Couldn't post on 7th degree TKD Thread

Reviews, Videos, and Everything Else Martial Arts in the News
1

Hi Kungfools and Mr. Nice Guy:

I couldn’t post on the old threat so either it was locked down or once again I am being a computer idiot. Anyway I’m writing to respond to points raised by your previous posts.

  1. I am not suggesting a statistical approach for such a book to Kungfools. This would be very difficult to do well because one would have to establish a control group to make sure that martial artists were not just being arrested at the same rate as American males in the same age brackets. I understand your distrust of statistics but you might want to consider that most of the biased examples out there were produced by people with an ax to grind or something to sell.

The majority of statistical analysis in this country is actually done privately by corporations and never is released publicly. I recently met a woman from a large drug company that spent her day crunching numbers to determine whether their test results were a product of the placebo effect. I put such work in a completely different category then any ad that says “four out of five doctors recommend”.

There are people however who convey interesting information in the form of narrative. Most notably Michael Newton. For laughs I suggest reading “Killer Cops: An Encyclopedia of Lawless Lawman” (Loompanics Press, 1997) I enjoy reading stories about misbehaving martial arts instructors because of the effort by SOME but not all MA instructors to place themselves on a pedestile (sic) in front of their students. Such accounts provide a heathy dose of “let the buyer beware” to martial arts consumers.

  1. That being said, I think I should mention that for psychoanalysis to be credible more and more it needs to be conducted using social science methods which use, not surprisingly, statistics. The days where Freud could just say, “you are being hysterical because you want to sleep with your mom” is thankfully in the past. I don’t know how one would accurately evaluate something as large and ever changing as the martial arts community but segmenting this community into smaller groups then simply SCARs practitioners and everyone else would be a must. The aikido practitioner has a completely different outlook then your average practicioner of BJJ though some people in their martial arts progression end up going from one to another and changing their thinking as a result.

There are so many variations of the martial “arts” out there that it is simply impossible to say all, as verses a majority of arts as verses combat systems are ineffective. I suspect that is what is annoying Mr. Nice Guy.

I do want to ask you if SCARS is indeed scientifically based, what research did its founder do before pulling this system together. I admit I am depending on Mr Nice Guy’s description of it as a “combat science” but I have been reading “Sharpening the Warrior’s Edge: The Phychology and Science of Training” by Bruce Siddle and would be interested to know how Peterson tested his system.

2

Sam,
The term “Combat Sciences” was one I quoted from the Great One himself. He used that exact term when replying to George S. Patton Jr. in the “Need a favor from Kungfoolss” thread.
Actually, I’m not annoyed with anyone. I’m more objective than that. I’ve no wish to argue with anything factual that you guys are discussing. I am however trying to generate a specific mood in my expostulations that will be appropriate, IMO, to the tone of the Great One’s filibusters.
I guess that makes me a literary “stylist!”
Regards,
Mr. N.G.

Edited by - Mr. Nice Guy on May 08 2003 22:28:31

3

Thank you Mr. N.B. for the clarification. jesus it’s late, i’ll write more tomarrow when I’m fresh.

4

Hi Kungfools:

I couldn’t post on the old threat so either it was locked down or once again I am being a computer idiot. Anyway I’m writing to respond to points raised by your previous posts.

Hey Sam, maybe your computer possibly needs rebooting or the site is overloaded with individuals accessing it. Could be anything I suppose.

you might want to consider that most of the biased examples out there were produced by people with an ax to grind or something to sell.

How about all, not most, ALL static’s are biased. There is no distinction that I can see. Every static has some agenda it’s attempting to put forth for consideration. Static’s are as useless as polling data, and just as accurate, dependent of course on the truthfulness of your sources.

The majority of statistical analysis in this country is actually done privately by corporations and never is released publicly.

Which is probably a wise thing for the interest of the company and their stockholders. However, I will state that if you are marketing a product, understanding the demographics is vital.

I enjoy reading stories about misbehaving martial arts instructors because of the effort by SOME but not all MA instructors to place themselves on a pedestile (sic) in front of their students. Such accounts provide a heathy dose of “let the buyer beware” to martial arts consumers.

Yes, they do tend to have a shared delusion that the martial arts folk are somehow sublime and beyond reproach. (Chuckles)

psychoanalysis to be credible more and more it needs to be conducted using social science methods which use not surprisingly, statistics.

