Yellow Bamboo Challenge [Archive]

Atlas

14th January 2005, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
Kind of like this:

the attacker tries his best to really hurt the YB guy (me),

we make sure he gets upset and feel its ok to try to hurt the YB guy,
(he will only be allowed to hit in the chest and abdomen area),
and then we se if the yb guy can knock him down without touch. Is it possible to knock down a non-attacker with Yellow Bamboo. That is, can a man standing alone be knocked to the ground by a practitioner of Yellow Bamboo who is standing 5 or 10 feet away. (I think this would be a preferred exhibition for JREF if captured on film.)

If not, does the attacker have to be running at the yb guy? Or can the two face each other within punching range?

The way you've described it it sounds like yb takes advantage when an attacker is enraged. Not all are. I'm sure Larsen will find this all interesting but he's a detail guy. He'll want to establish the parameters of required movement of the participants and distance between them and even what constitutes a knock down.

For instance, if a man is swinging a stick at my head and I duck and lose my footing and fall to my knees that would meet the no-touch definition but only because I would have been harmed if I had not ducked.

Can you be any more specific? Is an attack necessary or can you do a no-touch knockdown on any individual (perhaps blindfolded) at some distance from you?

LTC8K6

14th January 2005, 08:38 AM

if it is possible to defend against an attacker without physical touch.

Brick, arrow, .45GAP, etc..... :D

chilipepper

14th January 2005, 08:48 AM

If you know any members in Sydney, Australia, post here. I'm willing to participate.

Well, there is this challenge (http://tinyurl.com/5ck22) in Australia at the end of January...

chili

jmercer

14th January 2005, 08:48 AM

Assuming that we can get legal absolution from the YB participants and there's an interest in trying this in New York, I'll be willing to help out.

However, I want to make sure I can't get sued when I hit them.

dann

14th January 2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
Hey CFLarsen,
I live in Sweden, since you live in Denmark we maybe could meet and do a Yellow Bamboo test, to see if it is possible to defend against an attacker without physical touch.
Could you come to Sweden or should we come to Denmark?
best regards
Peter Semjonow
www.yellowbamboo.net
Claus is in Las Vegas and apparently not online. I think I saw Derren Brown do a similar thing on TV, and I didn't figure out how, so we'll probably have to consult one of our professional magicians for advice.
In the meantime: Could you come up with a more precise description of the test situation than this?
Kind of like this:
the attacker tries his best to really hurt the YB guy (me),
we make sure he gets upset and feel its ok to try to hurt the YB guy, (he will only be allowed to hit in the chest and abdomen area), and then we se if the yb guy can knock him down without touch.
"Hurt" him how exactly? Why would it be necessary for him to be both "upset" and "feel it's ok to try to hurt the YB guy", an apparent contradiction in terms: It would probably be easier for him to try to 'hurt' you if he knew that you wouldn't be (in any way seriously) hurt! (Or is that what is implied with "only ... in the chest and abdomen area"?)
Is there no way to perform this test without anybody trying to hurt anybody? Say, trying to push over the yb guy or something like that? (By the way, we have bigger and stronger guys than Claus if that is relevant for a test situation.)

jmercer

14th January 2005, 09:43 AM

Good god, what use is a martial art that only works if the attacker is upset? That's about as useful as kong jing, where it only works on people "trained" to be sensitive to it.

petpower_2k

14th January 2005, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by dann
Claus is in Las Vegas and apparently not online. I think I saw Derren Brown do a similar thing on TV, and I didn't figure out how, so we'll probably have to consult one of our professional magicians for advice.
In the meantime: Could you come up with a more precise description of the test situation than this?
[B]
"Hurt" him how exactly? Why would it be necessary for him to be both "upset" and "feel it's ok to try to hurt the YB guy", an apparent contradiction in terms: It would probably be easier for him to try to 'hurt' you if he knew that you wouldn't be (in any way seriously) hurt! (Or is that what is implied with "only ... in the chest and abdomen area"?)
Is there no way to perform this test without anybody trying to hurt anybody? Say, trying to push over the yb guy or something like that? (By the way, we have bigger and stronger guys than Claus if that is relevant for a test situation.)

the attacker has to have real intention to hurt,
for example:

he keeps punching me and if he faints or falls down I win, if I cant take any more punches and give up then he wins.

with other words: he keeps kicking my ass until I give up.
or he falls down unconcious when trying to hit me, and I win.

