Simulations are not violence & Sparring is not competition. Why weapons sparring kinda sucks
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 мар 2024
- Sparring with weapons kind of sucks.
---
Ramsey Dewey is a retired pro fighter, combat sports coach, referee, and fight commentator… and occasional musician based in Shanghai, China.
----
Thanks to my channel sponsor:
Xmartial: catering to all kinds of combat sports athletes from BJJ, MMA, Muay Thai etc. find rash guards, fight shorts, grappling spats, boxing gloves and other training gear. Use my code RAMSEY10 for a 10% discount on everything at
www.xmartial.com/?ref=AyJ_EjP...
This video features original music by Ramsey Dewey
Follow me on Instagram at: / ramseydewey
---
I fought professionally in Mixed Martial arts, Sanda, Muay Thai, K1 and American kickboxing from 2004-2011 when I was forced to retire due to a broken skull and being blinded in one eye. I hold a brown belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Black belts in multiple traditional martial arts, including Taekwondo and kyokushin karate. I also train in catch wrestling, sambo, taijiquan, judo, and boxing.
I currently coach at the Animal MMA gym, the Extreme Fight Lab, and the Mordor Fight Club, all in Shanghai, China. 
Спорт
![TRASH or PASS! Eminem ( Houdini ) [REACTION!!!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cB1WrZcMwMc/mqdefault.jpg)
Whelp fuck it. No point in doing any sort of weapons training if it isn’t 100% like the real thing. Guess my force on force training with simunitions, ranger time, and dry fire practice have been worthless. Guess I just won’t train at all since if can’t be exactly like the real thing
Glad you woke up.
Yup, I've literally never held a gun in my hands, not even paintball or airsoft. I'm sure we would have about a 50/50 each chance in any sort of gun fight lol.
It doesn't make any sence, ofcourse its not the real thing and someone who's been in a couple of real gun fights (and survived xd) would be better then someone who has trained a lot longer because he has seen the real thing. But its a hell of a lot better then nothing and it gives you a chance to survive the real thing.
Just like people used to train for sword duels in the times of the judicial duel. Its not the real thing, but the guy that trained stood a much better chance than the other guy.
@@raul12300I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you regarding people who have survived gunfights being better than people who have training. I have known a number of former gang members who survived multiple gun fights, but they were terrible shots and didn't know much more about gun fights than keeping your head down and shooting at the enemy.
I have a friend who was Army Special Forces, and he was sent to the Philippines to teach Filipino soldiers how to fight because their units were suffering high casualty rates in their encounters with rebel forces, something like 80%. He told me he always felt like a fraud because he was supposed to be an expert at warfare but he had never seen combat, whereas the men he was teaching were all survivors of actual battles. He told me that after the training the units he taught started winning battles with rebel forces and were no longer suffering high casualties like before.
I'm not saying experience is not valuable, that would be a stupid statement. However, I am saying that experience without training does not automatically make one better at a skill than those who have extensive training. After all, there are lots of terrible drivers out there, and many of them have been driving longer than I have lol (I am a commercial driver)
Skill and experience helps. Meaning America had skill the students had courage that came from combat to to use the skill with competence@@jonathanbartlett1098
@@jonathanbartlett1098 - Yes, it's not practice that makes perfect; it's perfect practice that makes perfect... or as close to perfect as you can get. If your technique/theory is fundamentally bad (as maybe with the Filipino soldiers), the only real value of experience is in seeing the need to refine it, something you can do with superior training.
People throughout history have used various forms of weapon sparring to train skills they would require for duels and self defense. If it was good enough for them, its good enough for me and you.
Yeah, like Ramsey himself said in the video, it’s better than nothing. Even if it’s not the real thing, it’s the best thing we have, and so we should use it. But we should understand the difference between them. That’s Ramsey’s point.
@@mattlawyer3245 its not a very original point
This take kinda sucks. According to this logic a combat sports fight training isn't valid because you aren't actually following through on the consequences of grappling. You aren't breaking the other guys limbs when you get a hold, you don't keep hitting or strangling the other guy when he is unconscious. Combat sports are also a game where you stop before you kill the other guy even though you demonstrate you could. Therefore it doesn't accurately simulate fighting another person to the death with your bare hands? Kinda. Does that make all the skills you gained getting to that point useless? No. According to this logic military training for unarmed combat or firearms is pointless because you aren't actually beating people to death or shooting people, you're just shooting a target, or using simulated ammunition in training exercises. Does that make military training pointless? Militaries wouldn't invest in it if that were the case. Another example is fencing and weapons training. You will be more prepared and have some skills when using a weapon if you train even as a simulation against someone who doesn't. I agree there is a vast psychological gulf between sparring with fake weapons and actually trying to kill someone with weapons. A historical swordsman who trained men who historically fought in duels and war even said he would rather fight 50 fights in armor rather than one unarmored duel. He also fought in unarmored duels. Did this prevent him from training wrestling and with fake swords? No. He still honed his skills in a game. So do professional operators and soldiers today. If they actually shot each other, it would be a waste. Those dudes even die in training accidents because what they are doimg is pretty real. Their governments decide when it's time to actual test their skills and potentially spend their lives. Their lives would be more easily spent if they didn't do training simulations. You think your game is more real because you've played it more.
The take: Simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition.
Argue against the thesis, not against strawman please.
@@RamseyDewey Thats not a "take" tho. Youre just stating an obvious fact. It's like saying an orange isnt the same as a banana and a banana isnt a strawberry. Your take is "Weapons sparring kinda sucks" which is just not true.
Ah, so you are reacting to your highly emotional interpretation of the title, not to the content of the video.
@@iloverefridgerators7694 When it is a fact there is no need for a discussion. Case closed.
>50 fights in armor rather than one unarmored duel
Fiore? Sounds like his words.
Imagine telling a SWAT Officer their Weapons training is useless.
Keep imagining it, because no one said anything like that here. Keep the strawman arguments to yourself please.
He didn't call it useless, just not on the same level as hand sparring.
When you say that take a minute to consider the SWAT team's reaction in the Uvalde school shooting .. I would say the SWAT training of the Uvalde, TX SWAT team was absolutely useless.. Unless the team is willing to put their training into action it is useless..
He wasn't talking about military/ police training. Now you're just making up reasons to be mad.
I suspect that actual real world historical warriors trained their skills through sparring so I am not sure what the argument is.
1. Simulations are not the same as violence. 2. Sparring is not the same as competition.
@@RamseyDewey Who argued otherwise?
@@RamseyDewey 3. Competition is not the same as violence.
No?
@@Aidames Over 400 people in the comments section so far.
@@RamseyDewey I only see reactions to the statements you made in the video. So far I haven't seen any comment that would argue that:
1. Simulations are the same as violence.
2. Sparring is the same as competition.
So, as a very serious Historical Fencer, I think there's some nuance here.
What you say is essentially correct. Even years of fencing experience can't prepare you for an actual first blood duel. It may be cringe to say, but I've seen this happen first hand. In duels where injury is a real risk, the match slows down to a snails pace. This is in stark contrast to tournament matches or sparring bouts where most exchanges last seconds.
What myself and others do will always be low resolution. It will always be LARP.
However that doesn't Invalidate the training entirely. One who has experience and training will always have the advantage over someone who doesn't. And Tournaments are still the closest approximation we will ever have to this fantasy of "the real fight"
Not really sure what your point is tbh. All forms of sparring, whether armed or unarmed, exist on a spectrum of intensity and lethality. I guarantee that your military buddies pressure-tested in non-lethal ways before deployment. 1-on-1 sparring, scenario drills, etc. Would you rather they hadn't? Would they rather they hadn't? Training has to be relatively safe and repeatable, otherwise it's not particularly viable long-term. I'm sure you'd agree.
I’m not sure what you missed in the video… Your point is exactly Ramsey’s point. He doesn’t say anywhere that because training cannot be a perfect reflection of reality that it is therefore useless. He even explicitly says in the video that this imperfect training is the best we can do with weapons. He’s just saying that it’s important to recognize the limitations. In my own words: “Range training is important, but you don’t do anyone any favors by telling them that real combat is exactly like range training.” Certainly that’s obvious?
@mattlawyer3245 The word "imperfect" references the point I'm making: all training that is relatively safe and repeatable is imperfect. By which I mean, there is always a gap between training for violence and actual violence, whether the gap has to do with intensity or scope.
@@ninjutsudojo Exactly. That's your point, that's Ramsey's point, and that's my point. We all agree. But when you ask, "Would you rather they didn't?" you seem to imply that you think Ramsey is saying that the imperfection makes training a waste of time. It makes it sound like you think he disagrees with you. I'm just trying to point out that you actually agree, and if you listen to what he says and refrain from applying your own assumptions to it (i.e. don't assume things beyond what he actually says), it seems pretty obvious that you agree.
@@mattlawyer3245 "if you listen to what he says and refrain from applying your own assumptions to it"
Just to be clear, I've watched the video a couple times. I do make an effort to understand someone's point before responding.
"He even explicitly says in the video that this imperfect training is the best we can do with weapons."
We all agree that imperfection exists in all training, but Ramsey is clearly attempting to draw a distinction between the imperfection of unarmed training and the imperfection of armed training. His point is basically as follows: the gap between unarmed training and unarmed fighting is less than the gap between armed training and armed fighting. On the surface, it seems like a reasonable argument. However, there's a false premise under it.
Simply put, violence in the real world isn't neatly segregated like it is in training or in competition. Maybe they have a knife, maybe they don't. Maybe they have friends backing them up, maybe they don't. Maybe they're hopped up on something, maybe they're not. Maybe it's dark and difficult to see, maybe it's not. etc. etc. etc.
We have little to no control over how violence manifests in real life. So, it makes little sense to try and neatly segregate violence and draw the comparisons between different trainings that Ramsey does in his video.
All of it is imperfect, but hopefully it all comes together and helps us when it matters.
And they work.
Hard disagree with your argument. You are saying unarmed martial arts sparring is valid because it simulates *technique* close enough, but then go on and say weapons sparring is less valid because it can't simulate *consequences* close enough. In grappling, this is precisely where sparring usually ends (with a tap) nobody even tries to simulate how to keep fighting with a dislocated arm or a broken ankle or what to do if you pass out from a choke but luckily(?) come to in the middle of the following ground-and-pound. Nobody in striking practices fighting with blood over their eyes from a cut, with a dislocated jaw or a broken rib.
You also underline the long-term consequences of weapon violence as if unarmed violence only exists in sport form. People will get just as traumatized being pummeled, being choked out and having their bodies violated or being permanently disabled (often with brain injuries) from someone jumping on their head. So the same argument of "the real thing is not so fun" applies here as well.
No. That is not what I am saying.
@@RamseyDewey Not trying to misrepresent you. But those were the main points I thought you were making. That weapon sparring is unrealistic because it can't reflect the consequences of being damaged by the weapon neither during nor after the fight.
@@RamseyDewey weapons training/sparring is useful in fencing or kendo leagues, Training helps make champions.
By the way, when you "unarm spar" you shouldn't telegraph so much.
The main points of this video: 1. simulations are not the same as violence. 2. Sparring is not the same as competition
@@RamseyDewey Simulations are the best we can do for violence. Sparring is super helpful to prepare for competition.
You won't learn to deal with the real stress of a real armed confrontation with this training, but you can still pick up techniques and learn to counter and force them against someone who's trying not to let you do it back. That's what a lot of sparring is for to begin with.
Yet, simulations are not the same as the real situation: they are games. But games are practised and played as preparation, whether it be war games for nuclear war (to continue the fall out theme) or sparring.
Games work for drone strikes.
@@boshirahmed Exactly! Someone joking about 'missile sparring' in this comment section. But such exercises are exactly what NATO does.
Definitely losing faith with Ramsey
Exercise faith the Lord, not in any man.
That being said: If you don’t like the idea that a simulation is not the same as the thing being simulated, I don’t know what to tell you.
@@RamseyDewey That's a moot point though. A simulation is as close to the real thing as possible. Or you can drop your gloves and fight with bare fists instead.
@@RamseyDeweyhell yeah bro! Faith in the lord amd not man. Good good words
That's not what people take issue with. Your assertion that sparring sucks is the problem here.@@RamseyDewey
@@nippertipper7686 Sparring is indeed a poor facsimile for a murder.
Hey Ramsey, I'm a little confused by your pressure testing statement. Every time I've ever used or heard the term pressure testing, it's been used as a synonym for sparring, or just a general way of saying "you actually have to test your skills against alive resistance from opponents to know if you are actually effective." And I've heard that term used by basically everyone I know who trains, and it's usually in reference to fake (often traditional) martial artists who never pressure test, and just expect their "training to kick in when the time comes"
Agreed. I’ve always understood pressure testing to be an umbrella term for training against an uncooperative partner. This could be in sparring or it could be applied to a specific situation (like restraining someone who doesn’t want to be restrained).
Yes, you're right. Ramsey just doesn't seem to run in the same circles as the verifiably skilled combatants that use that term.
Gun sparring is even worse! Not to mention grenade sparring! And missile sparring 🚀 🚀!!!
Airsoft is fun
@@faithalone5081what about airhard though?
You gotta pressure test your nuclear weapons skills. Not sure if kata for ICBMs are gonna work in a live situation.