I’m not at all concerned with receiving the approval of the many pointy-head intellectuals in academia or having my works published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Critics can take my work for what its worth, as they always have, but I have no doubt it will have a profound impact. Right or wrong, the unconventional and radical have that gift.

I don’t know how one would accurately evaluate something as large and ever changing as the martial arts community but segmenting this community into smaller groups then simply SCARs practitioners and everyone else would be a must.

Not necessarily, it all depends on your ability as a researcher at encompassing the aggregate of problems found within the stylistic arts, filtering through the mess, and gathering the multilayered facets, the universal constants, and necessary components. From there its a very simple matter to take those elements and applying it to your research studies. Given that the stylistic arts are a metaphoric synthesis and never gestalt, makes creating an analysis mere child’s play. My forum is filled with these such examples, that fact that many stylists quickly become angered by them demonstrates their validity and overall effectiveness.

The aikido practitioner has a completely different outlook then your average practicioner of BJJ though some people in their martial arts progression end up going from one to another and changing their thinking as a result. There are so many variations of the martial “arts” out there that it is simply impossible to say all, as verses a majority of arts as verses combat systems are ineffective.

The aikido practitioner understands the power of centripetal and centrifugal force, whereas the bjj practitioner is a user of compression and weighted force. That fact that stylists float from one art to the next, accounts for the lack of professional knowledge, sciences and a universal application to the ever shifting variances of combat.

I suspect that is what is annoying Mr. Nice Guy.

No, he’s just an egocentric moron. Practically a non-issue.

I do want to ask you if SCARS is indeed scientifically based,

This is done on a daily basis at the SCFF. The forms are a testament to this fact, all you need to do is invest a little time researching hundreds of threads and posts by various and knowledgeable practitioners (and non-practitioners) of the system.

what research did its founder do before pulling this system together

I am not privy to such knowledge, neither is anyone else for that matter. The many internet rumors and hearsay floated about are never reliable nor informative. However, as I expand my knowledge of the system and its sciences, I have a general idea, but that is all.

would be interested to know how Peterson tested his system.

There is only one man capable of answering this question outside of the SICS, and that is Mr. Larkin, founder of the TFT system and former SICS Master Trainer.

Edited by - kungfoolss on May 09 2003 15:27:51

5

Hmmm, so Tim Larkin broke off from Jerry to do his own thing. such schisms are inevitable in the martial arts but it does raise some interesting questions since Larkin doesn’t mention even working with SCARS on his new website. (Which I think is unfortunate) I don’t know if you have ever trained with Larkin but this raises some interesting questions. Does Larkin now have the better system or does Jerry? Has Larkin’s changes made the system better or worse? Will kungfools have to change his website to be a SCARS/TFT think tank. The possibilities are quite funny to contemplate.

6

Dear Great and Holy Prophet Kungfoolss,
Thank you for mentioning me and my enthusiastic support for your vitally important work for a third time! My words can only feebly express how truly thrilled I am to be exposed to your wise, expert and compassionate criticism. There has never been anyone in my experience as thoroughly qualified as you are to speak knowledgably about what it is to be both 100% egocentric AND a fatuous, xenophobic moron at the same time, so please know that your statements will certainly be taken for what they are worth. Criticism from your masterful Research Computer of Patriotic Truth is worth more than all the praise of the world. You can rest assured that I will continue to take every generous little jot of priceless information you beatifically spread on the waters of bullshido to heart and cherish it as a treasure for the ages.
Your Humble Servant,
Mr. N.G

7

Tim Larkin’s TFT personal bio is at http://www.tftgroup.com/bio.htm Thinking about it I also have to disagree with you Kungfools once again on the issue of statistics since you commented that all are biased. This is quite frankly untrue.

Do you think that the people who put together major league batting averages care what the first baseman for the Seattle Mariners hits? Bias requires a conscious or unconcious desire to alter results to produce a desired result.

You can argue that statistics are incomplete since they cannot reflect the true worth of a baseball player but that is different from asserting bias. Asserting that each statistic has an agenda is a simplification. properly utilized they are just tools, and not every one has an agenda about everything.

If you don’t see a difference I cannot help you because I do not teach statistics but your position here is practically a Stanley Fish critical theory approach found in fine leftist English departments everywhere. (There is no objective truth, it is only constructed by those in power)I’m sure that you would be horrified to be found in such political company!