T'ai Chi

14th January 2005, 07:44 PM

Watch out! The Danish Superhero has been known to be very very tough, hypothetically.

(http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33204)

Beleth

14th January 2005, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
with other words: he keeps kicking my ass until I give up.
or he falls down unconcious when trying to hit me, and I win. So what you're saying is that you think you're a better fighter than Claus?

What's supernatural about that?

Atlas

14th January 2005, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
the attacker has to have real intention to hurt,
for example:

he keeps punching me and if he faints or falls down I win, if I cant take any more punches and give up then he wins.

with other words: he keeps kicking my ass until I give up.
or he falls down unconcious when trying to hit me, and I win. This sounds like Frazier not answering the bell when Ali tired him out using the Ropa-Dope and letting Frazier punch himself out. One thing about Ali - He could take a punch.

You sound like you have the same supernatural power that Mohammed Ali had.

Is it any bigger than that? Is it possible that an attacker could use a baseball bat or brass knuckles? What I'm asking is if there is anything beyond endurance and, pardon the expression, masochism, that you you employ? A mental force shield or a telepathic disrupter command that disables the opponent? - that kind of thing. Or are you inviting Larsen to a game of dodge punch, where he tries to punch you in the chest and you try to dodge his punches until he's tired?

I'm asking because I was under the impression that Yellow Bamboo could incapacitate an attacker without touching. It sounds like if your attacker hits you that's touching. Maybe you could explain Yellow Bamboo principles a little more, I obviously have a misunderstanding.

DevilsAdvocate

14th January 2005, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
if I cant take any more punches and give up then he wins. Isn't the idea that the attacker can NOT punch you at all? I tought the idea was that the attacker was disabled before contact.

How about this for a protocol:

Closed room. YBGuy ("petpower_2k") and an 'attacker' are only ones present, with some video cameras. YBGuy is searched for no electrical devices. YBGuy and Attacker stand in center of room about 15 feet apart. Attacker convinces himself to want to attack YBGuy. When he has done so, Attacker announces "I will hit him." Attacker then marches forward (not sprints or runs) and hits YBGuy in the chest with his fist. Test is successful if YBGuy is stationary and Attacker fails to make any contact with YBGuy.

Any problem with that?

DevilsAdvocate

14th January 2005, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Atlas
This sounds like Frazier not answering the bell when Ali tired him out using the Ropa-Dope and letting Frazier punch himself out. One thing about Ali - He could take a punch.

You sound like you have the same supernatural power that Mohammed Ali had.

Is it any bigger than that? Is it possible that an attacker could use a baseball bat or brass knuckles? What I'm asking is if there is anything beyond endurance and, pardon the expression, masochism, that you you employ? A mental force shield or a telepathic disrupter command that disables the opponent? - that kind of thing. Or are you inviting Larsen to a game of dodge punch, where he tries to punch you in the chest and you try to dodge his punches until he's tired? Right! A more fair test would be: I will chain your ankles to the ground, chain your hands behind your back, then repeatedly hit you in the head with a steel pipe. If your ankles and hands are still chained and I fall down unconscious without you becoming unconscious or possibly dying first, then you've probably got something.

baliwesternman

14th January 2005, 08:50 PM

www.yellowbamboo.net/knockingdown
this has nothing to do with the randi challenge. previously my larsen has open challenged yellow bamboo.

he has said he would get angry, run at the yb practitioner
and hit him as hard as he could.

Now Yb has a guy in Sweden who is willing to come to denmark and call his bluff.

THis is how it works- the attacker gets angry and runs at the yb practioner and hits as hard as he can.

If the yb person gets hurt end of story and yb dont work.

If the yb person dont get hurt (other than by ducking etc) then we can talk for years about how it aitn worth it if you gotta be angry, would it work this way, that way, how does it work etc.

The results of this test are what matters anything else is just pure bull****

right Kevin?

Yellow Bamboo Practitioner

DevilsAdvocate

14th January 2005, 09:06 PM

I'll ask again, is there anything wrong with this protocol:

Closed room. YBGuy ("petpower_2k") and an 'attacker' are only ones present, with some video cameras. YBGuy is searched for no electrical devices. YBGuy and Attacker stand in center of room about 15 feet apart. Attacker convinces himself to want to attack YBGuy. When he has done so, Attacker announces "I will hit him." Attacker then marches forward (not sprints or runs) and hits YBGuy in the chest with his fist. Test is successful if YBGuy is stationary and Attacker fails to make any contact with YBGuy.

