What's up with the Martialist?

**afronaut** · Posted On: 8/17/2005 11:00am

Leejunfan,

My assertion is not that Phil's sin is that he doesn't know enough, since I don't know enough either. But rather he is totally dishonest about his abilities, experience and skills. Further, he writes books and articles and his 'zine trafficking on that fraudulent, trumped up expertise.

Cross training is good. Attending two months worth of classes in something and claiming that means much of anything is bad. Phil is the latter, not the former.

**leejunfan** · Posted On: 8/17/2005 11:05am

Originally Posted by afronaut

Leejunfan,

My assertion is not that Phil's sin is that he doesn't know enough, since I don't know enough either. But rather he is totally dishonest about his abilities, experience and skills. Further, he writes books and articles and his 'zine trafficking on that fraudulent, trumped up expertise.

Cross training is good. Attending two months worth of classes in something and claiming that means much of anything is bad. Phil is the latter, not the former.

Phil and I are at peace and so I'll leave all that stuff up to you guys :icon_sile

My post was about the bashing I took for my mistakes in refering to Combat Submission wrestling and so on......

But all is good :new_xmas:

But all is good :headbang:

**Wounded Ronin** · Posted On: 8/17/2005 12:23pm

It was DakotaJudo who saved the thread, IIRC.

***Omega Supreme*** · Posted On: 8/18/2005 1:25am

Originally Posted by afronaut

Leejunfan,

My assertion is not that Phil's sin is that he doesn't know enough, since I don't know enough either. But rather he is totally dishonest about his abilities, experience and skills. Further, he writes books and articles and his 'zine trafficking on that fraudulent, trumped up expertise.

Cross training is good. Attending two months worth of classes in something and claiming that means much of anything is bad. Phil is the latter, not the former.

Well I did a review on the guy's book and I didn't find him dishonest. Dillusional maybe, but not dishonest.

**haughty** · Posted On: 12/28/2005 3:23am

Originally Posted by ArmchairNinja

The site (the martialist) doesn't seem McDojoish - most of the equipment reviews and articles are objective and well written. It's Phil's extremist views and lack of martial arts experience that rubs most people the wrong way.

I agree. It seems like a lot of the criticism against Phil & his writings can be divided into two general classifications: 1) Ad hominen arguments, usually attacking his lack of advanced MA skills. 2) Imprecise comments taken out of context in order to make him look foolish. In both cases, the criticisms usually fall flat. Bullshido's ridiculous Pax Baculum "FAQ" is a perfect example of this.

**unpossible** · Posted On: 12/28/2005 4:32am

Originally Posted by ArmchairNinja

The site (the martialist) doesn't seem McDojoish - most of the equipment reviews and articles are objective and well written. It's Phil's extremist views and lack of martial arts experience that rubs most people the wrong way.

To me, it's that he's not good at anything.

I am not yet good at fighting, although I enjoy it immensely. But I do have something that I'm good at, even great at -- programming, in Common Lisp.

He's a "professional" writer? That's just a guarantee that you know your way around a keyboard. It doesn't mean you aren't mediocre. Phil Elmore is a mediocre writer who panders to an audience of pudgy, balding sysadmins who really, really WANT to hear that getting fit and practicing their fighting isn't going to make a difference in a "real" fight.

The lengths that he and his followers go to in order to be "prepared" for the worst -- none of which, of course, involve getting better in a measurable way -- are completely out of proportion to the actual threat of physical violence. You are 85 times more likely to die of cancer than to be killed by another human being. If you're walking around with 2 guns on you at all times, why isn't a doctor checking your balls and prostate twice each day?

The "too dangerous to practice" excuse is ridiculous. If you need to grab someone's ear or strike their throat, you know -- people that train in sportfighting are pretty good at keeping you from being able to do that.

Unarmed combat, bladed weapon combat (chalk knives), firearms -- these are all trainable and you can get measurably better at using them.

Why does he discount their importance? Because it's not about getting better. It's about drama. It's about a bunch of portly, depressed guys walking around armed to the teeth with a Dust Brothers soundtrack playing in their head, feeling like a badass. It's not about hard work, it's not about reality or being safe, it's not about self-improvement.

It's about thirteen-year-old melodramatic violent escapist fantasy.

**haughty** · Posted On: 12/28/2005 5:01am

Originally Posted by unpossible

To me, it's that he's not good at anything.

He's a "professional" writer? That's just a guarantee that you know your way around a keyboard. It doesn't mean you aren't mediocre. Phil Elmore is a mediocre writer who panders to an audience of pudgy, balding sysadmins who really, really WANT to hear that getting fit and practicing their fighting isn't going to make a difference in a "real" fight.

I agree with you, there. Some of the most prolific and successful professional "writers" are just plain bad at what they do. Off the top of my head, Dean Koontz comes to mind as an example of this. On the other hand, I can't say I've read any of Elmore's published works, so it's entirely possible he is a disciplined author.