8

Hmmm, so Tim Larkin broke off from Jerry to do his own thing. such schisms are inevitable in the martial arts but it does raise some interesting questions since Larkin doesn’t mention even working with SCARS on his new website. (Which I think is unfortunate) I don’t know if you have ever trained with Larkin but this raises some interesting questions. Does Larkin now have the better system or does Jerry? Has Larkin’s changes made the system better or worse?

TFT is, how shall we say, more “user friendly” to the martial arts community. There are testimonials regarding the differences posted at the SCFF under the ‘Tim Larkin folder’. As for Mr. Larkin’s level of expertise and fighting skill, he undoubtedly considered one of the best.

Will kungfools have to change his website to be a SCARS/TFT think tank. The possibilities are quite funny to contemplate.

There exists a TFT delphi site already, how it differs from my own is anyone’s guess, but I do see the TFT instructors dropping by from time to time.

9

Do you think that the people who put together major league batting averages care what the first baseman for the Seattle Mariners hits? Bias requires a conscious or unconcious desire to alter results to produce a desired result.

You can argue that statistics are incomplete since they cannot reflect the true worth of a baseball player but that is different from asserting bias. Asserting that each statistic has an agenda is a simplification. properly utilized they are just tools, and not every one has an agenda about everything.

Naturally, within that context you are correct, but I deal in the political world, where statistics are generally used for furthering an agenda. Both on the political Right and Left, the same holds true for ma world. I’m sure you’d agree that amassing the stats on martial arts tournament champions wouldn’t do much for a psychoanalysis on antisocial behavior involving the subjects. But then again, maybe it could. Everything is relative and determinant on how such information is utilized.

I believe we are contending two separate points.

10

I’ve decided to break up my posts to make them easier to read when I asked if SCARS is indeed scientifically based you replied

“This is done on a daily basis at the SCFF. The forms are a testament to this fact, all you need to do is invest a little time researching hundreds of threads and posts by various and knowledgeable practitioners (and non-practioners) of the system.”

This answer raises more questions then it answers for the following reason. It is unclear if you are saying that empirically based and/or scientific discussion is carried out every day at the SCFF forum.

Since you are probably the most knowledgable regular contributor to your own forum and you have admitted that you do not know what scientific research the founder did to validate his system, then there is a limit to how much scientific dialogue can go on concerning SCARS.

If one doesn’t understand the original experiments that created a particular science or scientifically derived fighting system, then one can’t claim that they can explain the science behind the system.

Adittionally based on your responses to non-practitioners of SCARs on your forum it appears that they are not providing much worthwhile information concerning the nature of SCARS. I believe you generally call them morons and worse.

Thats your option, but what it means is that your forum is dependant on the small number of SCARS practitioners who write in. Your forum is not as easy to navigate as this one but I will take your word that they are there. Looking forward to your reply.

11

Sam,
Please, do not be surprised if the Great One doesn’t acknowledge your questions in the way that you might wish. His evolutionary state is such that the considerations of simple verbal communication with everyday human beings that you would expect from anyone else are all but meaningless. He is as far above us Earth bound nobodies as Mt. Everest is over Death Valley. His lofty abilities to instantly, with no apparent reflection, dismiss what would be to us mere mortals his seeming argumentatively fatal lapses in logic and manners are stupendously, consistently, perfect and time after time, in every thread, impervious to any outside objections whatever.
You seem like a decent fellow, so I’m begging you, please don’t tempt the Great One with any more requests for a rational input to any discussion on his part. He is WAY beyond that, and his taunting, sneering vengeance is a terrible thing to behold!
Your Friend,
Mr. N.G.

Edited by - Mr. Nice Guy on May 09 2003 18:00:18

12

If I take SCARS training, would I raise above the ranks of "amateurs’?

–
Hard work, Patience, Dedication.
(And my two creaky knees…)

13

Since you are probably the most knowledgable regular contributor to your own forum and you have admitted that you do not know what scientific research the founder did to validate his system, then there is a limit to how much scientific dialogue can go on concerning SCARS

If one doesn’t understand the original experiments that created a particular science or scientifically derived fighting system, then one can’t claim that they can explain the science behind the system.

Hmmm, well I don’t have access to the personal research or the theoretical models of Sir Isaac Newton either, does this discredit the explanations and regarding the use of physics at my site? According to your logic it would, I honestly don’t see how it could.

And no, there is no such limit but what we as individuals impose upon ourselves. If you have a structural foundation in the systems education and sciences, there is no restriction.

Adittionally based on your responses to non-practitioners of SCARs on your forum it appears that they are not providing much worthwhile information concerning the nature of SCARS. I believe you generally call them morons and worse.