I have no participation in this, but it seems that there is some question about "gets hurt". I could punch some guys way bigger than me and they would not 'get hurt'. I could also get punched by some guys way smaller than me and I would not 'get hurt'. So there is a problem of what is meant by 'get hurt' and the actions tha the YBGuy can do to prevent from 'getting hurt'.

I have no doubt that some people can prevent 'getting hurt' by deflecting blows with their arms, legs, etc. So the YBGuy must not be able to deflect blows like this or it's just boxing.

Also 'getting hurt' is not mesurable. 'Getting puched' is. That's why I wrote the protocol. Are there any problems with it?

misawafan

14th January 2005, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
the attacker has to have real intention to hurt,
for example:

he keeps punching me and if he faints or falls down I win, if I cant take any more punches and give up then he wins.

with other words: he keeps kicking my ass until I give up.
or he falls down unconcious when trying to hit me, and I win.

So basically, he can only punch you in the abdomen or chest and if he gets tired then you win? What kind of martial art is that? What is the claim, that you can receive punishment without being hurt? Or that you can stop the attacker without touching him/her? If the former, let eyes, throat and genitals be targets. Short of being hit by a world class fighter, shots to the chest or abdomen are hardly devastating if you have any training at all. By the way, would your art also prevent you from being hurt by joint locks and chokes? I sure could have used that in my years training in BJJ.
If your claim is the latter, why do you need to be attacked at all? Couldn't you stop someone from a distance regardless?

I'm assuming that either of these claims occur without you either striking or blocking the attacker?

voidx

15th January 2005, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by baliwesternman
THis is how it works- the attacker gets angry and runs at the yb practioner and hits as hard as he can.

If the yb person gets hurt end of story and yb dont work.

If the yb person dont get hurt (other than by ducking etc) then we can talk for years about how it aitn worth it if you gotta be angry, would it work this way, that way, how does it work etc.

The results of this test are what matters anything else is just pure bull****

right Kevin?

Yellow Bamboo Practitioner [/B]
It is not necessary to run to hit as hard as possible. The running part is where your trick comes in. Its so obvious I don't even know why you bother. I will stand directly in front of you, not moving, I will then throw a punch at you at a target of my choosing, you may wear protective head gear and mouth guard for safety. If it somehow misses or stops without you moving then you have something. I've watched the videos, their frankly BS. The guy running must move out of the way otherwise he will slam into the YB person who is stationary. This throws his balance off and then YB guy proceeds to wave his arms in front of him, further making the running attacker lose balance. In order to keep from slamming into you or falling down the attacker must pull his punch. With the odd exception when sometimes you get clocked in the head by someone how isn't afraid to just flat out punch you. This is what the video shows.

If you cannot stop a blow, from a stationary opponent directly in front of you, then your tactic has no valid street fighting merit, its pointless. No one attacks like a screaming barbarian as depicted in your video anyway.

TheBoyPaj

15th January 2005, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by baliwesternman
this has nothing to do with the randi challenge. previously my larsen has open challenged yellow bamboo.

Well, that's fine, but I always thought that Larsen belonged to all of us. A gift to the world, as it were. Don't be so selfish.

he has said he would get angry, run at the yb practitioner
and hit him as hard as he could.

Now Yb has a guy in Sweden who is willing to come to denmark and call his bluff.

The trouble is that the protocol you have described is not the same as the one described by the guy frmo Sweden. If only you guys could agree on what it is you can actually do. Whatever happened to the bamboo stick?

kimiko

15th January 2005, 03:06 AM

Peter, were you the guy who did an interview on Unscrewed with Martin Sargent?

kimiko

15th January 2005, 04:00 AM

From the website: "As you can imagine when you can knock down attackers from 10 feet away or heal someone dying from something just using your own energy- that is true personal power!"

So if it is a projection of 'energy', wouldn't throwing an object at the YB person work too? Throw a baseball or something at them, and they would have to knock it down without moving out of the way or touching it. Do it an agreed upon number of times, filmed from multiple angles. That prevents suggestion and personal injury.