Siminutions are a thing.
Really, how can you spar nuclear armed ICBM?
Endless amounts of virtual ink have been spilled in this debate. IMO, it comes down to the fact that while we can get close, as you point out, making it “real” means that someone is likely to get seriously injured. And the naysayers always say that a given technique will never work because it’s “not real”. I mean, they have a point but I’m not exactly going to spar with sharp knives with the intention of harming my partner. But does the guy who’s actually trained with weapons have a better chance in a real life situation? I would think so.
I wish there was a more scientific way to look at this because, my hypothesis is boxers would be the best base for knife fighting over "weapon based martial arts" as for the hand speed, reactions, and feet positioning
I do know for a fact that if you train with melee weapons, solo, drilling with partners and sparring, you actually have higher chances of knowing what to do if shit hits the fan. You know how to efficiently swing objects around, make the most out of their properties, and compensate for their weaknesses. You are used to people swinging objects at you in a diverse manner, an how to dodge, block or parry them efficiently.
I train kung fu and traditional weapon practice is a regular thing in our classes, and what I learned there over the years translated to an altercation I had with a neighbour that attacked me with a rake and a shovel. First with the rake, where I applied what I trained on how to deal with an oponent armed with a blunt object while you are unarmed. Closed the distance during the windup of his strike and grabbed the shaft of the rake, neutralizing it. When he realized he couldn't get his weapon back, he let go of it and grabbed a shovel nearby, tried to thrust at me with it and I used a very basic staff technique we drill all the time to defend and close the distance, using the rake. I once again neutralized his weapon and then the fight got separated by a young man who was nearby.
I get what Ramsey says here but while you can't train perfectly 1 to 1 like you can unarmed, it still dramatically increases your odds if you ever find yourself in the right scenario. Denying that is just logic-less.
@@nicholasjavier8747 Craig Douglas, of Shivworks, claims that the best base is Greco-Roman wrestling. As he tells it, the hyper-emphasis on controlling the opponent's hands and balance was developed for grappling with weapons. He has a solid reputation in the tactical training community, so his techniques are working for someone.
WIth HEMA gear, you're well protected enough to go really hard, full contact. You also "lose" if you get hit.
So, you're training to cut or impale someone else and not get hit yourself.
So, given that, my response to this video is ???
@@hellomate639 exactly
This is a huge matter of nonsensical semantics. The term pressure testing has been used by numerous high-level athletes and coaches in disciplines that we know to be efficacious. You can’t possibly convince me that Gordon Ryan and John Danaher are just self-appointed self-defense guru clowns. They have both used the term a lot in a way that is synonymous with positional sparring at varying degrees of resistance. This is definitely a hot take from you. My own coaches (highly competitive black belts in IBJJF and a couple in MMA as well) also regularly use the phrase.
Yes, some bozos might use the word, but that doesn’t mean it solely exists to support bullshido claims.
Also, knife training might not be as realistic as sparring, but we have simunition and MILES for firearms training, among other options. Simunition is as realistic as the real deal, minus the resulting trauma, just the same as sparring is as realistic as combat minus the broken bones.
Fencing comes close. The issue is that it takes imagination and creativity to pressure test realistically. However the emotions involved in realism is not for most normies who don't have dangerous jobs.
Yeah, I was confused by him calling it "sparring." My understanding of "pressure testing" is that it is often doing a specific drill or technique, but with the partner actually applying full resistance and even counterattacking, as opposed to just allowing it to work. Ramsey Dewey's own testing of female self-defense techniques is exactly what pressure testing is, even though it is also clearly not sparring.
@@Freefall347I think he is talking about knife self defence, he is over thinking too much. The sad reality is that pressure testing with real emotions tends to involve actually doing dangerous jobs, like army and security. You can only do so much until you actually do a dangerous job.
If I wanted to be really, really pedantic, I would maybe contest the claim that simunition is just as realistic as the real deal, on the basis that the wax bullets have vastly different ballistic characteristics and are ineffective at longer ranges, but yeah, that's really me being very pedantic.
@@234fddesa two things can be true at the same time. Simunitions are horrible past ~50 yards and sometimes questionable past 25 yards if things get super fouled. And yes, it is pedantic lol. That’s why I mentioned MILES, which we all know is not without its flaws, but there’s also other systems that are newer and better. It’s all about application and simunitions are as real as it gets for CQB.
Where do I even begin with this:
1) This point is redundant, no amount of weapon sparring is going to be close to the real thing. Militaries simulate war using simulated rounds and technology to designate wounds, but we don't advocate that it isn't sufficient for training the military (since it's proven that this level of simulation is sufficient to train modern soldiers) because it's not a substitute for the real thing yet it helps. The same goes for weapon's sparring: no one is arguing (except the most stupid people) that it's "the real thing," but it's better to have some training with a weapon than none at all. This has historical precedent: most weapons training (unless you had the armour to practice safe sparring) was non-contact simply because it would be a massive risk if all the people bought up or conscripted for war were harming/killing each other in the process (or when it was full contact, tools like sticks were used because it's significantly less dangerous than a sword).
2) Wrestling can be done 100% because the risk of harm, compared to other forms of fighting like MMA and boxing, is significantly less all things considered. I cannot go 100% in boxing, Muay Thai or MMA, doing so, without any regard, would result in serious harm or the possibility of someone dying.
3) The transferrence from simulated to real life is something that is a universal constant ever since humans began engaging in violence. That isn't an excuse to not engage in training on the possibility it may happen. Related to the first point, the reasoning is to make the actions being practiced instinctive/second nature. This is how modern militaries train soldiers, examples being the impulse to fire at targets when target shooting, target surpression and generally firing at a general direction as if second nature. This is done because it's been proven to be the most effective way to engage in combat (otherwise modern militaries wouldn't be doing this). In ye olden days, experience was everything: put a bunch of people (whether men at arms or knights) in combat with no experience and they're going to suck because of various reasons (they've never injured/killed someone in anger, they're pretty much shitting themselves trying to do so, they're new to the whole thing) compared to people who have actually fought in combat. The key is to systematise the actions so much that it is intuitive (that doesn't mean it's perfect. Practice doesn't make perfect: it makes permanent): it's a matter of risk assessment and a force multiplier when it comes to learning and applying what's being taught.
4) Related to the previous point, as with many things: injury/killing are matters of habit when it comes to getting used to them. Many war veterans and people engaged in violence, have testified that once they've killed, it becomes easier to do so thereafter, despite the fact there's ethical issues, shock etc. that comes with the action. Grossman has perpetuated myths that humans don't like to harm each other but, given enough incentive, you can get anyone to kill. The British Army in 1914, during the opening stages of the first world war had no qualms when it came to killing German soldiers on the field (due to incentives emphasising marksmanship being one example); another good example is the Vietnam war where, due to the McNamara fallacy (the idea that data/results are ultimate judges of progress without a lack of context to explain the results of that data) e.g. the idea that body count was everything, led to US soldiers perpetrating civilian massacres (such as the My Lai massacre) because it was judged that casualties were the ultimate factor in winning that war (how grossly stupid that point was). I can testify to this: after having a Muay Thai fight, sparring was far easier for me than beforehand because there was no apprehension of the experience, so it was significantly easier for me.
5) Related to the previous point, things such as Call of Duty and Fallout are fantasies sold to people for entertainment/fun/power fantasy/competition: they are not representations of the real thing, or more accurately are abstract representations of the real thing. Despite this, there are carry overs to the real thing (enough Call of Duty players practising reloading are going to be able to, from memory, perform a reload a lot more effectively because they've seen it done constantly; it would take a few minutes to manage the weapon and see how it handles but it can be done).
Weapon's sparring is a walking contradiction: you cannot simulate lethal violence unless you somehow persuade/brain wash all parties involved that it's the real thing. The answer to this is that people make do with what they have; even medieval people who were closer to violence did this (just look at machete fighting in Haiti which looks very similar to how historical sources depict violence on a daily basis).
That being said, there are tools to help people understand lethal violence in a simulation setting: historical sources, more appropriately experts at the time who engaged in such violence (Miyamoto Musashi being a good example), historical accounts giving detailed accounts of battles/duels/fights, soldier's accounts etc. The fallacy we're falling into is that we're treating lethal violence as some form of detached thing (that can't be concluded) which is separate from reality but it's not: it walks in the heart of every person and there are people who live today who have had to bridge that gap (deliberately or unfortunately).
The decision to engage in violence (whether to first blood or to the death) is an experience that people can choose to walk if they can justify it; a lot of people have, and have come out on the other side changed. This is the journey that many people walk either knowingly or unknowingly and, as with most historical/biblical literature, is a test (it's not surprising that such engagements were categorised as "ordeals" or "tests"). The ultimate question, and assessement of that, is how would you react/deal under those circumstances? This is the ultimate judgement of how people are assessed and are going to judge you: it's the reason showing how they are praised by historical literature and poetry, and why we ask such questions (in a similar way the trials of Herakles were framed). Absent of state or authority, how would you come out in the end? Would you be able to take it? Despite the adversity, would you succeed? These are questions that plagued humans and are integral to our evolutionary biology and physiological make-up as a species (after all, we are animals, just more evolved versions). Those people who do succeed end up being recorded about, whether Achilles or Miyamoto Musashi: because their deeds lie in the heart of every man and, for that reason because of how we're wired, become praised (whether you agree with that assessment is another matter entirely; it still doesn't detract from the fact people have done consistently through history: it's a constant and therefore needs to be understood and appreciated, especially when people echo that in today's age).
What's that?
TL;DR
You beat me to it mate. As someone who trains in HEMA, HJMA, MMA and IKMF, very well said 👍
The whole argument that “it isn’t the same as mortal combat therefore it is pointless” completely misses the point.
Yes, simulation with weapons is all you really can do - and, to get down to it, a lot of people who train with weapons would have very little interest in being involved in their real use to begin with. This is not a bad thing, either for them or for society. Many who like the warrior image have little interest in actually going to war. Where do they fall on that "ultimate test" scale? Real violence, much less with weapons, isn't like in heroic literature or the movies, no matter how much people idolize Herakles, Achilles or Musashi.
By the way, Grossman wasn't wrong that people have a widespread reluctance to kill others, even when given the means and expectation of doing so in combat; the difference is in personal mental acclimatization and experience in doing so and many militaries have, in the past, underestimated this factor as well as the incentive needed to motivate many people to actually kill. If people liked to kill others, you wouldn't need to try to train them to do it. No army is made up of natural killers, and history has borne out that you can't get just anyone to kill because, as a practical matter, you can't, and shouldn't be able to, control them that completely.
@@Malt454 I would have to disagree concerning Grossman's work; Grossman primarly based his work on S.L.A. Marshall's work "Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command in Future War. " where he notes during the second world war that the majority of soldiers didn't fire their weapons at all at the enemy. The misunderstanding of this myth surrounds the conclusion people drew from it (that humans are apprehensive when killing other humans), which Marshall himself states is one factor (bearing in mind the majority of GI's were conscripted into the army and, compared to professional soldiers, were more reluctant to do so).
Marshall rightly pointed out that GI's trained to shoot siloutte targets when firing, not taking into account that the majority of confrontations at 300 yards weren't usually visible e.g. it's usually not possible for soldiers to see who they're firing at. That's why soldiers had a lack of incentive to fire at their enemies because they simply couldn't see them the majority of the time. Marshall was relied upon as a key individual in the US army because his work to combat this, resulted in the effective of GI's firing at targets dramatically increasing due to rectifying this issue.
Grossman makes sweeping remarks and generalisations on human behaviour and conclusions stupid things, like the majority of battles having casualties in the routing phase due to the victors seeing the back of their opponent's heads. It's pseudo-science/psychology at best and has resulted in hard-line attitues to do with law-enforcement that are stupid.
Even in the situation of violence, it depends upon context and incentive. Some situations incentivise people to commit violence more compared to others (taking into account values, deterence etc). It's not a clear cut situation.
It's always amazing to see people turn into what they once opposed. All these years later, Ramsey's suddenly parroting exactly the type of logic fantasy martial artists always use to talk down people who actually put their best effort into sparring
Oh no, Ramsey thinks that simulations are not the same thing as violence and that sparring isn’t the same thing as competition! What a monster!
@@RamseyDewey Has nothing to do with what you think, it's how you present your argument. People are rightfully pointing out that you've used fallacious logic, doing what's called Motte&Bailey aka moving the goalposts. You've made a silly indefensible claim (weapon sparring is pointless), then retreated to a much more reasonable take everyone can agree with (sparring is not the same as real life) and pretended that proves the first statement. Whatever your actual positions are, that's just a bad way to present them. Also, instead of getting all defensive, please think of that: the reason viewers are giving you that feedback in the comments probably shows they want to give you maximum benefit of a doubt - that you didn't make a bad argument on purpose, but rather just missed how akwardly and misleadingly it came out. Which gives you a great chance to clarify.
I absolutely did not make the claim that weapons training is pointless. That is 100% false. 2 RUclipsrs who made response videos made that claim. It sounds like you are responding to their videos, not mine. I cannot take you seriously anymore.
You're such a clown now@@RamseyDewey
@@RamseyDeweyor to phrase it in a more familiar way:
Combat sports with all their rules and equipment can never prepare you for DA STREETS!
