[so-called "anti-grappling"] Why are people so gullible?

[ace]

Anti-Grappling: is that like Anti-pasta, Uncle and Anti Mary, Anti-Christ, Anti Animal fur, Anti-lla the hun, Anti-climatic, Anti-martial arts.

[JFS USA]

Still, you must have made some gains in your own wrestling skills during that time.

Sure, Coach even spent time with me every now and then as it was in his best interest to have the best practice dummies available.

[wakinonioi]

Sure, Coach even spent time with me every now and then as it was in his best interest to have the best practice dummies available.

Sounds like a great opportunity.

[fluffy bunny]

Going right back to the start of the debate (before it turned to evolutionary theory and dick measuring contests)

Why are people so gullible, in your opinion? Many, many practitioners believe it's actually easy to defeat a grappler using eye pokes, fish hooking, small joint manipulation, biting etc.
They fail to understand that such "dirty" techniques are only useful if you know how to get into a strategically sound position. Otherwise, the grappler will beat the crap out of you no matter how "dirty" you fight.

Why do they fail to understand that? Because they don't try out their "defences" for real against grapplers.

I think that the aswer was in the question. It all comes down to the fact that "they don't try out their "defences" for real against grapplers." However thay are not neccessarily completely to blame for this failing.

SKILLED grapplers are not an especially common commodity (you can't buy them by the pound at the local convenience store) and many TMAers will go a long while before running across one (since grapplers are unlikely to turn up to their class).

Therefore TMAers who notice their ground deficiencies at all (and believe me some don't even realise the need for ground defence, its the same way that people don't tend to look up when searching for things) will tend to practise their defences against UNSKILLED grapplers. This is where the problems begin because unskilled grapplers don't have a ground fighting strategy, so they don't know how to prevent biting, gouging and small joint manipulation. Therefore these techniques appear to be effective. Therefore people assume they are reliable and train them in the process becoming stuck on a local peak in the overall cambat effectiveness curve. Once they (and their club) are on that local peak even though it is dwarfed by the "positional groundwork" peak, moving away from it initially leads to a REDUCTION in their ground fighting effectiveness leading them to conclude that other strategies are less effective.

The only way out of this is for a skilled grappler to turn up at the club, take pity on them and show them the error of their ways, but many TMAers are not going to want to roll with or learn from them anyway - they already have an "effective" form of ground defence in their own mind and this guy is a noob. Catch 22.

I'm stating this from experience, my style used to be weak on the ground relying far too much on a few nasties. The only way it got on the road to being fixed (we're still not fantastic) was a bunch of people within the style who also had judo and BJJ experience deciding it needed sorting out. However if they had not already been respected within our style I doubt they would have had the same impact.

[JFS USA]

Sounds like a great opportunity.

I had a great time and was fortunate to be surrounded by some very super peeps. Wouldn't sell the experience for a million dollars.

[JFS USA]

Similarities between organisms can be found at every level. Every mammal, amphibian, and reptile has the same makeup in a skeletal system- same types of bones and such that make up its structure. If you dont believe that humans (and all other animals) do not share a common ancestor, why do you think that scientists use animals to experiment on?

Gee ... dunno ... prolly because in many Countries human experimentation is ILLEGAL. Not so for the former USSR and some others.

BTW, America does in fact engage in substantial Human experimentation ... it's hidden and not for public consumption. I've been the lab rat so don't even bother trying to diss me or argue otherwise.

Fact of the matter is that humans share about 95% of the same genes with other mammals. Its not the genes that define organisms so much, but rather gene expression.

Thanks for the Intro 100 Level Course ... now back to reality.

Humans as homo sapiens have survived for about 100,000 years.

Rubbish ... the Human Condition has presented as such for approx. 100,000 years you fucking idiot.

Bacteria and Fungus have survived for about a billion. Right now the odds greatly favor those organisms over us. If an asteroid hits the planet and eradicates all large creatures, then bacteria would have proven more "fit" to survive than humans.

Yet more reducing bullshit as you define "fit" exclusively on the criteria of time in existence. The Human Condition has demonstrated far more potential to modify - control the environment than any other organism. What fucking college or university is stealing your money, fool?

As far as apes going extinct, thats due to recent interaction with humans over the past hundred years or so.

See above and admit you are clueless. In a mere wink of the eye the Human Condition has threatened the "fit" ... the survival of that which was here long before "us" ... as defined by "science." BTW, brainiac, "fit" as applied to survival is multi-dimensional ... many kinds - types of "fitness" that plays well in the survival game. Kind of like MA in that regard.

Evolution acts over tens of thousands of generations, which is not going to be achieved in a hundred years.

Agreed so long as self-limiting 'tards such as you hold sway. Get your ass out of the Causal Universe and your projected time line is vaporized. The Industrial Revolution resulted in forward advances far beyond anything else in recorded history. Seems slow thinkers - low thinkers such as you just don't get it.

Not as much bullshit as you would like to think- one needs only look at the fossil record to see the advancement of humans and other primates. Theres much research that supports these theories, certainly much more supports it than does disprove it

Christ ... what a douche bag ... "carbon dating" is it? When that crap gets the margin of error into a range that's reasonable I might be intereseted.

Arent you a toughguy to talk **** to people on the internet?

Come see me in person ... why speculate when you can have valid proof first hand?

When someone holds a conversation and you dont like the way its going you start throwing out insults.

What in the Hell makes you think I give a **** about your opinions on anything? You are some fukwit spitting back memorized crap from the school house ... based on information in text books that is outdated by the time the books go to press. You have no substantial life experience to draw upon ... quit flattering yourself.

Its been said that no amount of evidence can change the pure believers mind- you are certainly one of those pure believers

Ah ... very good, congrats. Yes, I am one of those peeps. We are problem solvers by way of genetic hardwiring. Our Mind uses compare & contrast in order to grasp this thing we call the World. Logic and such are wonderful gifts ... tools ... however, in my life I have found these things to be starting points ... not end journey.

Not quite as much as your misunderstanding of science

Your attempt at a cheap shot are beneath you ... I understand the science paradigm quite well thank you. By way of formal education and professional practice. I value science ... I do not worship it.

The key to holding a conversation is to propose different ideas supported by evidence and then use that evidence to argue one point over another. If the only thing you can do is scream "shut up you're wrong" and can provide anything to support it, you're going to make yourself look ridiculous.

I really think you are a decent and level headed peep so I'll give you the answer. I'm not interested in having a conversation via the typed or written word. Approx. 70% of all the informatin we strip out in a verbal conversation is visual cue based.

My Master's Program was NLP based, my Mentor is the World's first "pure" NLP Psychologist, and a wonderful example of what it truly means to be authentically Human.

I find Cognitive Neuroscience to be of great interest ... excellent potential to be of real benefit to Human Beings ... particularly the groups I routinely work for/with. Heroin addiction alters the brain chemistry in ways that sometimes match up fairly well with those that have suffered traumatic brain injury. Interesting to me as there might be a way of building logical connectors between the differing bodies of information thereby developing a far better series of treatment models.

With regard to your position of "conversation" via the Net, why would I want to endeavor to engage in a "serious" conversation when I am essentially blind (capturing about 30% of the information being conveyed)? I am very easy to find and even easier to meet with in person. That's not a threat ... that's a simple statement of fact. The BEAST

[Gumby]

Gee ... dunno ... prolly because in many Countries human experimentation is ILLEGAL. Not so for the former USSR and some others.

BTW, America does in fact engage in substantial Human experimentation ... it's hidden and not for public consumption. I've been the lab rat so don't even bother trying to diss me or argue otherwise.

Im not denying that any country in the world does, but experimentation often starts at the smaller level with bacteria and fungus before eventually climbing the ranks up to small mammals until we eventually try it out on ourselves. Humans and other mammals share so many similarities on the genetic level that it would be quite unusual for us to not share a common ancestor

Thanks for the Intro 100 Level Course ... now back to reality.

By ignoring facts you are showing to be rather close minded.

Rubbish ... the Human Condition has presented as such for approx. 100,000 years you fucking idiot..

Thats what I wrote....

Yet more reducing bullshit as you define "fit" exclusively on the criteria of time in existence. The Human Condition has demonstrated far more potential to modify - control the environment than any other organism. What fucking college or university is stealing your money, fool?

"Fit" simply deals with withstanding the test of time. While humans have proven to do as you said, we still have many years to go. If an asteroid hits the planet tomorrow and evaporates the human species, but bacteria survives, they would have proven to be more fit. This of course is purely speculation, but I hope you understand what Im getting at.

See above and admit you are clueless. In a mere wink of the eye the Human Condition has threatened the "fit" ... the survival of that which was here long before "us" ... as defined by "science." BTW, brainiac, "fit" as applied to survival is multi-dimensional ... many kinds - types of "fitness" that plays well in the survival game. Kind of like MA in that regard.

In a mere wink of an eye a little bacterium threatened the great human condition you speak of and eradicated over 1/3 of Europes population a little less than 1000 years ago. Just because an organism has existed longer does not make it more fit compared to others in present time it simply shows that whatever that organism's methods for survival happen to be, they've been working quite well (as opposed to an organism that lives for only 10,000 years for example).

Agreed so long as self-limiting 'tards such as you hold sway. Get your ass out of the Causal Universe and your projected time line is vaporized. The Industrial Revolution resulted in forward advances far beyond anything else in recorded history. Seems slow thinkers - low thinkers such as you just don't get it.

I look at facts and what can be proven. Just as you used martial arts as an analogy, so will I. I train what I train because it was proven to me. If some kung fu grandmaster comes along and tries to tell me what "real fighting" is and that all I know is rubbish, he better be prepared to back up and prove what hes saying if he expects me to give him any merit.

Come see me in person ... why speculate when you can have valid proof first hand?

But the whole "Im driving to your house to kick your ass because you called me names on the internet" thing got old around 14, but it doesnt change the fact that anyone in the world can act tough with words on a forum.

What in the Hell makes you think I give a **** about your opinions on anything?

You're responding to my posts arent you? If you dont care, then dont respond to what I write. That sounds like a great idea to be honost, since this thread is going in every different direction.