Paul Vunak Terriblized

[It is Fake]

Yes, Der if someone tends to use one line of thinking, and at another point says something that goes against that line of thinking, somebody can call them out on it.


I tend to use critical thinking, and seeing how this is a forum where people express their opinions frequently, I express my thoughts openly. If I'm wrong I'm wrong if I'm right I'm right. I never said I have all the answers?




Really Der? Appeal to Authority fallacy?? First of all Appeal to Authority is a strategy, because now if someone were to disagree with me, they would also have to prove that Paul Vunak was wrong. The fallacy in appeal to authority is ONLY if the authority is wrong.

Here is Wikipedia's definition, I'll highlight the important parts

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]
On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

I in no way ever claimed that Vunak was infallible.



This thread was started by an OP who watched too much anime thinking that people might hold a sword in reverse grip from start to finish in a fight. I drew a parallel to how people believe that reverse grip knife fighting was also cool and advantageous, yet falls under the same umbrella as reverse grip sword.


Typically in bullshido if someone has a video to back up what they say, it tends to give them alot of weight. Because Paul has an excellent clip regarding knife fighting which is readily available on you tube. It makes him an easy authority to use during a debate.


You have a degree, and the best you come up with is STFU?




Since the start I've been advocating GNP or eyegouge from mount, I still feel that ezekiel choke would still have too much set up time



You're welcome



Learned what?

Do us all a favor, if you don't understand logical fallacies and such that is okay. Quit running to wiki ,when you get your ass handed to you, it makes you look dumber.

[superninjagod]

A no-gi ezekiel has a massive advantage over a bite in that it will actually incapacitate your opponent should you land it, rather than just making him bleed into your mouth.

While it's not a hugely popular move it's definitely pretty high-percentage for those that actually train it.

Although it works (never said it didn't) it does tend to take up time for set up(so does a bite, but the bite seem to have a slightly faster set up) .

When I've personally seen it does in fights, the bucking done by the person on the bottom tends to slow down the set up of the technique. Similar in this video. But that being said it works great in BJJ

YouTube- No Gi Ezekiel Choke Mike DeBiase (Team Balance Kardian) NYC Submission Shootout

I actually use the eziekel from side control in the Erik Paulson vid alot! :)

[It is Fake]

Although it works (never said it didn't) it does tend to take up time for set up(so does a bite, but the bite seem to have a slightly faster set up) .

Hold on:

Anyway, a no gi Ezekiel choke is difficult to pull off and is not a very high percentage move. I don't think to many BJJ black belts would advocate a no gi Ezekiel choke in a life or death situation. Also even if you did pull it off, it would take a lot longer than a bite therefore still making it a poor substitute.

You said it clearly don't back away now.

[Lu Tze]

Vunak has some crazy fucking eyes...

As far as that no-gi Ezekiel goes, I wouldn't use a choke in a fight. They're useful for competition, but in a situation where you're not looking for a quick submission it's far too dangerous to put pressure on someone's trachea like that IMO.

Edit: Err, I wouldn't bite them either though, Christ...

[PointyShinyBurn]

As far as that no-gi Ezekiel goes, I wouldn't use a choke in a fight. They're useful for competition, but in a situation where you're not looking for a quick submission it's far too dangerous to put pressure on someone's trachea like that IMO.

I think it ought to be doable as a clean choke, one artery closed by the shoulder/bicep and the wrist gets the other. Might have a go when I'm next in the gym.

Edit: Err, I wouldn't bite them either though, Christ...

True say. I can see maybe biting someone to get out of an inferior position (maybe), but what the **** would be the point be of holding someone down and biting them from the top? I mean other than enraging the guy, giving me an even-shot at a blood-borne disease and making pretty sure I end up in prison?

[Lu Tze]

Yeah, a strangle is always an option. I meant choke in the literal "air" sense, not in the ambiguous RNC "stands for choke but it's really not" sense.

[jkdbuck76]

I'm flying out there.

Have fun. Does he still allow you to tape the private session?