I think you're wrong man, I don't know, weapon based combatives like shivworks are pretty fucking good sparring. Do you have to knock or tap your opponent every time you spar? Not really, so combatives do exist, and do work for weapons even if it isn't 100% realistic. I've done plenty of force on force firearms training and it's been extremely useful as a cop, sames as combatives such as firearm retention, deployment prevention, etc. It works. Some mentally ill kid tried to take my gun and my combatives training took over and I retained my gun. Plenty of stories like that. One caveat, they need to based on good wrestling and good tactics. Also, weapon based training ALWAYS must lead to an equal response, aka, lethal force, otherwise it's bullshit, striking and grappling vs weapons only works sorta well if you have a weapon yourself and can get in to a better posting to deploy or strike. So yeah, short answer is, combatives, they do work.
I'd be willing to wager that an afternoon with Craig Douglas would alter Ramsey's opinion somewhat.
I think you're missing the point what he is saying is that you can't take a gun, your buddy takes a gun and you go shoot each other for training purposes. Or go stab each other with real knives. Where a boxer can strap on a pair of gloves and go hit another boxer at 110% effort. Without killing him. Force on force, simunition, training knives, all of those are great but it's not the real thing 110%
@@louisodendaal6200 So what's the point, then? Get out there and train, unless it's with weapons.
I think YOU are missing the point. Modern combatives are taught in such a way that the stress of "the real thing" is simulated, to some extent. Of course it's not 100%. But sparring in Ramsey's gym won't 100% prepare you for kumite deathmatch, either.
You think a committed attacker will stop attacking after you tap? No, he'll just destroy your wrist and keep going. If you aren't training with broken bones, you'll never be fully prepared for the kumite!
The only way to fully experience a fight to the death is to fight to the death. Weapons or not. Since that's not a feasible way to train, we make do with simulating it to the best of our ability.
Imagine saying that military training doesn't increase the success rate of real military operations... Just because it is not as intense as the real thing.
Imagine saying that indeed. I didn’t. Why are you?
@@MaharlikaAWA you mean he’s using a strawman fallacy. I don’t fight strawmen. If you want to engage in polemical debate, you need to be a serious person first and address the actual issue at hand, not invent your own and pretend that’s what the other person said.
@@RamseyDewey I'm confused. Do you agree or disagree that simulations of violence improves performance during the actual violence? Because the video makes it sound like you don't, and your comments make it sound like that's not what you meant. This might be the source of the confusion
@@RamseyDeweywith respect you kinda did. The US army uses paintball drills. They have papers on if drills with airsoft are better than drills with paintball. Every professional army in history has "pressure tested"/drilled. It doesnt mean it works a 100% of the time, but that doesnt necessarily translate to useless either.
Perhaps the comment was a bit snarky. But it doesnt as a straw man.
@@bspiken It is never respectful to attribute false ideas to those who do not espouse them. Your comment was indeed a straw man, and you're doubling down on it.
Hope you get well soon!
In HEMA, I have to constantly remind people that our weapon simulators all have different issues. You’re never going to find one that is 1:1 with an actual weapon, unless you’re willing to vastly increase the chance of death.
And that’s in a martial art that I humbly believe handles weapons well. I’ve seen some DUMB weapons training out there.
In HEMA, we use steel swords, and wear various levels of armor or protective gear.
We practice as if the swords were sharps, at least that is the intention…
(Doubles are a plague in HEMA)
In grappling, they use a padded floor.
Further, they tap out, they don’t actually choke people to death.
They don’t break the arms or legs of the opponent.
They don’t go “all out” in that sense.
Single stick was practiced by various Navies to stay keen with the cutlass.
@@robertvondarth1730 Half answered my question. Which is ok you guys are preserving culture. Same thing happens in South India with Kalaripayattu 2nd and 3rd years involve training first with wooden weapons then with the actual metal weapons. Though its more like a kata not free style sparring. Back in the day mind it was the main training for the Keralite Militia. And it was regarded as so successful by the British that it was banned when they conquered the south. Even though they used modern weapons they didn't want to have a trained militia that wasn't loyal to the crown. So the question is if it kinda sucks why would the british have banned the indian version. And how did people actually train when weapons training wasn't a sport it was what you did if you became a soldier or someone who planned to fight others to the death. Did people just die a lot in the training. Or did they use slaves to practise against. Or is there a way of weapons training that doesn't suck. What they say these days is that the weapons training trains the body to learn to move in different ways and the practitioner is meant to become the weapon. But the response from modern combat sports peeps is but they would say that now wouldn't they.
@@user-rc8br5sw6j the answer is because they didnt want any potential for resistance regardless of whether or not that wouldve been significant resistance, as you said it was the main training for the Keralite Militia, and one less militia fighting your colonization is always good for you
also, they used wood and steel trainers just like pretty much everyone else has throughout history; if worst came to absolute worst a good stick can still be used as a moderately decent sword substitute for the purposes of training
people can say what they like about how much both "suck" but at the end of the day someone whos been practicing arming sword HEMA for 5 years with a wood or steel trainer will likely fair significantly better than someone who picked one up and started swinging it about
the only major training difficulty that trainers cant help with (in the case of swords) is edge alignment, but that can be trained on cutting targets like mats or cloth
Yeah HEMA comes to mind. But even when you are covered head to toe in the best SPES and hardshell stuff, there are weapons where you ought to be careful. Starting at longsword, and forget montante. The intensity of a sword fight (or mixed weapon) as if you were "at the battle of X in the XVI century", simply can't be replicated safely.
@@ossian1977 Check out Dequitem. Those guys are crazy.
One thing I thought of not mentioned here: paintball is actually a lot of fun, and physical enough you can learn something about cover and concealment from it. It's not a 1:1 fight to the death, but neither is sparring.
Like the comment said, "pressure testing" is a term that comes from military training. I think we can safely say that military training is at least somewhat effective at training people to be effective at fighting with weapons. So, I think you're wrong on that count.
You're not wrong that weapons sparring falls short of fully preparing someone for war. Every last experienced soldier will tell you that no training can fully prepare someone for real combat. However, they'll also stress the vital importance of training and the importance of imposing some kind of stress upon trainees, simulating, to some degree, the stresses they will face. Usually, the simulated stress will take the form of physical fatigue, elevated heartrate, or some kind of scoring or timekeeping. That is "pressure testing." No, it's not the same as the real thing, but "sparring" in unarmed combat will never fully prepare someone for bloodsport kumite deathmatches, either.
I guess you are not wrong, but how else can you spar with weapon?
If we look how military trains, that sort of pressure test works. After all, you cannot use live ammo to shoot each other, or at the worst, nuke each other. Yet, we can have highly effective armed force, even most never needed to fight in real war.
So if knife sparring is inauthentic because you have to use fake knives, wouldnt contact sports like boxing be inauthentic because you have to wear boxing gloves? Boxing gloves fundamentally change the way striking works. Not by a lot, but a fake knife only hinders accuracy by a little bit as well. Im not saying weapons sparring is perfect or that boxing isnt real fighting, but i personally believe weapons sparring is realistic enough to qualify as training.
Boxing gloves make boxing more dangerous, allowing fighters to hit harder and more recklessly without breaking their hands.
@RamseyDewey it also makes the punched person less likely to get cut. Can potentially help the "victem" just as much as the attacker. Prolonging the fight can help wither fighter and longer fight time make stamina and fight IQ more of a factor then just punch power and aggressiveness and a low fight IQ difference 🤷♂️
@@RamseyDewey
I agree, given how we see traumatic brain injuries occur frequently in professional boxers throughout their carrer, however I believe the blunt force of bare knuckles is more likely to pack the nessicary power to cause injuries more easily, especially since the context of a gloveless fight is likely a real world situation where the fighters are jacked up on adrenaline.
Boxing gloves aren't cushiony by any means, but they still soften and spread the impact of blows quite a bit even if their primary purpose is to protect the weaker bones in peoples hands.
You have a lot more experience in combat than I do and I respect that, but I still disagree on the practicality of weapons sparring. Even if the terror of a real world life or death fight involving a knife fucks up your ability to slow down and focus the way you want to, having effective strategies seared into your muscle memory through long time repetition makes those skills much more likely to naturally surface in such a situation.
@@anothersonicfan7594All boxing gloves do is protect the hands, and trade cuts for concussions.
@@RamseyDewey You really can't just go around hitting people full force every sparring session though. That's antithetical to how training is supposed to work- unarmed sparring is still practice in the end, and even hard sparring isn't a real fight.
Is there no value to training timing, distance management, counters and etc in weapons fighting, as you would unarmed combat? You can't simulate the stress of a real weapons thing, but neither can most sparring sessions.
Also I don't think this shit even matters for half the guys around, its just a cool hobby they do and nothing more.
if sparring with blunt swords doesn't count because you don't cut open your opponents guts, then sparring in hand-to-hand combat doesn't count unless you also go to the death or incapacitate someone completely. But that's not how combat sports go. These aren't in a strict sense, "combat", they are sport. Both of them. To say that the skills used in the sport don't translate into combat, seems disingenious.
I get what Ramsey is saying but dont agree. Its like saying dont train for weapons or anything unless your doing it in real life or your not doing it correctly. There was some good points tho. Just dont agree. If i own a firearm i should at least learn how to use it and take care of it. Just because i dont use it on people dosnt mean i shouldn't go do target practice. Just beacause im not a fighter anymore dosnt mean i shouldnt train with some intesity.
Though you say you get what Ramsey is saying, it seems like you are actually missing his point… He doesn’t say even once that, because simulated conditions are not realistic, therefore the training has no value. Why is everyone jumping to this conclusion!?
If you agree that it is important to understand the difference between training conditions and real violence, then you agree with Ramsey. This was exactly his point.
@mattlawyer3245 yes and no. Its called following a line of reasoning. And because of the assumptions one would make by doing this you reach conclusions. These are assumptions about a topic that Ramsey could actually talk about for a very long long video if he felt like it. I would say maybe you don't understand why my reply to the video or others are making assumptions. Which I would than assume means that you did not understand or I came away with a different understanding of what he meant. That happens. Two different people can watch the same video and have different opinions about it blah blah blah tdlr.
Ramsey is awesome I always love watching his content.
Also BTW it doesn't matter what any of our opinions are really. At the end of the day Ramsey has his opinion. Its not for us to change his mind or anything like that. Him having his own ideas and opinions are a great thing
@@The_Okami I mean, that was more or less my point. It seems that most people are applying their own assumptions to what Ramsey said, instead of trying to figure out what Ramsey's assumptions are. If you want to claim to understand what someone has said, you don't have to agree with their premises, but you do have to try to understand what those premises are, instead of applying your own. And if you're familiar with Ramsey's regular content, it seems that the particular interpretation that most are applying is clearly not reflective of what he believes.
At the end of the day, though, it's not exactly an important issue, is it... I guess bringing it up at all was a bit silly on my part.
@mattlawyer3245 lolol it's 2024 and everyone is already forgetting about the last videos and have moved on to new content 😂
Its just sparring. You can spar with weapons or BJJ or wrestling.
And simulations are still not the same as the thing they try to approximate.
No one is surely saying they are. Come on bro u turning into a grumpy old man. Not everyone can just join the army or press a button for drone strikes. @@RamseyDewey
The thesis of this video is that simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition. 90% of the comments are silly strawmen arguing about everything except the actual topic… including that drone strike comment of yours.
@@RamseyDewey So, who argued that sparring with swords is 100% like a real medieval battle?
@@RamseyDeweyWoah, what a revolutionary thesis. Jesus, mate, you deserve the Nobel Prize 🤡 Keep crying people Straw man you. You fucked up and just try to cover your ass by using excuses, tool.
Ramsey coming for us sword nerds, lol. Can't wait to have a feed full of reaponses
Kind of stating the obvious here. But it’s not worthless even though it’s very different. You’ll not get very close, but close enough for it to have much more value than not doing it.
Yep, tapping someone out in a BJJ tournament is 100% the same as strangling someone in a street-fight. 100% the same!
Not what was said. BJJ sparring is similar to BJJ competition, but even then it is radically different psychologically and physiologically. Try to pay attention please.
Sure, and fencing sparring is similar to fencing competition. Why are you comparing weapons-based sparring to a fight to the death and unarmed sparring to fighting in the ring?
@@dashiellharrison4070 I’m not. Combat sports include fencing. Think.
@@RamseyDewey At 2:57 "You can grapple close to a 100%, if not a 100%, you don't have to make any modifications, you don't have to change a thing, and it is exactly, exactly the way it would be in a full contact fight" Later you do clarify the psychological factor, but if here you are refering to exclusively to the mechanical component you shouldn't go on to say "You cannot do that with, let's say, a knife. With a knife you have to use a fake knife, where: there is no actual danger, there are no actual stab wounds or cuts because if you used a real knife you'd end up dead... " Can you see the comparison is not fair? Or is this a straw man?
@@jsj1288 That comparison I made is fair and 100% true. For your own sake, never make the mistake of deluding yourself into believing that fighting with a knife is anything like sparring with a fake knife. It’s not the same physically, mechanically, psychologically, or in any other way.
Sorry Ramsey, Yeah you can.
There is zero difference between wearing safety gear and not breaking someone's nose or arm sparring, not collapsing their trachea or poking out an eyeball, and not putting several inches of steel through somewhere lethal.
