I think there may be a disconnect here that confuses
1. competitive testing (win/lose)
2. with cooperative testing where the object is to help your partner grow stronger. Best,
Actually I think most of us get that Ron.
What we are arguing is that no one will ever achieve the higher order and your stated objectives of #2...to help your partner grow stronger...
People want to be free to do their practice and not be critiqued and that's fine. But these things are not just merely opinion. When you step into it by talking about self defense and true capability and not underestimating you or your methods (you do so regularly)-all while discussing cooperation-and producing videos- you open yourselves up to scrutiny and comparisons. Then, it is a whole different discussion of whether you can debate certain types of uncooperative training will virtually take apart people who practice less stressful training...or not.
And more so whether certain types of win/ lose martial
training will forever dominate cooperative training.
Everyone is free to go have fun, and be left alone. Until they willingly choose to enter into certain subjects where the results are measurable and replicable to the point of being empirical.
To strain a point only to demonstrate an extreme:
1. Cooperative training like the type in your videos will never produce an excellent cage fighter, agreed?
2. Yet there is
cooperative training in MMA as well. It is used as a first step in training before the advanced stress training (win/lose) takes place to fine tune and improve skills. Yes...improve...as in grow stronger.
So now it is just a measure of discussing degrees of what cooperative training can and cannot do. And people being self aware. Were someone trained to fight force-on-force to face someone who trained cooperatively? I will bet on the force-on-force guy everytime.
Why? With your own stated obectives?
To help your partner grow stronger ....
The win/lose model is superior in producing results. The rest can just be aikido, who cares...until you meet that