Defending against multiple attackers

Your list is looking at violence from a very "fights are what thuggish blokes do outside the pub" angle, but the gist is fair enough.

If by "full potential" you mean "their technique was just was a s crisp and accurate as it is in the dojo/gym/whatever", does anyone expect that? Or are you talking about people bottling it when they need it?

Have you never heard the opposite? When someone exceeds their own expectations in a confrontation?

 

Look, your obsession with every detail of my life is flattering, but the way you jump to conclusions all the time makes communication difficult.

I said that I'd sparred people who have boxed, as well as 2 people who'd had a MT comp in Thailand (honestly, that's just a tourist thing, right? everyone who goes to Thailand seems to do it).

I said that a couple of people who had ranking in some kind of full combat sport couldn't touch me when we sparred.

You assumed the rest.

That's cool, I don't care what you assume. I was just being polite by answering your questions. However, we're done now, as I don't have the time for another one of our fruitless back-and-forths right now.

Another time, darling

 

Eh? List of what? None of that is thug fight orientated as far as I can see. I'm all for training for the result you want rather than training for something else and hoping for by-product results.

Take it any way you want. Everyone knows the concept of a "champion" in the gym that gets beat by less skillful opponents on fight night. The reasons can be multiple. Can't handle the pressure, exposure, can't get his mind calm, self doubt and all that. They can be killers under some circumstances but bottle in others.

Absolutely. But then...doesn't that lend credence to my point that training and performance in drills/sparring is but a guide to potential rather than a 1:1 correlation?
By way of example...I did a first aid course on the weekend...CPR training on a dummy, recovery position and all that jazz but you and I know full well that if I was actually confronted with a real casualty my response would be less than optimal. I'd need to deal with multiple casualties to actually get the experience for that training to manifest reliably.

IMHO drilling and sparring in the dojo/gym is more akin to doing CPR on a dummy (controlled environment, steady variables, less/different stresses, on-hand guidance) than doing CPR on a real person.

 

Sorry, I meant your list of professions that have to deal with violence.

If you just mean "training is not fighting", then yes, that's obvious, no? However, it's not a total black box procedure. We can look at different training methods and get some idea of their efficacy. It is true that the individual student won't know what they can do for real until they do it.

For instance, if your CPR training was anything like mine, then it resembled more of a relaxed, scripted drill in MA terms. I was made to feel comfortable and had a nice time supping hot drinks and chatting to the other people on the course. That is a perfect recipe for learning skills you will never recall in a hostile environment under pressure (though luckily first aid skills are so simple that many do manage to recall them).

There is good reason why the emergency services spend millions on hiring big spaces, and actors to fill them, in order to simulate real incidents as closely as possible. Just as there is good reason why the military feel the need to get their recruits cold, hungry and tired while expecting them to function on exercise.

This is the distinction I'm trying to make - some training is a lot more theoretical than others. I completely agree that it is all abstraction, but the degree of abstraction, and how those abstract exercises are triangulated to give a rounded skill set, make a huge difference in how functional students become.

 

You and I sir...are on the same page.

 

AH HA! MY OBESSION IS ACCURATE FOR ONCE! Yes thats pretty much it, you can kill people easier with weapons and cause a lot more damage and pain ontop of at least a little reach advantage pending on weapon.

 

Now if only that obsession actually morphed into trainimg you would have something special...

 

O

I think someone is prickly they've been caught out for shinanagans.

But Anywho back to the discussion in hand.

 

What shenanigans?

It's really funny the way you always try to invent non-existent contradictions in anything I say about my training. Then when you go for the big reveal and unmasking, it's just made up of a whole bunch of things you invented yourself around the information given.

Feel free to find any contradictions in anything I've ever written on MAP. I don't have to worry about that because I'm too lazy to lie about things (it takes too much effort remembering what you've told whom). I'd also like to think that if I was inclined to invent stories about myself, I'd think up some more interesting ones.

I'm not prickly, I just don't have the will to do our usual dance. It was tiresome to begin with, now it's REALLY dull and predictable. I'm sure it doesn't make for thrilling reading for anyone else, either.

 

I have the art of the bent broom handle under my belt. those spiders never saw me coming

(yeah that was what i got as a compromise to a single stick)

 

Yeah that's fair to say.

I think the caveat should be that if you are training light contact you need to be 1) 100% honest about the aspects you are actually working (maybe it's just footwork and positioning or maybe it's soft skills) 2) have all participants respect the consessions of the context 3) you have a firm set of criteria for success and failure 4) you use it as just one element in a holistic approach which includes harder contact and training where failure is highly likely and consequently tough to avoid

In my experience drills, games and exercises that aim to replicate the experience of a group attack and claim to prepare someone for that, but do so without genuine contact and by extension a sensible level of protective equipment, fall woefully short of their aims and claims. My experience of JJJ in this context is notable in that it falls victim to the common Uke -Tori relationship and provides dishonest feedback which focuses to much on success of the tori. I'm open to hearing what others do and how others address the compromises and how they approach the issue of training for multiples though as I'm clear that my lived experience can't stand as a metonym for everyone else's training too; it can only inform my understanding of the ongoing discourse and my assessment of what they offer.

Regarding your argument with Deadpool, yeah it does make boring reading and to be honest if you look at your initial responses you only have yourself to blame. You are clearly too intelligent to have misrepresented his argument by accident in my estimation and it reads like baiting. Far be it from me to interfer in a lovers tiff though

 

As long as it's clear I'm the power top in this situation

 

Thanks for the indelible mental image haha

 

I can completely see how the usual tori-uke psychological trap could occur. This is why I said that most people don't realise that the multiple opponents are just as important to consider as the one defending against them. It's the same as 1-on-1: you make them active agents, rather than passive actors. You give them motivation beyond "this guy needs bodies to throw around".

It always takes vigilance to guard against people giving dishonest feedback. Having a strong ethos and social pressure against uncommitted attacks and rag-dolling helps. It also helps if your class sizes are small enough to observe every student at almost all times. Making sure that people learn the lessons from harder contact and bring them into lighter contact is a big key, too.

Oh, and of course I didn't misrepresent DP's argument by accident. I was using a rhetorical device to point out the inconsistencies in his argument. I wouldn't call that baiting, just... debating.

 

Just so we're clear, if you going to lie in debates, then it's not worth debating you.

 

Jesus Christ...

I didn't lie. I merely pointed out logical conclusions from your arguments that I presumed (rightly) that you would disagree with.

 

As you said your self "misrepresented."

 

misrepresent
ˌmɪsrɛprɪˈzɛnt/
verb
verb: misrepresent; 3rd person present: misrepresents; past tense: misrepresented; past participle: misrepresented; gerund or present participle: misrepresenting

1. give a false or misleading account of the nature of.
   "you are misrepresenting the views of the government"

 

Sweet. Gotta love it when the dictionary comes out.

I didn't misrepresent your arguments. I showed you representations of the logical conclusions of your arguments that I believed were misrepresentative of your actual views. Hence inconsistent. You misrepresented yourself.

Anyway, please PM me if you have anything further to whinge about. I feel sorry for these good people. Thanks.

 

I'm finished with debating with you.

#powertop