None.
It is the same level of "not quite real".
You do have a point, You cannot go 100%, even with fake weapons, or you will do grievous harm to your sparring partner.
You don't Harm your sparring partners, right?
And you gain training benefit from this and knowing when they would have messed you UP?
Same thing.
You wear gloves.
people tap out.
No difference. you know when you're dead.
I'll be curious if Icy Mike has anything to say on this. I think he will disagree as well.
I mean Yes- Do I know for certain I have severed your arteries and tendons, in the same way a grappler knows a hold worked, or a striker knows he rung his opponents bell?
You are correct in this bit. But you're comparing apples to oranges, I feel.
Because of the force multiplication of weapons- I have been badly injured with Extremely Safe practice weapons. I have badly injured people with Extremely Safe practice weapons. We weren't going even 80%. If those had been Real? Dead or permanently maimed.
Man on man, no force multipliers you Can get close to 100% (and even to that, provided you're being nice.)
Ok- here's the difference: force multiplication. I could hit you with my fist, 100% and you being a badass can shrug that off.
I hit you with a real sword or knife at 20%, this fight is Over. Weapons are about That you got hit, and Where, not particularly how hard. (depending on the weapon, but even a *tap with something edged is a trip to the ER. real deal with will behind it? Dude. I have scars.)
It cannot be compared 1:1
Because weapons do Ever so much more damage, with less effort. that is the point of the things. That's why they're Scary.
Could you kill a man with your hands? I have zero doubt.
Could you Accidentally kill a man with your hands? it would take bad luck.
You can accidentally off your buddy or maim him permanently with a weapon (depending on weapon), easily.
It is this difference, that makes me question your assertion.
I understand where you're coming from, but... I just don't think we can compare getting hit with a fist or foot, and getting hit with any weapon I've ever been hit with.
simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition- that’s what was said. I don’t even recognize these points you’re trying to refute.
It seemed like your point was- because you cannot take weapons all the way to the ultimate end of the fight in the same way you can with striking or grappling,
that training and fighting with weapons such as in Hema lacked a certain validity.
If I missed your point entirely i apologize.
I'll watch it again.
@@ryanjamesloyd6733 His point was exactly that, he is just backtracking now.
@@ryanjamesloyd6733in sparring ajd in competition you almost never take it to the extreme
Your words:
"The take: Simulations are not the same as violence, and sparring is not the same as competition.
Argue against the thesis, not against a straw man, please."
Simulations are not violence = true;
Sparring is not competition = true;
Is competition violence?
Is competition a simulation?
If we assume sparring and/or rolling as a simulation for competition (like someone training for an MMA match, Muay Thai bout, or BJJ championship), no amount of sparring would ever be comparable enough to actual violence to prepare you for actual violence. However, would you say that an MMA practitioner would have a 50/50 chance against an untrained individual in a scenario of unmoderated, although unarmed, violence?
Because one CAN roll and spar close to 100%, doesn't mean one SHOULD spar and roll close to 100%. This is done to reduce the damage to the practitioner. Even in competitive scenarios, there are limitations on the kinds of tactics and techniques one can pull on the opponent to win.
At one point in your video (around the 10-minute mark), you address how absurd it would be to be in a swordfight, because even with rules, the risk is too high; very few people would be okay with it. Well, very few people would want to fight judo on a sidewalk, pull guard when you can football kick them, try and roll with someone when there is no tap out, only broken bones.
Every form of combat has to be practiced with the least amount of risk so you can get more time worth of training and be better prepared. Rolling on a mat, with rashguards, striking with padded implements, and mouthpieces is not too far from fencing with protective gear (you just changed the cutting into bashing). Consistently, the military and law enforcement agencies that have the most field training and drills have higher success rates and increased survivability in actual lethal confrontations.
Weapon sparring kinda sucks because every sparring kinda sucks as it does not represent violence on a 1:1 ratio; HOWEVER, that is a good thing. Given the high stakes of actual violence, having controlled situations for you to train techniques and tactics and fail at them when you CAN fail at them and not lose your life better prepares you for actual violence than just being a victim once. Actually training and developing thrust on your techniques and tactics as well as your weaknesses during controlled simulations is one of the ways to be a less bad violence user.
I honestly don't know what was the point of the video; if it is just semantics, well, this take is just stating the obvious. If not, it sounds a lot like saying sparring is pointless.
Argument people are doing:
-You appear to be argumenting more than "real thing is different than simulation"
What Ramsey appears to be reading in this arguments:
-Real thing is exactly the same as simulation
Saying armed martial arts is useless in a real fight is on the same level as saying that MMA is useless in a real fight, it's just dumb.
Then why are saying it’s useless? Those are your words, not mine.
@@RamseyDewey It can be logically inferred by the way you were arguing, since you brought up points such as "intent" and "unknown variables" which make a real fight different from sparring. None of that is exclusive to any specific martial art, hence one can argue against the practice of martial arts in general on the same grounds.
@@coulombs465 You didn't arrive to that conclusion base don logic. That is an emotional reaction to the title. Not what was said or inferred. And since youtube analytics tell me most people who clicked on this video didn't even watch past the 30 second mark, there's a high chance you came to the specific conclusion that "weapons sparring is useless" because it's the verbatim straw man title of multiple reaction videos to this one .
Your voice right now should be hosting a late night radio show about jazz music.
Nope hard rock album music!!! Country Swings Discos Sucks and RAP is Crap
"Good evening, bar fllies and lounge lizards, Mr. Ramsey Dewey here, the loosest dude you ever unshaded your orbs on......."
@@DENVEROUTDOORMAN wow, who hurt ya, kid?
What about Full Contact Medieval Armored Combat? They sparr with weapons and its FUN!
What about it?
Generally much better equipment and fairly limited techniques. To quote a medieval source on similar circumstances:
"I tell my students who have to fight at the barrier that fighting at the barrier is significantly less dangerous than fighting with live swords wearing only padded jackets, because when you fight with sharp swords, if you fail to cover one single strike you will likely die.
On the other hand, if you fight at the barrier and are well armored, you can take a lot of hits, but you can still win the fight. And here is another fact: at the barrier it is rare that anyone dies from being hit. So as far as I am concerned, and as I explained above, I would rather fight three times at the barrier than one time in a duel with sharp swords."
@@RamseyDewey isnt that weapon sparring? and fun?
Not to trash them, but they're mostly playing something resembling medieval tourney melees, not recreating actual medieval combat. There are several elements in their sport that severely compromise their
its usefullness for actual weapon fighting:
1-They do not allow any thrusting, which massively changes everything. Buhurt fighters then don't need to care as much about range management and are forced to close in constantly, emphasizing offense over deffense way too much.
Away go spears and other thrusting weapons that excelled in combat.
2- The armor they wear is far heavier and more protective than anything they had in the past, which allows them not to be as careful and just bullsrush through damage that would otherwise stun, KO or kill them.
3-They regulate the weight and size of their weapons, which ends up with them having to be way more offensive just to somehow make their opponents feel any impact.
4-Falling to the ground is an instant loss, which means combat doesn't last as much as the real thing.
All these elements end up rendering their sport as mostly a contest of bashing, pushing and throwing without as much emphasis on defense, accuracy, endursnce or range management...which warriors needed far more in real combat.
Again, not to trash them, they're hardcore and tough, and hopefully will revive interest in HEMA...but just because they spar hard does not mean their art is better or more realistic than other weapon arts.
@@MrAlepedroza they do thrust bro. I seen it a lot. and yeah going to the ground was death in the past. ofc armor is heavy between 20 - 30 kilos. But it is full contact sparring with weapons.
you can do Simunitions and airsoft traiinng for projectile weapons. That will reveal a lot of errors in your "thinking' about training. those impacts sting pretty good when you just wear thin pants/shirt. There's a price to pay if you don't use cover, movement, and shoot fast and straight.
Your video implies that’s there’s no way to effectively train fighting with weapons, but people have been killing each other with swords and knives for thousands of years, somebody has had to have figured out a way to train with weapons without killing themselves.
It’s not mechanically difficult to kill with a weapon. That is what precisely weapons are for. Now you are working under the assumption that all those weapons were being used and defended against optimally. Not the case. People using weapons to fight with doesn’t refute the point that a simulation is not the real thing.
Which then bodes the question, how do you optimally train with and to defend against weapons when you can’t actually simulate them in a way that resembles there actual use.
Ramsey woke up and choose to talk down the entire weapon sports enthusiast.
This isn’t about weapon sports enthusiasts.
I still don't like the explanation about pressure testing. Just because a term started out from a dorky attitude, doesn't mean that widespread adoption can't change the nature of the term. It's closed-minded and a bit "boomer"-ish to behave like that. I get your point - All "pressure testing" scenarios you saw were bunk, but that doesn't mean that you're actually right here. Especially since you invite disagreement by "relentlessly mocking" people.
Why would you want to adopt something dumb?
@@RamseyDewey it's not about wanting or not, though, it's just about how international communities adopt or not
To be clear, i wouldn't be engaging with you if i didn't agree with most of what you're saying. But I've seen some actual combat sports athletes use the term "pressure testing" before, and i wouldn't conclude that they can or cannot fight based on that alone. Someone can pick up a term and run with it, regardless of their skill level. @@RamseyDewey
Dude, I've trained with weapons, plus I train bjj and Thai boxing. You can train with weapons full intensity, I've had my head rang like a bell doing it. I'm really not sure what you are talking about, literally there is a group in Germany that trains with sharp weapons full contact. If you use a real choke they'd end up dead, same goes for a hit to the head with a stick.
Simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition. That’s what I’m talking about.
Luckily, they disbanded. As far as I know. And they weren't good. We trained at a similar spot in the park couple of years ago, so we did watch their training. 1 minute all out, then 10 minutes rest and talking. Then again 1 minute all out, rest again. No structure to the training, no building up skill. I am pretty sure we got a similar amount of sparring in our 2 hrs than they did. Plus our warm up, prehab, technical training and so on. Some of their ex members joined our club as well.
You're literally in videos talking about the importance of being a good sparring partner and how you can't go 100% and participate in sports that limit the types of things that can be done to keep the fighters safe to some degree.
This is a garbage argument.
Heck... Weren't you literally in a massive LARP event dressed up as a "self defense tournament" where you tickled each other with markers and played hide-and-seek tag?
@@jonathanrose5490 he made an entire video series criticizing that event, so instead of that comment being an insult it kinda just agrees with him now
@@internetrules8522 no it really doesn't unless you're delusional.
@@jonathanrose5490You seemed to think that the "self defense tournament" was silly and had minimal value. Ramsey Dewey thought the "self defense tournament" was silly and had minimal value. It sounds like you agree with him on that to me.
But maybe I am just delusional and your insulting me for a mental health condition that I didn't know I had.
@internetrules8522 Firstly "delusional" is not a mental health condition. It can be a symptom of some but it's also just a descriptive state. But I do appreciate your attempt at redirecting my insult to as if I was attacking people with mental health issues. Good try.
I think the self defense tournament was as useful as any sparring can be, but to say the words that dribbled out of his mouth while participating in sport competitions and controlled sparring is hypocritical and ridiculous.
But then again he's always seemed like one of the least pleasant of the martial arts RUclipsrs so I guess confirmed.
Strikers have the same problem. Gloves and other protective gear change a lot of things. No one wants to get an elbow to the face or get his bare knuckle parried with the elbow or forehead.
Weapon defense takes so much skill and experience you might think the weapon defense won't work but people back in the days actually defend themselves with a weapon.
Is it not the same weapon or not? One could make a point all fighting is but a game, unless consequences are real...
Brain damage from being punched and snapped joints from submissions are pretty real consequences
@@Sbv-25 I hear you man, still you can get all sorts of messed up playing any sport. I mean, if risk of injury ant intent is all it takes, then football match is a battle, or not?
@@demoncore5342I don’t want to get into the semantics of “battle”, but non combat sports in training seems pretty close to competition day. Whatever injury that exists in training, may be found and cautioned in the real game
@@Sbv-25I think you need to tell your training partners to calm down.
It’s not that you can’t 100% test a technique knowing full well somebody is going to end up fatally wounded/dead it’s that you shouldn’t. Danger is a factor here. Hand to Hand combat is blunt but once a Krav Maga fighter practices with a toy knife everything becomes a joke right? People think all of Hema is Theoretical but how real do you want it to end up?…
If anybody brings up guns simunition is not stupid it’s just a tool that guarantees a level of safety for practice as well.
imagine being a human (specially made to use tools), and specializing yourself in fighting without tools in part by a process of physically reserved practice
then imagine thinking that a physically reserved practice between humans interested in specializing in fighting using tools "kinda sucks" for their intended outcome, which is something you've never aimed for or experienced
fighting is also simulation. The real thing includes eye gouging, biting, tearing, snapping joints, breaking bones, nut cracking, using items around you etc etc
I think your wrong about training with weapons the same way as you roll or spar, just roll or spar and add a training knife (preferably a shock knife), now your getting very effective knife defence training, it something we do in the Ninjutsu club, yes its an additional risk but so is rolling or sparring.
Hello Ramsey, I uploaded a response video to this on my channel! Let me know what you think!
It's all training, with the degree of ability to use "real technique" varying inversely with the ability to control damage/consequence.
