Monday, October 8, 2012

The “Un-Real” aspect of Reality Training

  I recently read a blog written by a particular individual, that I often enjoy reading. This particular one (to my own great disappointment) illustrated and reveled the praises of the commonly held delusions of today's “reality” (training) nonsense.
  First off, there is no (actual) “reality” training (other than real-life). I can/will dispute Anybody's version of what (their) reality training is. What's being passed off as reality, is anything but. I am truly sick of these charlatan's and liar's that are selling their trash (for your money), for a product/methodology that is completely false.
  The biggest perpetrator of this fallacy, isn't a person, it's the concept of “sparring”. This activity was originally conceived to promote competition (between young students), and as a method of dissipating their youthful aggression. It has nothing to do with self, or life-protection.
  There are numerous versions of this training concept. Everything that's being attempted (through that type of training) though, is false (in regards to self-protection). In every instance of this methodology, the participants are young, strong, healthy,...and male (aka,“MMA”). The few that have female participants, are (only) a bigger Joke.
  When you begin to consider what's being done, it becomes more and more obvious that these methods don't really serve any purpose aside from being (false) confidence builder's (in a supposed “training” environment).
  If it (actually) were a “reality” training method, there should be dead participant's. What?, there aren't any body's or ambulance's at the conclusion of your “reality” training session? Then how real is it?
  The only real difference that's being presented with these methods, has to do with one's attitude. If you dismiss the other physical nonsense, the training becomes a mental exercise (which hardly necessitates the inclusion of physical interaction). 
  The ability to defend one's self, is based around being able to respond and deter the initial physical aggression made against you. When one examines the standard “sparring” method, it bears no semblance to an actual confrontation (and if you believe that it does, you have some serious work to do on your understanding of what a confrontation actually is).
  The most common retort to this, is the (excuse) claim that one is learning to “take a punch”. The more one considers this claim, the less sense it makes. IF, that were actually true, then they should have their student's lining up, and getting clubbed in the back of the head with a 2 X 4 (which is closer to reality than any of the presented “sparring” methods are).
  The “claim” is, that they are "teaching" (a questionable use of that word in my opinion, LOL) the student to get used to being struck. Really?, how many times do they strike them in the neck, or the throat? (much less the groin). And are they doing it without protective gear ? (BIG difference, LOL). If they're really attempting to prep them for receiving physical impacts, shouldn't those impacts be against areas of the body that will incapacitate them as well?
  Confirmation of the UN-reality of this methodology is fairly obvious. How many of these “systems”, will match a 16yr. Old, female student, who's 90# against a 220# male? (which is a Far more realistic situation than 95% of the sparring matches ever are).
  The majority of these systems will commonly ignore (if not reject) any validity to the concept of step practice (be it 1, 2 or more steps). By training in the “sparring” method (only), they are ignoring the most practical point in which to deter an aggression (at the beginning of the confrontation). God forbid you should (ever) mention Kata, to them LOL.
  The concept of “sparring” completely ignores the beginning of a confrontation (by having both participant's being in “stances”), not to mention the inability to utilize kick's (below the belt), or anything else that's practiced during a training class. Sparring will teach purely reactive responses to any attempted aggressions. This also ignores the preemptive abilities that (at least our) student's (eventually) train at performing.
  If/when one trains to only begin their (physical) defenses in response to physical actions (that are more than half-way into their completion), the defender will experience a far more difficult time at being able to do so.
 There is more to being able to defend one's self than (simply) being able to resist one's reaction to an injury (caused by an aggressor's attack). Ideally, one's defense begins before the aggressor begins their attack. That can only come from the student practicing their reactions to respond preemptively to those aggressions.
 That practice is done slowly (to begin with), and is gradually increased in speed. This requires time, which is something that the "popular" methodology's don't seem to want to expend. It's (very) often the very thing that those system's claim as being their strong-point (that they don't waste time on learning techniques that contain/require minute details).
 The 2nd most worrisome aspect of their practice methods, are the follow-ups that they implement. These usually amount to fatally injuring the assailant. Though being a valid option, this should not be the main practice conclusion to every defensive situation. 
 I suppose if one only wants to be familiar with some (different?) ways to (fatally) incapacitate someone (and isn't concerned with the legal ramifications for having done so), then maybe that is all that they need to study. Not exactly something that you could consider to be an "Art" though.
 I guess what disturbed me the most about this individual's post, was the (obvious) belief that what he was participating in was "realistic". He described (in great detail) the donning of the protective equipment, and about how much they learned (?) from clubbing upon one another. 
 He seemed to be oblivious to the fact that he couldn't describe what the uke's reactions/responses would be from any of those (supposedly) completed technique applications. The only (result?) explanation of/for the described practice, was in regards to how much protective gear they had to use (because of the level of force they utilized in their practice methods).
 Having had a few "off-line" discussions with this individual, I'm aware of his (general) beliefs regarding martial arts (which is why I find his summation and evaluations so ridiculous). He and I have discussed Taika's ability to knock individuals unconscious with just a light strike, for which though he (kind of) accepted could occur (he brushed off the majority of "point" strikes as either suggestion and/or even being subliminal/group hypnosis). 
 We also discussed the application of "arm" strikes (which he also didn't believe in). His reasoning was that since he had participated in some manor of a martial art that included striking the arms with "sticks"(and hadn't suffered any debilitating repercussions), then strikes performed upon the arms had no validity (?). Though being  
a disingenuous comparison, it was sufficient for his evaluation.
  I found it interesting that he (like myself) consider the "mystical/magical" nonsense of ki/chi (and all of it's related data) as being of no use, as well as being a waste of anyone's time. Yet, when presented with (multitudes of) confirming testimony (from numerous sources) as to the validity/ability of Taika to perform his techniques, (including upon the arm's, LOL) he believed those reports to be falsified.
  Though I understand his tendency to be skeptical of those techniques, I find it difficult to question the numerous verified accounts of their execution. I (of course, LOL) have been on the receiving, as well as the delivery end of those strikes (upon students, and upon other Yudansha, from both within and outside of the RyuTe® association), so my acceptance of them (as to their validity) is a given.
 From what I've been able to observe, and even to participate in, what's generally being called "Reality", is (more often) simply practiced aggression methods (with little, to no protective application).

No comments: