riskier. The only one that makes sense at all in the context... Total schools of that style. I clearly stated that I was talking about the chance that if you went to a school of a style, that that school would be a good one. Why would other style schools remotely figure into this? Where are you even getting this: Debatable and a separate issue (practicality versus what would you recommend). Um. Sorry, look again: He brought up statistical correllation of success in/by MMA with TKD where that had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I seem to be paying a lot more attention to what's actually being written here. By the way, did you find any of those points I supposedly ignored instead of refuted?
Yes, they just quote you. You didn't pay attention. He said a tkd instructor should instructor should insist on tkd rules and win by them. He said he would insist on rules of his choosing. Those are two different things with two different people. You can point to crap in all arts. Youtube has videos of mt guys getting beat just like they have videos of them beating people. Whatever is the in fad of the day tends to get watered down. MMA will end up watered down, just like the tma that were the fad before it. Because what only makes sense is if a person has a reasonable chance of getting a good school. To put it in perspective, there are hundreds of schools in my area for tkd and karated. There are only 2 bjj schools in the area and none that advertise as a mma school. If half of tkd and karate schools are good, which am I more likely to find a good school of in my area, tkd or mma? I don't really see it as a seperate issue. I thought you were the one that brought up statistics. Then he quoted you on it.
Here is what it really boils down to: do you or any other person really have the right to determine what someone else does? I think the answer is no. If you use your definition and your express goal of public knowledge, which I and I think most others would argue is overly generous to those that dojo storm, you are still putting yourself up as a judge of whether someone else is good enough to teach or what they are teaching is good enough to be allowed to be taught. As you said, it is all about testing their skills. I don't see that in a good light. If the person is not such an altruistic saint who is merely doing a good deed for others and has no ego involved, then it is even less of a good thing. The problem for most of us, we can't imagine a civil polite conversation where a young person (possibly a stereotype, but I imagine that most would be between 17-25) comes in and says "I am here to test your skills and see if I think you are good enough to teach and if I find that you aren't, which I am sure you aren't or I wouldn't be here, then I am going to tell everyone how low your skills are."
I would disagree based upon the fact that you have gotten quite a bit of it wrong. Such as bringing up statistics and saying someone else brought it up. You mean besides the one where you said you ignored it because you didn't think it was a point? I would say when people make a point and they you just say it isn't relevant, that you are ignoring it.
I didn't say I'd fight you under a more restrictive set of rules. I didn't specify a particular set of rules at all. You're making an assumption that I'd specify a particular set of TMA rules - an assumption that is both unfounded and incorrect. That's really quite funny. That would actually involve me being a Taekwondo practitioner. It would also involve me being able, or even wanting, to kick above waist height. And of course its simply not what I said at all. But I'm not going to argue the point with you. You quote the sentence in which I said I'd fight you (and win) under TKD rules and I'll publicly apologise for being such a misguided buffoon. Until then I'll just have to assume that your either unwilling or unable to comprehend what people are writing in this thread. Splendid. So we're in agreement that there is no statistical evidence for MMA's superiority as regards self-defence. Which is all I really wanted to clarify. There's nothing that does a valid argument more harm than 'backing it up' with non-existant evidence. Mike
I didn't read any kind of "I'd fight you" into that at all. Are you separating the hypotheticals from the personals here? Um. Ok. I was talking about your hypothetical TKD instructor demanding a TKD-rules fight. Nothing about you. Nothing about me. Where do you get this? Quote the sentence in which I talked about you fighting me at all, let alone under TKD rules. Does the logic burn? Where did I say anything of the sort? All I was saying was that in a previous post I was referring to statistical chance of finding a good school, not statistical "fight evidence" of any sort! Are you serious or is this some kind of elaborate troll attempt?
Explain. True, I guess the flow caught me. Ok, so minimal rules/no rules sparring is what he's espousing - that's awesome. This is precisely one of the benefits of dojo storming. Preventing watering down. Rest is irrelevant, of course people that fight a lot will lose sometimes. I have been suggesting MMA-related, not MMA solely. Strawman. You see no difference between "Chance a particular school is good" and "chance that there is a good school somewhere"? Quoting doesn't mean anything if you don't reply to what you quote. Just mentioning the word "statistics" is not justification to reply to an argument that isn't there just because statistics is also involved in that imaginary argument.