This generalization hurts your entire case, the members that come in just to argue and denounce the site are justly rebuked. So, obviously they don’t bring forth anything worthwhile to the forum. If you have found any validity to their issues, I welcome you to contribute your views to the debate and we’ll go from there.

Last time I looked Sheol (who is not a SCARS practitioner) is highly regarded at the both the SCFF and Bullshido sites, is well versed in the systems functional sciences, so you would be inclined to speak to him if you distrust my views on the matter. I leave it entirely in your hands.

but what it means is that your forum is dependent on the small number of SCARS practitioners who write in.

The SCFF strengths has never been predicated on the number of members (practitioners and non-practitioners alike) posting their views at the site, but on what I have to say on a particular subject. If members want to state and share their opinions on a topic, that’s fine as long as it’s provable.

Incidentally, the SCFF is a supplement for the systems practitioners, if you don’t have the basic education necessary, of course the material and concepts discussed there will appear greek and foreign. That’s hardly the fault of the forum or myself, but a problem with an inadequacy on the visitors part and there’s not much I can do in that instance. I hope that helped clear things up for you.

Any specifics you want to discuss concerning our system, I will entertain at my forum, the door there is always open there to rational discord. This is my last response to this topic.

14

See what I mean everyone? Wow… I’m so impressed. It matters not one bit to the Great One that mechanistic Newtonian physics and the obsolete alchemical suppositions underlying them are inaccurate and completely superseded by Einstein, he can still whip old Isaac out in a heartbeat and use him as an example to righteously smite the unbelievers! Perhaps it is because Einstein was a “hyphenate.” Kungfoolss triumphs over objective reality again!
So remember, if you go the Great One’s website forum to do anything but lay down at his sacred feet and bask in his reflected glory, you’ll have to have your pants pulled down for a good old fashioned rebuking!
As ever, A Dedicated Disciple of Rational Discord,
Mr. N.G.

Edited by - Mr. Nice Guy on May 09 2003 19:16:40

15

Okay Kungfools:

Since we started this conversation on this forum where others like Mr. Nice Guy and PizDoff can participate I prefer to keep my discussions on Bullshido. Also no offense, but this forum is much easier to use then Delphi. I spent part of the afternoon trying to look for information in of your forum and God, was it a pain in the neck!

I will respond to several points you raised in your last post and if you wish to respond here great, it is your own choice.

Unlike gravity which is easy to observe, most scientific principles are not as self evident.
To teach or intelligently discuss the principle it helps immeasurably to understand an effective ‘proof’ for that particular principle, even if it was one that was not used by Sir Isaac.

Since Jerry Peterson is alive and SCARS appears to be less then 20 years old the proofs and his experiments should still be closely linked, there will probably not be better ways to present the principles. So I remain surprised that at least some of his experimental data has not leaked into the classes.

When I observed a Model Mugging/Impact training class for example we were told that the founder Matt Thomas taught women to fight from the ground first because something like 40% of the police reports he studied, a female victim was immediately knocked to the ground during an assault.

I forget Newton’s formula for gravity, but if I was in a physics class I couldn’t effectively participate without some knowledge of it. If we were discussing the principle of objects not exceeding their terminal velocity and this relationship to wind resistance I would not be much of a discussion partner if I could not account for some of the discoveries after 1800. The less accepted the principle, the more useful it is to know experimental data. And SCARS does not appear to be as self evident as gravity.

In regards to martial arts statistics it would be more accurate to say that the most useful ones are the most difficult to collect and probably cannot be collected.  I would love to have a comparison between different schools of Shotokan and TKD for how long it takes an average black belt to get his first dan.

If one had several thousand people in the data base that would balance out the rare person who got theirs in two years because they practically lived at the dojo, and one could accurately say, I dub this chain Mcdojo for the speed at which they hand out the BBelts. Is that information ever going to be volunteered to an outsider? No because it could be very embarrassing.

Now I have not read all of Sheol’s posts on your site but without knowing the appropriate keywords, the outside posts which I can easily access on your board tend to be the ones in the midst of flame wars with you, I am curious who started the festivities with the Krav Maga people, did you go to them or did they come to you?

It is relevant because if people are simply coming to your board because of something you posted on theirs, then “rebuking” them is part of your site’s function, and it would explain why their posts seem to out number those by people like Sheol.

Anyway I could write more but if you don’t want to respond here, no problem.