Kevin_Lowe

15th January 2005, 04:35 AM

I think the new doctrine of "we remain unharmed" came out of a couple of recent tests the Bamboozled conducted where they got clocked good and proper.

There was a recent thread about it where Phrost posted an amusing Flash clip of a woowoo getting flattened.

Anyway, they observed after this that they had not (as any sane person would expect) been hospitalised by a single blow delivered clumsily from a run up. Who would have thought? Obviously this was a new aspect of their super powers.

To be fair, I think Alvin (posting here as baliwesternman) posted a similar story ages ago on rec.martial-arts that when he did the zapping ritual one guy ran up to him without doing the approved baseball slide, battered him ineffectively for a bit and then fell over pooped. Thus a legend was born, I guess.

The fact is that felling a human with a single blow, even under ideal circumstances, takes a highly conditioned athlete and some luck. The average weekend martial artist just doesn't have the power in their punch to end a fight with a single body shot, especially if they have to deliver it awkwardly at the end of a run. So being "unharmed" after a few punches in the tummy is not a super power - any boxer can do it better.

Unless the Bamboozles can come up with a genuinely supernatural claim, or unless Claus just wants to punch the heck out of a woo-woo, I don't see why this new version of the Yellow Bamboo myth is even worth looking at.

petpower_2k

15th January 2005, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by kimiko
Peter, were you the guy who did an interview on Unscrewed with Martin Sargent?

yes thats me.

/Peter

TheBoyPaj

15th January 2005, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by kimiko
From the website: "As you can imagine when you can knock down attackers from 10 feet away or heal someone dying from something just using your own energy- that is true personal power!"

That's what they claim? Blimey, that's a long way from "I don't get knocked out easily".
So, why not have the protocol reflect the claims? YB guy has to knock Larsen down from 10 feet away. No contact.

And it doesn't count if Larsen just nods off. ;)

BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that we're concocting all these punishments for Larsen in his absence?

dann

15th January 2005, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that we're concocting all these punishments for Larsen in his absence?
Ah, well, he probably deserves it. You know we are not as innocent as we may appear to be. According to Karen Boesen, business astrologer, we are the Hell's Angels of the skeptic movement:
Originally posted by Karen Boesen
(...) Now I know that the guy is complete insane. He not only beats people. He also bites. Very nice fellow. Maybe he is just an ordinary skeptic?
Originally posted by Karen Boesen
What shall one say? The skeptics like (dann) Simonsen and CL have fought people physicallly, who hold different opinions.
The bamboo guys have no idea what awaits them! :)

Dogwood

15th January 2005, 10:10 AM

How are you defining "gets hurt" anyway? Do you have to admit to feeling pain? or would a bruise suffice? If the former, how do we know you're not just being a brave little soldier?

MRC_Hans

15th January 2005, 10:25 AM

This is just a new diversionary tactics from these people: Challenge single persons. Now, few sane people would agree on undertaking a physical brawl with an anonymous stranger from the internet, so they can now say that skeptics are afrais to meet them (remember how they were not afraid to lie and claim they won the JREF million). Should somebody take up the challenge, they can just make up some silly excuse, like him being not really outraged, or whatever other nonsense they can dream up.

Hans

WildCat

15th January 2005, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by atarian
+1 to this idea.

Hands up everyone who wants to see CFLarsen bitch-slap a woo-woo.
I do hope he restrains himself. After all, Claus is capable of killing a man armed w/ a gun w/ his bare hands. ;)

T'ai Chi

15th January 2005, 01:38 PM

A good rule of thumb is that if the first time you heard of a certain martial art was on the internet, it is rubbish.

WildCat

15th January 2005, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
yes thats me.

/Peter
Don't be shy, petpower_2k. Answer all of the questions asked of you, especially the ones regarding what claim you are actually making and the protocol involved.

petpower_2k

15th January 2005, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Dogwood
How are you defining "gets hurt" anyway? Do you have to admit to feeling pain? or would a bruise suffice? If the former, how do we know you're not just being a brave little soldier?

If I get punched at and can´t knock the attacker down, then obviously I havent wont the test.
but If I get punched at, and the attacker is knocked down without touch then I won the test.
It will be easy to see from the video who won.

Bandersnatch

15th January 2005, 03:10 PM

If I get punched at and can´t knock the attacker down, then obviously I havent wont the test.
but If I get punched at, and the attacker is knocked down without touch then I won the test.
It will be easy to see from the video who won.