This is another instance of you being wrong about what you've read. Again, just mentioning statistics isn't justification for leaping into a wholly different argument just because statistics is in there too, which is what he did. "Chance a particular school is good" is a completely, utterly different topic than "% of successful self-defense instances over total self-defense instances for both TKD and MMA schools". If you can't see that, I am deeply sorry. When it isn't relevant to the current discussion, why should I encourage branching off and tangents so we can have a thousand little debates that have nothing to do with dojo storming, just like Mike's random bringing up of self-defense %s? If you feel that I unfairly described a point as irrelevant, please bring it up. But again, I have no obligation to address anything not related to my position.
Of course not. HUGE strawman. Giving people information so they can make their own decisions is not cramming decisions down their throats! How is providing information to the public being a judge? The whole thing is letting the individual people be the judge with their new information! STRAWMAN. You really need to let go of your pre-existing convictions of what I would say and see what I am saying. That's your right to believe that despite the additional information and argumentation I have provided you. See my point? You strawman'd again. Where did you get that? More like "I am here to test your school's skills and make public the results." I can pretend that you are just saying "But I don't wanna think that! *fingers in ears*" and refute that argument easily, but that doesn't mean that I've remotely addressed your actual position. If you want to prove anything other than your inability to debate, you have to not put words in other posters' mouths.
NewLearner, it seems like you are not processing what I write and just throwing out your gut response to the "feel" of this thread. I'm serious, I'm not trying to put you down or anything like that, but you have consistently put words into my mouth/strawman'd for the entire thread. See this for example: I quite clearly was discussing "MMA-related" (my exact phrasing) schools and their higher % of being "good". If I had said what you replied to ("MMA schools" not "MMA-related") then you would probably have a point. But I didn't.
I've wasted enough time on this. If you don't see a problem with it, no one will ever convince you otherwise. So go ahead and do it. Just be willing to live with the consequences. (And yes I know you said you wouldn't do it, but anybody arguing that hard in favor of doing it, either is or wants to.)
Too long, didn't read. Bottom line, walk into a school and spar them to see what their skills are like and how your skills compare? Not a thing wrong with it. Just don't be a dick about it, plain and simple. If it turns out that they are claiming to teach the "best deadliest style in the world" and you mop the floor with them, well then go to www.bullshido.net and then post it in the Martial Arts BS subforum. No big deal.
If you'd have addressed the argument rather than what you imagine the argument should be, perhaps you could have come up with some good criticism. I'm sorry that I won't abandon the position that has proven to make the most sense.
From your post #341: From your post #311: This is the sentence I wanted some clarification on. The way I read this you seem to be saying that "statistically speaking" some styles are more beneficial than others at increasing "fighting ability". If you're not saying that then I can only say thank you for the clarification, and I'll leave this rather pointless discussion at that point. Mike
Many people already choose to cross-train. But I don't think that's what you're talking about. To be honest I think it's one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. Some is guaranteed to get seriously injured. Could even be a murder rap in it if someone dies. Out of curiosity how do you determine for yourself if a school is a McDojo? Are you basing this judgement on practical training experience with said McDojo or is more word of mouth or sitting on the side lines watching? Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon because everybody else at the club you train with says they are McDojo so they must be? What's you're justification in calling other schools McDojo?
A McDojo doesn't necessarily teach nonsense. It can be a decent place, it just charges ridiculous amounts of money and speeds students through ranks quicker than the blink of an eye.
With all the fun going on in this thread, I'll bet you missed my reply to this. I'd love to read this report or a summary thereof, could you provide a link or reference to it, please?
The information is from the book "H2H Combat" by Thompson and Peligro. Those reports (there were thousands of them according to the authors) were used to develop the current MAC program. Are you suggesting the reports don't exist or show other data?
I'm not suggesting anything - I'm just checking your sources out of interest. What do they list in their "works cited" portion of the book - do they cite individual reports (thousands of them) or do they cite just a few? Is this the book you mean? The reviews look really good. How much of the material is shown with the troops in full uniform with rucks and weapons? Or, is it all in teeshirts and pants? The reason I am interested is becuase I know the program is very popular. I also know that some units, especially ones that deal with having to use non-lethal responses have found some of the grappling material too diffiult to do in full gear. I know some units are looking to supplement the grappling program with a more rounded striking, locking, grappling set of combatives (my instructor has been helping some units develop programs). It's not that the BJJ skills in the program aren't good (they are), it's just that a more rounded approach is needed for the real world "combat" with wearing gear and so on. I'd be interested in your take on the book (and if it's worth buying)