- in grappling, you can go full out because the one with the advantage usually has the ability to control the damage that their advantage will inflict (usually to the point of submission).
- in striking, you usually can't go full out without protective equipment because going full out reduces the degree of damage control. Once a full-strength punch or kick is thrown, it's gone and the consequences are all on the other end, regardless of what they are.
- with weapons, as with striking, you usually can't go full out and not with real weapons in any case because the ability to control damage would only be negligible. You can refine weapon-use technique, but most weapons are designed/intended to inflict lethal injury so, when for real, it's never a sport on any level.
Is weapon sparring "real"? Is any sparring "real", except as sparring? Did the samurai who first trained in jujutsu do so to roll with and submit opponents or to gain sufficient advantage to kill them on the ground by any means possible? I guess it varied with the samurai, but...
P.S - I think it is a very good and valid point, though, that training with weapons IS a very, very far cry from being involved in their actual real use, and the furthest from reality in that respect as sparring.
The biggest hindrance to my karate point fighting days in the 80’s was facing the crowd, I was no good at it.
OK so a question for you. For centuries and millennia, how did soldiers train for wars that were primarily fought with swords and spears and axes and maces and the like?
Training formations mostly.
@RamseyDewey Phalanxes and such, I got that. But your answer doesn't really address the question that you set up. How did the ancient warriors stress test their hand to hand techniques for the field when the phalanx was broken?
@@jamesfarganne528they would go into battle and attempt to murder the enemy in combat, same as modern day military. In training they tend to use blanks, which as many infantry have recounted, is NOTHING like a live combat scenario.
It's not *bang bang*: "Oh shit I made a mistake haha",
it's *bang bang*: "Oh shit Daryls face is a jig saw puzzle"
You can't prepare for that kind of stress and circumstance until you've been a part of it and survived.
@@blackpsalmmusic9180airsoft
@@jamesfarganne528how can hand to hand skills recover a broken formation?
Weapon sparring really does suck. Gotta wear a ton of protection and scale down the destructiveness of the weapons. It's fun/productive to drill with or without partners, but damage is still possible.
Bro has been hit in the head too much if he thinks fighting with weapons doesn't help. Guess training MMA won't help in a real fight either.
Do you break people's joints when you roll? Do you squeeze people's eyes out when you get top mount? Just wondering how """authentic""" you're willing to be in your bjj.
Simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition.
@@RamseyDewey True enough, and a good example of that is that in a life and death scenario, an armbar doesn't end the fight and you're not going to be breaking joints in bjj sparring. I'd argue in grappling it's not 100% either. I think HEMA is leagues ahead of iaido for the same reason BJJ is ahead of aikido, which is sparring and competition. Does HEMA approximate real armed combat worse than MMA aproximates real unarmed combat? Maybe. But I'd still bet on a HEMA guy over someone who never trained.
@@RamseyDeweythat’s not the only claim you made though. He’s arguing against the point you made about grappling and weapon sparring being unequal in the first third of the video.
I agree that most people who use the term pressure testing probably can’t fight very well.
However, some people use the term to pressure test a technique before using it in sparring.
It’s a stepping stone.
You pressure test the technique first, have someone throw the attack at you with full force, but you know it’s coming, you know what technique he is using and what you are going to defend with.
You can now iron out the flaws without much risk.
Once it’s good there, you try it in sparring.
Stupid take. Even in grappling we don’t spare realistically. No one is trying to eye gauge you, tear off your ears or stomp on your head. No one goes for a can opener or a full power shin lock in the guard. We don’t go for a nasty neck crank instead of a rear naked choke…
Can you address the actual argument I made and tell me why you thought it was a stupid take?
Using sharps (real swords) is a complete different thing, many of the fencing techniques are not possible because of the risk. Also the psychological factor is different. Saying that, people need to train, and in old times people really used the swords for real (war, duel, selfdefence) and the training was helpful. Cheers
It is radically different but soldiers still have to train with weapons before going to war, even if they cant have a "war sparring" cause they will die and not fight the actual war.
Modern soldiers do, in fact, have "war sparring." They usually call it "force on force training." In FoF, they use "simunition," which typically leaves nasty welts and breaks the skin, drawing blood.
@@MrMagnaniman just searched it up and apparently it hurts like a motherfucka, still tho like Ramsey said is not close to reality but neither is hand to hand combat sparring, point being it is still very important to do sparring whether is with weapons or not even tho you can't go full reality mode cause you'll either get seriously hurt or die and won't be healthy or alive enough for actual situation. Well at least that's my opinion.
@@mrsenkur613 It's close enough to reality that militaries spend considerable time and resources making sure that all of their soldiers have done it, instead of just sending them into a war and telling them to figure it out.
@@MrMagnaniman which means weapons sparring isn't that dumb
Just asking because I want further insight into your opinions on this topic, but what would you propose that someone that wants to be proficient with weapons do for training? Is it pointless? Obviously nothing is going to be a perfect simulation of armed combat, but what would could be done to improve the current state of affairs? Concurrent MMA training? I have my own thoughts on the matter, but I’m here to hear the coach!
Frankly, your main argument; ie that weapons sparring does not prepare you for a real life-or-death duel, while certainly true, it applies even more to unarmed fighting (IF we are really talking about life or death situations, and not just drunken brawling on the street). You say that it is both psychologically and physically hard to mete out incapacitating or even deadly injury with a weapon. Again, true, but it is even harder to do that with bare hands. Could you bring yourself to snap someone's neck any more than stab them with a blade? Don't think so. In fact, killing with a knife/sword is shockingly easy - they are designed for that, after all. It does not require much strength or commitment (certainly not as much as knocking someone out cold with bare hands), just enough technical knowledge to get through the opponent's defenses and using proper edge alignment - which are things you absolutely CAN and DO practice in sparring. Whether you can pull it off in real, life-threatening stress situations, is another question, but you have exactly the same problem with a bare knuckles fight to the death. So I just don't see how weapons sparring would be any less useful than ANY kind of sparring, unless we fall into the fallacy of comparing non-deadly street brawls (that can happen relatively often) with actual fights to the death (which are thankfully extremely rare). For the latter sort of encounter, MMA fighting experience does not do any more good to you than HEMA sparring.
I made 2 main arguments: 1. Simulations are not the same as violence 2. Sparring is not the same competition.
@@RamseyDewey Yes, but you also argued that it is a problem with weapons based martial arts, but not a problem (or significantly less so) with unarmed martial arts. Why?
Competing is a combat sport is much more similar to sparring than fighting with weapons is to sparring with weapons. How is that even debatable?
@@RamseyDewey You have never heard of HEMA competitions? :O
That would be competing in a combat sport.
What are the best and most challenging parts of owning a gym? Watching your clips it always seems so fun having all that equipment at your disposal whenever you have free time
That’s a good question, I’d like to know this too.
What is that elbow lock that you did a couple times in the beginning? I've never seen that done before.
It’s an old judo submission that isn’t taught officially, but exists in old books : ruclips.net/video/FRwSL4jBKUg/видео.htmlsi=l46YOhBVcmwWC64q
It’s an awesome shoulder lock. Follow the link sbv posted for a tutorial
@@RamseyDewey do you use it to actually break your training partner's arm while sparring? Then it's not real, and therefore useless! (to paraphrase your argument in the video)
That is a strawman. The actual argument from my video: Simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition.
@@RamseyDewey Dude, the literal TITLE of your video is "Weapons sparring kinda sucks!"
I have a confusion. Isn't the point of learning weapons to have fun though? To me it seems like the same as muay thai sparring where it's just play fighting. It doesn't really prepare you psychologically in either. Either way you're probably not getting into a street fight if you're in muay thai or getting into a longsword dual if you do hema.
So I suppose the knights and men at arms of old should have just killed each other in training.
That way it would have been realistic.
They sucked.
Jokes aside our weapon sparring in our hema club is full contact with blunt steel.
I can promise you that without the protective gear we wear it would become pretty effin real pretty quick.
So I really do not see your point.
Simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition.
@@RamseyDewey
True. But many of us compete in tournaments as well.
How else should we prepare for those other than sparring?
@@RamseyDewey
Intresting that new thumbnail.
Someone clearly got a tad upset.
Do you also use sharps? Test cutting, slow sparring, etc. ?
@@kelvottomatpelaajat3797 about 400 man babies got very upset.
15 minute video and you said nothing of value.
Thanks for wasting my time.
You’re welcome.
lol... just sayin'. 😀@@RamseyDewey
This was honestly one of the nicer comments I have received in this whole comment section. Bless you kind sir.
It's a spectrum of initiative, I see you well there.
Fighting is different than killing/surviving.
Coming here from Skallagrim's video (having stopped off in "The least humble man on the internet has enraged the nerds somehow") I have to say your point holds up in my opinion as I understand it. What I am interpreting from this video is that weapons training, and sparring by necessity can't be as psychologically, physically, emotionally, spiritually difficult as competition or attacking with intent to harm. Because so many factors just aren't the same. Not that there is no point in training, but understand that the training is at best that, training. It isn't the real thing and can't be the real thing realistically.
Same here. And I don't think this is the controversial part. Most of the people arguing about the difference he is making between unarmed training and weapons training in regards to real violence. I think both are very much removed from the "real deal", in terms of emotion and trauma. Yet he seems to make drastic distiction between the two modes of training.
He states that he can go "100%" in grappling, but misses that he is not actually crippling his opponent. He's stopping well before that.
From my point of view, the same applies to weapons sparring. We're training the techniques as close as possible, but we refrain from actual violence. This artificial distiction is what most here seem to have a beef with.
I really like Ramsey and his videos, but I think he's not presenting his case here very well.
Being a Goju Ryu student until later black belt, I trained with skrima , a bit with Sai, Bo, the Jo, tonfa, and worst of all - the nunchacks.
Like all of you who are martial artists who watched all Bruce Lee films - I had to take it up and get good at it. Got a book with diagrams etc
I got really fast at twirling it back and forth etc.
Then I took to practicing on a punch bag.
Made me quickly realise the massive disadvantages with this weapon. This should ONLY ever be used what it is made for
- smashing grain
Maybe the whole point is being able to fight with something that is disadvantageous to a better degree then others can fight?...
@@St1cKnGoJuGgAlO
Yea, but seriously man, nunchaucks suck. They're just a shitty weapon. I would'nt even call it a weapon.
I already made one critique but after thinking about it I have a shorter, hopefully more succinct way of expressing it so here goes:
Ramsey, you’re using a double standard. You’re judging weapons training against how well it can prepare someone for a violent assault with a deadly weapon but you’re only judging striking and “rolling” sparring against how well it prepares someone for a match in a combat sports setting.
These end goals aren’t the same and it’s an unfair comparison.
You need to address how well striking and rolling sparring ALSO prepare someone for a violent assault with a deadly weapon.
The unfortunate answer is that sparring for MMA/combat sports is just as inadequate.
While MMA/Combat sports sparring may be the closest we can get to simulating a violent UNARMED assault, it’s still a limited form of pressure testing compared to a real violent assault because it’s constrained by the rules of those combat sports. No one’s sparring on concrete. There’s no striking to the back of the head. No one’s being thrown down onto a cement curb and having their heads stomped or soccer kicked. And while “rolling” is a very good method of pressure testing for competition it still doesn’t fully simulate real world grappling because you train to slowly apply pressure until the opponent taps which isn’t how grappling is going work in a real violent assault.
The other big problem is, violent UNARMED assaults often don’t stay unarmed. Knives are extremely common and get pulled a LOT of the time. And don’t even get me started with firearms.
If you’re going to judge things based on the criteria that it doesn’t adequately prepare people for a “real violent assault with a deadly weapon” that’s fine. In which case, the answer is that ALL sparring kind’a sucks INCLUDING MMA/combat sports sparring. BUT, sparring and pressure testing in as many of these systems as possible is better than NOT sparring/pressure testing
Edited to add: Ok that wasn’t any shorter but hopefully clarified my previous critique.
simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition. Those claims do not contradict each other.
In HEMA you use techniques from manuscripts wich has the potential to injure or kill the opponent. You only do it with blunt weapons and protection gear. And still it helps understanding fighting. Otherwise you can also quit unarmed sparring because you use protection gear like your gloves.
For better than ten years I was very competitive in weapons combat sports. That produced concussions, broken bones etc. I have been in three knife fight/assaults and one idiot with a hatchet. The most important difference between the two is more or less as you have described it. These things are desperate and involve other factors. And you will get cut and or poked.
Well put my friend.
Thank you for the video.
Hey Ramsey, you realize that this logic basically makes all military training completely meaningless right? The military doesn't practice with real ammunition (for obvious reasons) but the drills they do come as close as you can to the real thing without risking actual death. How else are you supposed to practice something that is lethal, aside from simulating it in a less lethal way? And from what I can see, unarmed martial arts do the same thing. No one is at the gym actually trying to beat each other to death, sparring is literally just a simulated fight. What we do when we spar or roll, is not a 1 to 1 comparison to actual fighting, it's just as close as we can get without risking death. I'm not actually sure what you're talking about in this video. I was almost going to agree with you, but then I realized I was just being hypnotized by your Morgan Freeman voice.
The logic is: simulations are not the real thing. Practice is different from competition.