Will he be running at you? Will he be standing in front, trying to hit you? Can you do it from 10 feet away? ...etc....

thatguywhojuggles

15th January 2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
That's what they claim? Blimey, that's a long way from "I don't get knocked out easily".
So, why not have the protocol reflect the claims? YB guy has to knock Larsen down from 10 feet away. No contact.

And it doesn't count if Larsen just nods off. ;)

BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that we're concocting all these punishments for Larsen in his absence?

I'm with TheBoyPaj on this one. Make them do what they claim.

Plus, I can't see getting angry and running full speed towards a person as the best set up for punching a person.

WildCat

15th January 2005, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Bandersnatch
Will he be running at you? Will he be standing in front, trying to hit you? Can you do it from 10 feet away? ...etc....
C'mon Petey boy, answer these questions already. Or are you full of ***** like all the other YB con artists?

petpower_2k

15th January 2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
C'mon Petey boy, answer these questions already. Or are you full of ***** like all the other YB con artists?

He will be running from about 10 meters Why? Because= I want some time to prepare.
Remember I have never said that he can not run up to me, and then stand still infront of me, and then punch at me.

The attacker runs up to the YB guy then makes his attack, he does not have to be running while punching,
it only starts with the running from a distance so I have time to focus.

thatguywhojuggles

15th January 2005, 04:15 PM

abramis

15th January 2005, 04:27 PM

Baliwesternman wrote:
"this has nothing to do with the randi challenge. previously my larsen has open challenged yellow bamboo."

Funny... I usually call it my "petter-nicklas" (swedish word for "willie") and showing it to people who are not ready for that kind of demonstration, often gets a reaction of disgust or awe.... Kind of a open challenge.... But anyway.

Couldn´t one get a professional footballplayer to run up and tackle the YB fellow? If he can stop him without touch, I´d be impressed.

WildCat

15th January 2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
He will be running from about 10 meters Why? Because= I want some time to prepare.
Remember I have never said that he can not run up to me, and then stand still infront of me, and then punch at me.

The attacker runs up to the YB guy then makes his attack, he does not have to be running while punching,
it only starts with the running from a distance so I have time to focus.
Answer this simple question w/ a simple yes or no. Can you knock down a person from 10 feet away without touching that person? (or shooting him w/ a stun gun or taser ;) )

From the web site:
As you can imagine when you can knock down attackers from 10 feet away or heal someone dying from something just using your own energy- that is true personal power!

So won't you fail the test if the person even comes close enough to punch you?

We'll leave the "heal someone dying" part for another day.

Wudang

15th January 2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by petpower_2k

The attacker runs up to the YB guy then makes his attack, he does not have to be running while punching,
it only starts with the running from a distance so I have time to focus.

Why can't he just stroll? Or do you want him in a bad stance so he can't throw a solid punch?
Please clarify exactly why he has to run.

WildCat

15th January 2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by abramis
Couldn´t one get a professional footballplayer to run up and tackle the YB fellow? If he can stop him without touch, I´d be impressed.
I recommend Ray Lewis.
http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/PHOTOFILE/AADT019.jpg

petpower_2k

15th January 2005, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
Answer this simple question w/ a simple yes or no. Can you knock down a person from 10 feet away without touching that person? (or shooting him w/ a stun gun or taser ;) )

From the web site:

So won't you fail the test if the person even comes close enough to punch you?

We'll leave the "heal someone dying" part for another day.

The knocking down only works when the person is about to attack, ie: about to punch me to cause me bodily harm.
or 10 meters away: having a gun just about to shoot,
or 10 meters away: having only one thing in mind: to hurt me.
if he stands 10 meters away and does nothing, then I can not knock him down.
he must have intention to hurt, and the easiest way I know of for us to try that is when he starts running from 10 meters away.

petpower_2k

15th January 2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Wudang
Why can't he just stroll? Or do you want him in a bad stance so he can't throw a solid punch?
Please clarify exactly why he has to run.

because I want him to run, I believe it is the best way because all the other YB gigs ive seen they always run.

No I don´t "want him in a bad stance so he can not throw a solid punch", he can run, then stop, then hit. And if the first punch is not a solid enough punch for him, then he can throw an other, and another etc..