The lengths that he and his followers go to in order to be "prepared" for the worst -- none of which, of course, involve getting better in a measurable way -- are completely out of proportion to the actual threat of physical violence. You are 85 times more likely to die of cancer than to be killed by another human being. If you're walking around with 2 guns on you at all times, why isn't a doctor checking your balls and prostate twice each day?

I don't think it's really about self-preservation in the purest sense, but rather about having fun. I mean, it's not like anyone but Elmore is profiting from the Martialist--on the contrary, isn't he paying for web space? While the self-defense angle may have some practical use, I can't imagine his pursuits being any more or less applicable in real life than other MA styles. No, I think he just writes about the stuff because he enjoys doing so. And other people obviously enjoy reading it.

The "too dangerous to practice" excuse is ridiculous. If you need to grab someone's ear or strike their throat, you know -- people that train in sportfighting are pretty good at keeping you from being able to do that.

What difference does it make what sportfighters do? I'm no grand master, but it seems obvious to me that potentially fatal strikes must not ever be practiced in full force against a living opponent. How is admitting as much a "ridiculous excuse"?

Unarmed combat, bladed weapon combat (chalk knives), firearms -- these are all trainable and you can get measurably better at using them.

Sure, but while the training approaches real life, it can never mimick it entirely. So whatever measurement you're using loses much of its value outside of sport-like competition.

Why does he discount their importance?

I don't think he does. He may downplay their importance, but that's a matter of opinion, subject to debate and better judgment.

Because it's not about getting better. It's about drama. It's about a bunch of portly, depressed guys walking around armed to the teeth with a Dust Brothers soundtrack playing in their head, feeling like a badass. It's not about hard work, it's not about reality or being safe, it's not about self-improvement.

Well, like I said, I imagine it's mostly about having fun.

It's about thirteen-year-old melodramatic violent escapist fantasy.

Oh, come on! Maybe his site is plagued with adolescent idiocy, but certainly no more than this one!

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 12/28/2005 5:10am

Dude, if you don't see what's wrong with phil elmore making **** up and borrowing **** from martial arts he barely studies and calling it a new system etc, I don't know what to tell you.

Phil hates this site because he desperately needs to be taken seriously, both for ego purposes and work toward his ultimate goal of self promotion, and we don't.

Phil can't fight his way out of a paper bag and sells books on fighting. Phil's never been in a real self defense situation, but he writes a column on self defense. Phil insists he's a good writer, but he sucks too bad for anything but vanity press.

Phill is full of ****. Full. Of. ****.

Nuff said.

***JohnnyCache*** · Posted On: 12/28/2005 5:15am

Originally Posted by haughty

I agree. It seems like a lot of the criticism against Phil & his writings can be divided into two general classifications: 1) Ad hominen arguments, usually attacking his lack of advanced MA skills. 2) Imprecise comments taken out of context in order to make him look foolish. In both cases, the criticisms usually fall flat. Bullshido's ridiculous Pax Baculum "FAQ" is a perfect example of this.

An attack on phil's martial qualifications is not an ad hom in this case - an ad hom is not ANY personal attack as many internet wags seem to think - it is a personal attack used to fly in the face of logic.

So like, "What's two plus two?" "Four" "Man, **** you. You're a douchebag so that can't be right." That's an ad hom.

It's not an ad hom to question somone's credentials regarding a subject they hold forth on in a public venue. Especially when they publish garbage martial arts they've never used as working technique.

Come to think of it - Phil is prone to that mis-usage of terminology himself. Maybe our poster here IS Phil, finally having built enough bullshit up in the tank on his own little corner of the internet to venture back out into the big, scary public?

**haughty** · Posted On: 12/28/2005 5:41am

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

Dude, if you don't see what's wrong with phil elmore making **** up and borrowing **** from martial arts he barely studies and calling it a new system etc, I don't know what to tell you.

If he's combined various extant techniques with his own invented techniques, then it is indeed a new system. What's the problem, there?

Phil hates this site because he desperately needs to be taken seriously, both for ego purposes and work toward his ultimate goal of self promotion, and we don't.

He already is taken seriously. If I were him, the last thing I'd be concerned about is some trollers' internet site like this one. Anyway, you should be careful when you lump everyone here into one all-encompasing "we."

Phil can't fight his way out of a paper bag and sells books on fighting. Phil's never been in a real self defense situation, but he writes a column on self defense.

That's a valid concern, but it doesn't mean Phil's wrong. MA techniques require skill to apply, but not necessarily to discuss or even instruct. The best analogy probably deals with sports, where the best coaches were often mediocre (or worse) players. But you really needn't look to analogies in this case. By definition, Elmore's teachings can only be implimented in obscure, out-of-the-ordinary situations. It's no surprise to me that he has no direct experience.

Phil insists he's a good writer, but he sucks too bad for anything but vanity press.

I've only read his internet musings, and they're decent enough. If his official publications are any better, I'm sure he doesn't "suck too bad."