@@RamseyDewey I understand that, but doesn't that statement apply to unarmed combat as well? Like I said in the original comment, unarmed sparring is just another non lethal simulation of a fight. Some of the things you said in the video weren't actually true, I understand what you were getting at, but I feel like you missed the mark a bit. Or maybe I'm not understanding correctly. For instance, when you said the way you grapple when you spar is how you would grapple in a real situation, that's not true at all. When I roll at BJJ, I'm vividly aware of every moment where my partner could just be cracking me in the face, but since it's BJJ, and we are sparring, I don't have to worry about that. I'm free to just hyper focus on developing this specific skill, because a bunch of variables have been removed. To me that seems similar to two people practicing with dull weapons, they are free to develop that skill without the fear of death, and since no one dies, they can practice for thousands of hours and become very competent. Will it translate to a real fight with weapons perfectly? Of course not, but they will very likely be more competent than their attacker, which is the whole point of training those skills in the first place. Anyway, have a good one Ramsey, be well.
This was all discussed in this video. Did you watch it?
@@RamseyDeweyI think, maybe probably most of the comments saw the vídeo, we're... Commenting on It(?)
Wont help in anything responding to random people looking like a step-dad on the Facebook page of his younger daghter.
Why are you so relutant to actually go and train/learn?
You wont make It real by repeating the points you've tried to make in the vídeo, and we both know that experience is key.
"What do I gain on training If It doesnt work?" you may say, and just like Aikido sh1t you dont need to train on It to see If It works or not, but It gets awkward when you misslead technics, training equipment, famous professors/masters and dont even searched for its rules or what they're trying to make. After all that ita like you made a video about boxing not working because It doesnt have grappling and you can't go full ape shit against eachother everyday...
If you still wanna argue EVEN MORE, have the balls to not making a vídeo where you're the only one talking, choosing the footage and actually DEBATE with some RUclipsr who knows about the subject. Then you can develop, at least, your opinion with actual knowledge on the subject, OOOH! Otherwise keep responding to random comments who help paying your bills like you're doing, but he'll, we'll know why its easier this way.
Would even be a nice trio, you Mike and Skallagrim :)
And I know you're already interacted with Icy, I watch your vídeos/self-defense/combat sports RUclipsrs there's more than 6 years.
Have a good day sour-fella.
@@eduardosperb2009 You need to learn some manners kid. You’re rude. Your post is full of quotes that nobody said so, I can’t take you seriously. But I’ll bite. What experience do you think I lack in regards to this subject?
You’re making a fool of yourself man.
Let me guess. Another HEMA nerd who thinks this video is about you?
@@RamseyDewey I’m not a “HEMA nerd,” but a lot of what you’re saying applies to both armed and unarmed martial arts. Even if the weapons used can’t be sharp, injuries can still happen even with protective gear, just as they can with unarmed martial arts. I don’t see why you consider it so different.
Sparring with weapons is very different from murdering people with weapons. That should be a priori knowledge to human beings who have survived past childhood.
@@RamseyDewey yes, and grappling without breaking limbs is very different from grappling and tapping. Again, a lot of what you’re saying applies to both armed and unarmed martial arts.
@@Voobit Oh boy, another person arguing the same false dichotomy for the 100th time that was NOT discussed in this video as if that were the argument.
Once again, the actual thesis of this video in summary: sparring for combat sports is not the same as competing in combat sports. Sparring with weapons is even more dissimilar to killing people with weapons.
Pay a modicum of attention please.
hey Ramsey, this is the hema nerd who came by to Shanghai two weeks ago . I agree with your point. In hema we basically play psychopaths without fear of death because nobody with a sane mind would know how it feels to face a real blade. We cannot and should not reconstruct this part of historical fencing. However that competetive historical fencing is a hard combat sport with serious risk of injury even with blunt swords, it takes guts and pain tolerance just like any combatsport. But you are right, it is not comparable to a duel of life and death fortunatly.
Hi Ernst, fellow HEMA Nerd here: there is a middle ground for facing a real blade. Controlled sparring in low speed by experienced fencers. It is not that uncommon as you might believe.
And yes, your bodily response even with slow speed is drastically different with sharps as it is with blunts.
Well, weapon sparring... depends on the discipline, right? Like, with kali, they wear protective gear as a general rule, but they use real sticks, and strike full contact. You walk away bruised and exhausted, even if you win.
And sparring is still not the same things as competition, and simulations are still not the same thing as violence. What is done in training is always different than what is done outside of training.
@@RamseyDewey well sure, I'm just asking - if you're swinging full contact, and getting bruised and what have you, what REALLY seperates it from "real" fighting? In a real fistfight, you're not having fun, you're probably scared, and you'll probably get hurt. I've been in a couple real fights, I speak from experience. I've also, ludicrously enough, been in a fight using a weapon before. Pretty much the same thing, except I was possibly a bit more scared. In both situations, I got hurt. In both situations, my training helped, but didn't turn me into some sort of unstoppable machine. I got about as much out of my weapons work as I did out of my barehanded work, which is largely based around boxing.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, based solely on my personal experience, boxing did about as much to help me in a real fight as training with sticks. I can't speak for anything else, besides kali and possibly kobudo, but I think you can achieve a similar level of effectiveness training with sticks as you can with fists.
@@RamseyDewey so, in short - you're completely correct, but while sparring with sticks isn't perfectly accurate to a real fight - because I know I won't get killed, unlike when that guy I had to fight was swinging a chunk of concrete at my head - the same can be said of boxing. But that's all. In either case (boxing or kali), you get hurt, you learn to get hurt less, and if somebody really WANTS to hurt you, you're less likely to get really hurt if you've done your sparring and simulations and whatnot. Sparring isn't fighting, simulations aren't fighting, and even competition isn't fighting. There's no real preparation for fighting, for the knowledge that this dude might intentionally or accidentally kill me. Training gives you SOME confidence to fight that, and sparring gives you some experience applicable to the real thing.
just kind of dogshit really
What a load of sh*t 😂😂😂 this is the hot take i hear from every single person who tried it once, didnt like the ouch, and now has to cope and justify why they dont like it. Its ok buddy, not everyone can hang 🤷♂️
Are you arguing that a simulation actually is the same as the real thing?
@RamseyDewey im arguing nothing is the real thing by your standards. When you roll, are you imediately snapping someones arm in the arm bar, are you breaking every ankle you get ahold of? Ok so there is some constraint to it and its not REALLY grappling with the intent of the system and its sport stylized. When striking, are you kicking up the middle to the balls? Are you poking the eyes? Are you punching the throat? Throwing a hard front kick to the kneecap? Stomping the foot to break all the little bones? Ok so i guess its not like a real "street fight" with no rules and its constrained. Even the most hard core bareknuckle stuff is constrained in one way or another. Weapon based fighting certainly can be a bunch of pretend nonsense, but so can literally any system.
You mentioned dog brothers briefly, but im not sure you looked too much into it. Feel free to come to a gathering and fight sometime, anyone and everyone is welcome at the open gatherings. I will hook you up with someone for a chain fight if youd like, maybe one of the south african whip fights(ive seen those literally fillet someones leg open), or you can simply do a single stick. After you spend the next month healing from your injuries you can give a better video on what weapons fighting is like.
And its more than welts man 😂. Broken hands/fingers are common, cuts are pretty common, lost fingernails are common, having your fencing mask cheese grate your face is pretty common, while slightly less common someone broke their leg this last year, getting your forearms turned into hamburger meat is very common. Getting cracked on the elbow where your arm goes numb is common. Its more than just a welt here and there man. I really dont know many people who leave a gathering without at least one injury that take a month to heal. Some leave with completely life altering injuries. On site medic is just constantly busy the whole time.
Doesnt need to be to the death to be a real weapons fight, and again if thats the standard then bjj is fake nonsense because you arent choking to the death. Striking is fake because every fight doesnt end with stomping their unconcious body to death. Hold all these system bases to the same standards if you want to compare them. Original scottish broadsword fights with real swords back in the day rarely went to the death and it was usually by accident, it was just to show superior swordsmanship. Original gladiator fight in ancient rome didnt really go to the death that often, again when it did it was usually an accident. Knights dueling in medieval times rarely resulted in death because it was done by nobles for sport. So humans have been fighting with weapons for a very long time and outside of war it didnt result in alot of "to the death". A weapons based duel between two people today is pretty close to how its always been everywhere throughout history. The point is to submit an opponenent without serious bodily injury. War is war. And if we go by standards of war, again then all fighting is fake because in war if you and the enemy happen to get into a fight and for whatever reason you dont have weapons you are going to do alot of stuff that never happens in the sport versions of striking and grappling arts either, like choke them till they die or drive your thumbs into their eyes till you feel brain.
Nothing is the real thing except the real thing. That’s kind of the point of the video. Simulations are no the same violence, sparring is not the same as competition. It’s shocking how many people in the comments section are writing angry essay length straw man arguments trying to refute those points.
It was fun that this gained traction and there is now more debate and interdisciplinary communication in the field of martial arts. Hope it benefits your channel and inspires more people to train and enjoy martial arts :)
Traction? This is my least viewed video this month with average watch time of 30 seconds. Judging from all the essay length straw man arguments in the comments going on wild tangents about claims that were never made in this video, I’m guessing most of these people are just reacting to the title.
@@RamseyDewey i just referred to your video being reacted to by others and i hope this will make more people aware of your channel.
I dont care about the petty drama and discord people play around with myself, i just hope everyone is happy.
But as far as i understand, in youtube it is more important that there is activity and interaction with the content, regardless of whether this is positive and negative?
People will have their opinions. They are free to watch whatever they want and spend their time how they want. They will spend time on whatever they want for whatever reason they want.
Their opinions are somewhat inconsequential. As a content creator i would assume you need someone to interact with your videos in order to earn money..
But other than that is it not about doing something you enjoy? What people say matters less, because there are all sorts of people with different opinions and not all people will agree.. and a lot of people will not write things that are especially intelligent.
I think people are relatively nice these days and this is lovely, although i remember 15 years ago. I just learned to accept the idea that the internet is where people open their mouths without thinking about consequences or decency or filtering or accountability. It is a mess like that and cannot be taken too seriously. Although if people are stupid enough to engage and pay time and attention to something without even understanding it ... Then let them waste their time and make money off them, i say. That's only fair. Just make sure you make good use of your precious time and don't get pulled into their drama.
All this aside tho, your vids are generally very nice imo and i love the animated cute video game stuff as i used to play the hell out of it.. and i get a frown on my face when people say Skyrim is an old game.. it basically came out a couple years ago.. im not that old yet. :D 😅
I see what’s happened here. People are coming here to react to someone else’s strawman argument. That’s why the average view duration is less than 30 seconds, and most of the comments aren’t actually discussing the topic. It’s actually really bad for a RUclips channel when people click on your videos, but don’t watch them, or watch very little of them. That tells the algorithm not to recommend that video… which is probably why this is my most underperforming video in a while.
Not all reaction videos have a positive effect. These ones certainly didn’t.
@@RamseyDewey I didn't think of that. Sorry about that. Let's hope it works out better later! Best wishes!
I get what you're saying about weapons being on a whole other level compared to a fist fight.
Rapiers (and similarly shaped swords) were insanely dangerous. One well timed jab from your opponent can put their entire sword through your abdomen.
Even the smallest connecting thrust will push dirty material into your body, and that was gameover back then.
But somebody who sparred day and night with a blunt tipped rapier will have far more experience when it comes to avoiding those thrusts.
The guy with practice has a much better chance of surviving their first real fight. And in order to practice, you have to make the sparring just safe enough to repeat over and over without serious injury.
You’re spot on about the difference between open hand sparring and weapons.
For example, in Choy Li Fut, we use several weapons, and I can tell you from experience that you cannot spar with weapons the same as open hand combat. It’s just too dangerous.
You have to get all armoured up to take the hits, and then the realism is gone.
We have staves wrapped up in foam for sparring, but the feel and grip are different than holding an unwrapped staff. Same with spears and swords.
My beef with people taking about pressure testing is that they always conveniently leave out the fact that you have to learn the techniques first before you can practice them. No one ever mentions that.
You are aware the military does do simulated combat exercises right?
Also, what's with those boxing gloves huh?
That's not real.
Seriously Ramsey, you're a good guy, but you're speaking out of turn here massively.
How am I speaking out of turn? You think simulations are the same as the real thing? You think sparring is the same as competition? Those were the two ideas discussed in this video.
Boxing gloves are weapons that allow fighters to punch harder than they otherwise could have
ruclips.net/video/I9B7Fz318kw/видео.htmlsi=3QSMZEmY5fuddPif
@@RamseyDewey calling it not the same is a little different than trying to dissect it's effectiveness as a training tool as someone who's never served, fought over seas, or trained someone to do so.
You probably should of actually talked to a historical combat expert and someone with military training experience since the scope of your experience is more narrow than you think
What is the sport at 11:59? Looks fun.
Kali
@@RamseyDewey Thank you.
And great video.
As HEMA practitioner crosstraining in MMA I can underline most of the thing you (actually) said.
If you don't spar with consideration of weapons (at least some of the time) you aren't thinking about fighting in a realistic way. Normally, very spot on, but in this case, super off-base.
Sparring with weapons ≠ murdering people with weapons. Sparring for combat sports is more similar to combat sports competition, but even then very different.
How am I off base?
Respectfully, you are normally very knowledgeable when it comes to unarmed combat related information, but it's pretty obvious in this thread you don't have any kind of armed martial background, whether that be firearms, (yes, tactical firearm skills are a martial art) edged weapons, or some other weapon-based system. I recommend you take some kind of tactical firearm course with a force-on-force component, or some edged weapon based combat system (modern sport fencing doesn't count) for a while and then come back to this topic.
@@RamseyDewey If you're talking about literally shooting or stabbing each other that would be correct, but there are many ways to train combat applications of weapons in a manner that is martially valid and will have good results in the real world, without literally stabbing or shooting each other, which wouldn't have any training value any way. (Except maybe the medics might get some good reps in I guess...). Additionally, your go-to examples in your video are pretty silly, such as Call of Duty, Laser tag, etc. Look up MILES Gear or Simunitions for examples of how organizations that are actually preparing for hypothetical armed combat might go about it (at least for the firearm aspect of it). The arguments you are making against weapons training, is, in many ways, very similar to the Ashida Kim types who argue "It's too deadly to train" when they argue against sparring in unarmed systems or traditional martial arts. The reality is, if you haven't trained something you're going to be absolute garbage at it, when under stress. Your arguments for how weapon sparring "isn't real violence" and how an individual will be undergoing massive stress when in a violent situation in the real world, are in fact, the exact reasons why a person needs TRAINING in how to respond to these types of things, otherwise they are just going to sit there frozen in terror while they get shot/stabbed/beat with a crowbar, etc. etc.
Folks, I’ve been devoting a significant amount of time and energy to martial arts since I was a teen. I’m in my fifties now. Please keep this in mind: Your primary goal should be to seek truth and then to practice it. I absolutely love traditional arts, through which I’ve achieved not one, but two black belts. I still practice one of them. ☯️ However, please give this some “ego-less” thought: Without a minimum skill of BJJ and/or boxing; kickboxing (sanda, muay thai etc) your traditional style will not take you far. Again, they are excellent for health of body and mind, and a lifeline in a lockdown scenario! I spent the pandemic working on my broadsword! But if you truly wish to acquire realistic fighting skills, you also need to do what is best for that purpose… not try to protect your ego or that of your Teacher, however incredible they may be as an educator or person. Teachers and styles must serve the student, not the other way around. Power to you! 👊🏼🌍
Ramsey I would delete this video bub. It kind of tanks the credibility of your entire channel.
Oh no! He called me bub! It’s Wolverine here to tell me that sparring with weapons really is the same as murdering people with weapons and he’s very upset that I told him otherwise!
I don't know who tf wolverine is I'm not a nerd like you.@@RamseyDewey
All I know is handling any weapon over time will certainly make you more proficient with said weapon. Now applying that weapon in any combat will highly depend on your time with that weapon, coordination and ability to control your mental state.
Reminds me of out first attempt to get some sparring gear for our stick fighting club. Turns out if you use wrong material, you'll get "interesting" results such as sticks "clinging" to each other upon strong contacts (think stick equivalent of "blade lock" while half-swording, for example - I know it may sound nonsensical, but blunt instruments are a different beast) whereas wooden sticks/canes would easily slide along each other. That changes short-range dynamics as lot. You can get stuck in a clinch in a situation where you would otherwise take/deliver a hit on your/partners' fingers and disengage.
This is a bad take, your logic, sparing with gloves is pointless, grappling without choking someone to death is pointless and so on.
My logic: Simulations are not the same as violence and sparring is not the same as competition.
Fencing back in the 1800s and early 1900s was done without a mask and with points at the end of the swords, this is why German/Nazi nobles always had scars on their face because fencing was a rich person sport and the scars were seen as manly and a sign of toughness so they’d purposely sew the wounds together with horse hair to make the scar stick out more.
I didn't know about this, that's actually very interesting. I'd imagine missing eyes were common too?
@@cartozzzTV probably, no masks and sharp points, but they were tough bastards so I’m sure many took it with pride
You're conflating two traditions. Mensur (Germanic academic fencing) was what German/Nazi officers and upper crust were engaged in where they garnered their scars. Minimal protection was used, covering only the eyes and bridge of the nose. The points didn't really play into the equation as thrusting wasn't a part of the tradition.
Regarding covered points, this was more a concern with thrusting weapons. Small sword (as seen in his dueling examples from The Duelist) was the preferred weapon, which eventually gave rise to Olympic foil fencing. Foil fencing was taught in academies more in the non Germanic areas, mainly to prepare for the possibility of getting involved in a duel in the student's future.
They still wore goggles. The scars even outline the goggles where the swords ran along the edges of the goggles below the eyes
@@cartozzzTVno they had only eye masks but nothing protecting the face
This is a heavily underemphasized part of weapon based martial arts, and which naturally comes up the longer someone trains(simultaneously, I don't really think it's something that someone who doesn't train can 'understand'). Such revelations, I feel, are a part of the journey and offer an opportunity for the practitioner(whatever they do) to grow and develop. Unfortunately, I fear the majority of RUclips commenters have never touched a weapon before, or even set a foot inside a dojo or gym(for WHATEVER style of martial arts), hence why they seem(?) inclined to jump onto one conclusion after the next without understanding the deeper context for what you're alluding to - which has always been a reason why I keep coming back to this channel; there's a lot of insight to what you say I think and I appreciate it for that! One of my old teachers used to say, and call it anecdotal but w/e, in an actual sword fight to the death it's fully possible for 90% of what you've learned to turn to nothing, so you better make sure the 10% you do know is rock solid. I perhaps cannot dictate precisely how I will feel when 'my life is on the line'(as dramatic as that sounds), but I can at least make sure I've got a somewhat decent handle on distance, timing, a relatively decent condition, a form that isn't a noodle in the wind waiting to be blown away at the least bit of resistance.. those things that we can influence. Sparring would be a part of that, obviously. But I agree with your assessment; sparring with weapons sucks. And an actual fight with weapons would be absolutely terrifying in a way that no HEMA or Kendo or Fencing or whatever other sort of sparring environment would be able to replicate. Don't let the naysayers get to you Ramsey, and thanks for the video!
The thing is, nobody disagrees with that yet he makes other points such as "hit each other for real" when showing footage of boxing sparring. Implication being in weapons combat sports it's somehow not for real when the mere fact using gloves is also not "for real" either. He very clearly only has surface level knowledge of these combat sports yet speaks as if he knows them better than the people who practice them, commenters being upset make sense.
That's the issue, one of the very first and most liked comments on this video is 'Whelp fuck it. No point in doing any sort of weapons training if it isn’t 100% like the real thing. Guess my force on force training with simunitions, ranger time, and dry fire practice have been worthless. Guess I just won’t train at all since if can’t be exactly like the real thing', and it's not the only one where people actively disagree with that.
The implication is not that sparring is useless, that is the first point, but more important than that is precisely what he does demonstrate; yes, you 'can' use boxing gloves but sparring without weapons, especially kickboxing, boxing, BJJ, and so on and so forth, it's far, far closer to the real thing and the actual application than it is to spar with weapons, especially when adding a tournament setting into the equation. One can very much say that sparring with boxing gloves in a boxing setting will, to some degree, prepare you quite adequately for a scenario without those gloves.
That is not the same for weapons. It is not possible to compare the two, and why saying 'Implication being in weapons combat sports it's somehow not for real when the mere fact using gloves is also not "for real" either' is not a comparison that can be made. We have to recognize(and in fact, this is something that is actively recognized by the vast majority of people who practice these arts for at least half a dozen years at the very minimum) that what we do is intrinsically flawed, and that we cannot prepare for an actual duel(again, cliche, but who cares) the same way a boxer prepares to bare knuckle fight some random douchebag in the street. We have to recognize that our way of sparring inevitably removes the fear of death, makes us more willing to experiment, might teach bad habits, and that we have to be just that much better in order to get our stuff to work.
That's partially, alongside other revelations, what makes it such an interesting pursuit. Unfortunately, again, this is a form of subtlety that I do not think anyone that doesn't train will understand. Sparring is a part of what we(I presume you train as well!!) do, but it's just a part, and somewhat flawed, and we still have a bunch of other ways to get where we hopefully want to be. The recognition of suck leads to greater understanding(at least, that's how I try to go about it!)
As an aside, I would not be so quick as to claim this man has a surface level understanding of what he talks about. Obviously, he cannot know everything, but his demeanor and way of phrasing certain topics should serve to inform that he does, even if some things could arguably be ""worded better""(as they always can be)
@@anitaremenarova6662
@@saliwillow8122 That's just people mocking the argument because of how obvious and stale it is yet it's being delivered as some groundbreaking forbidden knowledge.
Whole argument falls apart there precisely *because* striking with and without gloves is different. Your arms are now lighter, you have to be careful how you hit now because you can break your fingers etc. etc. The difference between blunt and sharp swords is very little, there is a difference of course but you seem to be under the impression that in HEMA we use sticks for practice when that couldn't be further from the truth.
Do you think knowing martial arts even extremely well prepares you for a streetfight? The risk of serious injury or lights out forever grows surprisingly high when there are no rules or mat to cushion you, just concrete. HEMA tournaments are as real as you can possibly get, serious injury is commonplace with ambulances on standby. Being forced to duel to first blood or fight a streetfight should equally put the fear of god in you because you're not likely to walk away from either.
Fully agreed on that part, sparring and competition will improve your skills but no amount of it can prepare you to take a life or knowingly put your own on the line. My point always was that even these seemingly different combat sports are more alike than they're different. Hell, we learn grappling too. It's a useful tool against opponents with long weapons.
It's fairly obvious based on the footage he's shown. Knife attacker vs. unarmed isn't even weapon sparring since you literally can't fight back then fencing which is relatively safe thanks to extremely flexible blades + dull tips and lastly some medieval 2v2 bit in an MMA cage? I'm hopeful he wouldn't have made such an uninformed video if he knew about HEMA and what goes into it.
Thank you for your comment! We seem to agree on some parts, and less on others. What I agree with Ramsey on, and where we seem to be disagreeing, is that practicing forms of unarmed combat are closer to the ""real thing"" than weapons are to their equivalent. I do fully believe, and would even equate it to a fact, that knowing various forms of martial arts/combat sports(ESPECIALLY ones that have that sparring element as Ramsey pointed out, where you can go close to 100%) prepares you quite well for a ""street fight"", especially considering everything involved. I do not think the same can be said for weapons, and weapons based tournaments. You can break your fingers while punching, but it is not by far the same as potentially getting skewered by a spear. That's why the comparison cannot be made and falls apart. And that's why our skills, in turn, have to be just 'that much better'. You can get far closer to the 100% 'real thing' with something like BJJ or Kickboxing or MMA or what have you than you could get to the 100% of committing to kill someone with a sword by doing HEMA tournaments. That difference primarily lies in the purpose.
There is risk in our style, too. Nor am I saying that a HEMA tournament is without risk; that is, again, not the point which is being made here. His point is that, as is the title, Simulations are not violence & Sparring is not competition. I am not under the impression that HEMA people practice with sticks(in fact, I have the highest respect for them and greatly appreciate it whenever I have the chance to meet practitioners in real life because there's far more overlap than conflict!!) - however, I do realize that there are flaws to them as well(the tools, that is). And that we have to compensate for those, in turn. Further, the difference between a sharp sword and a dull one, alone, only that particular variable, is massive. Perhaps not in weight and shape. But in literally everything else. Your bind is different, the intention with which you cut is different, how you handle it is different- many classical styles of Kenjutsu precisely emphasize training Iai with live blades to mitigate and understand those differences; not even the whole drawing the sword part, solely 'Ah yes now you have an actual sword in your hand, it's your fault if you accidentally cut off your thumb or ear(both I have seen happen unfortunately)' - sure, you can go pretty hard in a tournament setting and sweat and get yourself physically exerted, but it's still not the same. I can very much guarantee that in a duel to the death, people will not be moving in the same way as they would in a HEMA(or ANY) tournament.
I do not believe, and give far too much credit to HEMA, that there is not an equivalent approach or mindset in those systems. Some of the commenters(though they seem to be a minority) emphasize much the same, some of which seem to practice HEMA as well, and their understanding of the topic seems to be very much in line with what Ramsey's saying.
Ramsey highlights in his video. To understand the practical application of what we are learning is to try and understand that we are philosophically, mentally, attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm upon a person. Most people can't even get it through their conscience to punch someone in the face, and I can guarantee you that punching someone in the face is, psychologically speaking, far less severe than trying to kill someone in close quarters with a sword or a spear or a halbert or anything else. Man, can you imagine the PTSD in those times?? .. so that's why we train right? To make sure every time we step into the dojo/gym that our mindset is in the right place, to make sure we're serious about what we do(even though it's a lotta fun too!!), that we recognize our flaws and try to fix them. That even though sparring does not give us the whole 100% picture, and that it's pretty shit sometimes, that we can observe historical sources(direct, bloodline to bloodline stuff for what we do and accurate manuals for you guys and talented reinventors), and see what we can do to bring it to 'one step closer.'
"Because unlike combat sports, where we're physically doing the same thing in the game, at the same intensity as we do in a fight quite often, with weapon's training - any type of weapon's training - you cannot do it with the same intensity as real life." - if there is a need for him to state this, for him to emphasize this, and that people's kneejerk reaction to it immediately is 'Oh he said sparring is useless, well I do HEMA and TOURNAMENTS and this and that', I don't agree that it is obvious or stale. And that his understanding of this topic probably trumps a vast majority of the people out there.
@@anitaremenarova6662
@@saliwillow8122 We still disagree, streetfights involve improvised weapons, eye gouging, ball busting, head stomping and multiple opponents. All things you never learn to deal with in that "close to 100% sparring". Also yet again, what makes you think you could end a streetfight without heavily maiming someone at the minimum? There is no ref, they'll just keep going until you commit to something that'll put them down until you can leave.
While all of that is true, I still don't see how gloves and mats and rules is "close to 100%" but dull swords somehow isn't. The difference would be a lot bigger for kendoka or fencers but using medieval european swords is close to 100% because you still injure each other it just minimizes blood-loss however accidents still happen since our blades don't bend nearly as much.
I hate repeating myself but the video isn't saying anything noteworthy or interesting. All it's doing is rage baiting while hypocritically not mentioning the same thing applies to MMA. The instant this guy gets challenged he goes "muh strawman!" when nobody is misconstruing the arguments made.
We've been over this, it's extremely easy to kllI someone with your fists. People not recognizing that danger is why it happens so often in brawls. Main difference between the two being that when someone pulls a blade the danger is self-evident.
Literally the only issue everyone has is that he doesn't apply his own standards to himself. He's also not doing rolling or boxing or whatever with the same intensity as you would in a real fight. End of story.
Not related to the topic, but your voice here sounds like a very good Kratos VA remplacent. Have you ever dubbed anything? I bet it would be a pleasure to listen to
Why does this guy put on a fake voice?
You cannot precisely replicate weapon fighting w/o the psychology of death. I did a carefully controlled spar with sharp blades, and it instantly changed changed everything.
Suddenly, the overriding concern was not about making the hit. It was about not being hit, at all. Suddenly certain techniques that seemed strange before became crystal clear. Awareness shifted.
As highly trained as fencers and kendoka are, if they went into a duel with their techniques, they would end up killing each other.
It honestly makes me curious how people did train with sharp weapons back in the day, how to prepare people to kill and avoid being killed.
This is why people who complain that fencing or kendo are 'unrealistic' are off-base. Actual swordfights w/o armour are rather swift affairs that consist of two frightened men shuffling about looking for an opening, then a quick exchange that lasts seconds.
There is no way to simulate a real lethal fight with sharp weapons.
No, kendo is a ridiculously degenerated form of kenjutsu. They've completely twisted the concept of kikentaichi which is supposed to ensure realism into nothing but a sport, they continually reduce the accepted hitzones and techniques, and generally seek to control the "meta" of kendo in various ways. It's gotten to the point where the original nihon kendo kata, which is like the concentrated core concepts of dozens of schools, has been completely forgotten outside of grade examinations and even high dan practitioners have no idea why you do a lot of the things you do in the forms. This is all of course without getting into the fact that kendo is just the "jab" of Japanese fencing, seeking only to create the opening for the kirioroshi with a kiritsuke, thus basically only being half of the art in the first place. I will give it to kendo that they do practice with sharps at the highest level, but little of that translates into shiai.
Same thing but even worse with olympic fencing, where there has been no attempt at maintaining any realism in the first place.
@@smokerxluffyIts not "degenerated". Its adapted. I repeat...you cannot simulate a real sword fight. Even if you could replicate it, it would be ridiculously boring and devolve to alot of hand sniping and such. Without the psychology of death, which changes the intent and the technique in ways that are difficult to understand, you cannot emulate a 'real' swordfight. At all.
And since you cannot emulate an actual swordfight, to make these arts relevant you must either turn them into arts which seek to store the techniques as forms and drills, or into sports. Both will distort the original art as they adapt to better suit their useage. BUT BOTH ARE PERFECTLY VALID because we no longer train people to fight to the death with swords.
@@temmy9 Training with bamboo swords was an entirely valid form of kiritsuke prep for centuries before it became what it is today post-ww2. Kendo is not a martial art, it is just a sport. Therefore, it is completely and utterely degenerated as far as being swordsmanship is concerned.
Also as a complete aside, I do pretty regularly practice with sharps. It's way more fun because the edges bind together so you can sense the opponent much more clearly. My training partner is so sensitive he can sense when I'm about to attack before I move purely from how my muscles "stop being static". So much fun.
@@smokerxluffyIs BJJ less a martial martial because it has "degenerated" from the original forms of combat grappling? No, its adapted.
@@temmy9
Kendo is not a martial art.
"The All Japan Kendo Federation (AJKF or ZNKR) was founded in 1952, immediately after Japan's independence was restored and the ban on martial arts in Japan was lifted. It was formed on the principle of kendo *not* as a *martial art*, but as *educational sport* and it has continued to be practiced as such to this day."
-Wikipedia
I'm using it as a source because I'm not going to use my four dan friends as a source in an internet argument.
It's completely degenerated.
I have been training with swords for about 32 years (but still a novice), mainly Iaijutsu and Iaido, sabre and foil sport fencing, and a little Italian longsword), but it is still primarily a theoretical exercise and often somewhat esoteric or even philosophical. Occasionally it crosses my mind that the techniques we learn were originally used in actual combat to kill people in absolutely brutal ways and that has always horrified me. I could not imagine doing such things to another human being and I do not understand how people in the past (or present) were able to. Even though we try to learn and execute the techniques as accurately as possible, we are mentally in a different world compared to the warriors of the past.
That's a very humble statement after this amount of training time. ;)
Why do you think you can train young guys with modern weapons in a couple of months and they are willing and able to use them, but you cannot imagine it after 32 years? Serious question, no insult intended.
I would assume, that either you are a pacifist at heart (Good for you then, the world needs more of them) or you lack the proper motivation. Russia invading your home country, as a hypothetical example. Or living in a honour bound society, where not partaking in a duel has worse consequences for you than the risk of injury in it.
I don't think we are that different than the people in the past. We live in better circumstances, that's all. Change the circumstances and many people are willing to injure or kill another human. History is full of it.
But that is just my impression. What do you think?
@@mephisto8101 Please excuse me if I ramble. I agree that there is no inherent difference between people of the past or present, although there are significant differences between individuals resulting from how empathic they are (empathy cannot be taught). In all armies and and militant organizations of the past and present, a key element of training has been desensitization to violence (this also seems to be a part of police training in the USA). Also, in most nations and states, warriors (and often society at large) have been inculcated to dehumanize peoples of opposing nations (or sometimes people within their own nation perceived as different or other), who have often been cast as inherently inferior, wicked or immoral, thus justifying any violence used against them no matter how extreme. The same methods have been utilized by troglodytes and nuclear armed 21st Century empires. Many martial arts today, and especially those using weapons, place great importance on ethics, mercy and the avoidance of violence in their teaching that can be very different from the way the originators of these martial arts trained centuries ago. I would not describe myself as a pacifist; I am highly empathic but also aggressive when threatened and prone to escalate (I am aware of this and this have almost always avoided situations that could lead to violence). I imagine most people, even the post peaceful, could be spurred into using violence if their own lives were threatened or those of their lives ones, but the question is how quick they would be to act. I suspect that most people would hesitate, which in combat could be lethal because the most successful combatants will not hesitate to resort to violence. Imagine you encounter a strange and threatening man in a dark alley. You are both armed with long knives. He intends to murder you and take your money. How much time would you spend assessing the threat before you act? If you decided he was a threat what would be your first reaction? Would you look for an opportunity to retreat or to avoid the fight? Or would you immediately choose violence? While you are going through this mental journey, what do you think your opponent who shared none of your reservations or qualms is doing? In any society the people who hesitate to commit violence outnumber those who are prone to violence; if this were not the case social cohesion breaks down and societies cease to exist. When our species evolved, social cohesion and cooperation were the only things preventing any particular human from becoming lunch for far more terrifying beasts or even perishing due to the weather or starvation. But in a much more violent world societies also had a need for some violent members as protection against external threats.
Ramsey, I was inspired yesterday by some of your previous videos to get involved in the youtube game and to get my HEMA school's name out there (mainly from your 29 youtuber influences and your requiem for the Punch Professor). Ideally I could contribute to getting HEMA more respect in the general martial arts community and achieve a similar effect to how the Punch Professor influenced your own martial growth.
However, if this is indicative of the reception I'd receive, I think my efforts would be in vain. Granted your opinion is one of many, however it is one of few that I respect. If you don't mind my asking, what changed your stance on weapons sparring (I am referencing your video on Tai Chi Jian, wherein you reference the Academy of Historical Fencing)?
I realize that I may be conflating your arguments based on my personal biases, which is not my intent.
I didn’t change my stance on weapons sparring. Those are, in fact, 2 different point you are conflating. (1) I enjoy watching the society of historical fencing because it’s cool and fun (2) sparring with weapons is not a direct amalgam of fighting with weapons.
Those are not contradictory ideas.
@@RamseyDeweyI appreciate the clarification. I'll have to reexamine the question sans conflation. Thank you.
Disagree, based on how people wrote about swords in the past. Olympic fencing is a highly degenerated form of the earlier swordsmanship (for the lack of a better term to distinguish the two), where getting bloody and bruised was expected and comparable enough to the real thing that certificates from schools mattered in the military. Same thing with kendo, which has followed the letter of the "law" and completely lost the plot on the spirit. In terms of how horrible or difficult it was to jump into from practice, dueling generally had to be banned throughout history because too many young men would get themselves killed over petty disagreements.
I mean, you kind of see the same thing in striking arts as well. You can't go 100% all the time in something like boxing practice either or you'll swiftly run out of training partners. Honestly even with all of the safety considerations required to spar with weapons at all, I've seen way more injuries from weapon sparring than I've ever seen in hand to hand sparring. Besides, the important thing with sparring isn't testing things like edge alignment or anything like that, it's to practice using the techniques you've practiced against a resisting person who's trying to do the same thing. You also still do have to be careful about getting hurt in these matches, particularly with things like concussions or broken fingers.
Stuff like edge alignment is built up through training the techniques and tested in cutting practice. It's one of those things that just can't be tested in sparring because we'd maim or training partners. This too exists in unarmed martial arts. There's a reason no sport allows eye gouging and throat strikes, despite the myriad of martial arts techniques that involve doing those things.
We also can't know how someone will react to grievous injury like losing a limb or having a sword in their chest, but even if we were ok with killing our training partners, we still wouldn't know this for sure, because going by historical record, people's reactions to that sort of thing were highly inconsistent and varied massively from person to person. There was everything from people who could keep fighting for several minutes with fatal wounds, to people who would pass out immediately from the pain.
ruclips.net/video/php8xzF1p3o/видео.htmlsi=f74R1z1Ojqxzpwim
@@RamseyDewey while I do get what you're saying, incidental contact is quite a different beast from what I'm referring to, and you'd still get disqualified for using most techniques intended to strike those areas, because most of them very plainly don't look accidental. Even this still has parallels to weapon sparring though, in rulesets that have illegal striking areas, you can still get away with landing strikes there if it looks like it could've been accidental.
Besides, regardless of how generous they are with incidental contact, there are limits, as shown by the UFC changing rules in response to the eye poking antics of fighters like Jon Jones.
It’s not even about making it look accidental. The unified rules of mixed martial arts read as follows: “In the standup portion of the fight, strikes to the throat shall be considered fair and legal blows”
@@RamseyDewey either way, this is getting into a bit of a tangent. Regardless of how throat strikes specifically are enforced, there are certainly limitations. Again, looking at the UFC's endeavors to prevent even incidental attacks to the eye, for example.
Really you could make some of the same arguments you make in this video about weapon sparring in reference to something like BJJ submissions. Most martial artists who learn submissions will never fully go through with them. Very few people will ever crank a kimura or a key lock or armbar to the extent of actually doing the thing the move is designed to do, and can then be argued to not fully understand the application of these techniques, because they've never done the thing the moves were intended for.
The point is, restrictions will always be present no matter what sport someone does, because fighting without these restrictions is simply unsustainable. Even if people did decide to ditch all the safety measures, the result would likely be less skilled fighters, because people would be getting seriously injured far too often for any real skill to develop. Even in history, they still wore protection and used either blunted steel or wooden swords to spar with for largely the same reasons we do today.
Really, aside from practicing edge alignment on a moving target, there's really not that much to be gained even if we could practice with sharps, even if we were to ignore the dangers of doing so, the benefits of it are fairly minor. You'd perhaps gain a better understanding of how people respond to injury, but as I mentioned in my original comment, that's just too inconsistent to be much of a practical benefit. I guess you'd have a more reliable scoring system because you could go by who goes down first. Essentially, there's really not that much to gain from that experience and quite a lot to lose.
Incidental eye pokes are a foul. Strikes to the throat during the stand up portion of the fight is not a foul.
The hits in fencing are full force 😀 Cheers
Makes me think of the difference between practicing with a weapon and going hunting. It's wildly different and when you revisit practice after a successful hunt, your perspective on practice is different. Even though some people turn their nose up to hunters, it seems like it would be a useful step in bridging the gap between skill-building and violence.