Ashles

15th January 2005, 06:48 PM

The knocking down only works when the person is about to attack, ie: about to punch me to cause me bodily harm.
or 10 meters away: having a gun just about to shoot,
or 10 meters away: having only one thing in mind: to hurt me.
if he stands 10 meters away and does nothing, then I can not knock him down.
he must have intention to hurt, and the easiest way I know of for us to try that is when he starts running from 10 meters away.
Can he fire a taser at you?

Edited to add: And why can he only hit in the chest/abdomen area? It sounds like a curious and not entirely useful ability to defend when attackers normally would be likely to attack the head or groin regions.

T'ai Chi

15th January 2005, 06:57 PM

Just go challenge some Gracies or something.

petpower_2k

15th January 2005, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Ashles
Can he fire a taser at you?

Edited to add: And why can he only hit in the chest/abdomen area? It sounds like a curious and not entirely useful ability to defend when attackers normally would be likely to attack the head or groin regions.

because incase I can´t knock him down without touch I dont wanna get punched in the face.

Ashles

15th January 2005, 07:45 PM

because incase I can´t knock him down without touch I dont wanna get punched in the face.
It's a bit hard to know how to respond to that without just laughing.

And the taser?
Or is that not allowed because a taser might hurt too?

So, to recap, you are claiming to be able to demonstrate the amazing yellow bamboo ability, but you have very little confidence that it will work, so the tests can only involve attacks that won't hurt too much if you fail?

Well where do I sign up for such a brilliant defensive technique?

I think we now see why it is called yellow bamboo.

dann

15th January 2005, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by Ashles
It's a bit hard to know how to respond to that without just laughing.
And the taser?
Or is that not allowed because a taser might hurt too?
So, to recap, you are claiming to be able to demonstrate the amazing yellow bamboo ability, but you have very little confidence that it will work, so the tests can only involve attacks that won't hurt too much if you fail?
Well where do I sign up for such a brilliant defensive technique?
I think we now see why it is called yellow bamboo.
You should not tease him more than necessary. You are right to point out the contradictions, but you should at least give him credit for being rational when he says:
"because incase I can´t knock him down without touch I dont wanna get punched in the face."
He claims to have a (paranormal) ability, but cannot guarantee that it will work 100% every single time. And he does not want to get seriously hurt which is the reason why he does not want an attacker to hit him in the face.
The contradiction now is: He wants somebody to want to hurt him - apparently the woowoo idea in this is that he somehow needs this in order to use the aggressive attitude of the attacker to defeat him - and at the same time he wants the attacker to agree to terms whose purpose is to make sure that he will not (seriously) hurt him.
I predict all sorts of excuses based on this idea: 'Well, it did not work, but only because the attacker did not seriously get into to the mood of wanting to hurt me' etc.

Zep

15th January 2005, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by baliwesternman
www.yellowbamboo.net/knockingdown
this has nothing to do with the randi challenge. previously my larsen has open challenged yellow bamboo.

he has said he would get angry, run at the yb practitioner
and hit him as hard as he could.

Now Yb has a guy in Sweden who is willing to come to denmark and call his bluff.

THis is how it works- the attacker gets angry and runs at the yb practioner and hits as hard as he can.

If the yb person gets hurt end of story and yb dont work.

If the yb person dont get hurt (other than by ducking etc) then we can talk for years about how it aitn worth it if you gotta be angry, would it work this way, that way, how does it work etc.

The results of this test are what matters anything else is just pure bull****

right Kevin?

Yellow Bamboo Practitioner Ah ha! You wouldn't happen to be the same "person from Bali" who we discussed this self-same subject with endlessly last year or the year before? The one who SAYS he was "just a Balinese friend of YB posting from an internet cafe", but is actually some wise-ass small-league shyster from Miami?

Zep

16th January 2005, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
because I want him to run, I believe it is the best way because all the other YB gigs ive seen they always run.
I see. And can I ask if ALL the other "YB gigs" just happen to have been staged by YB practioners, by any chance? Hmmm? I'd suggest you think about that for a bit before you respond.
Originally posted by petpower_2k
No I don´t "want him in a bad stance so he can not throw a solid punch", he can run, then stop, then hit. And if the first punch is not a solid enough punch for him, then he can throw an other, and another etc.. How about having someone stand quite still right in front of you, well within striking distance, and they work themselves up into a "contentrated" state right there. Meanwhile, you do your own "preparation" at the same time. And then, when they are really REALLY good and ready to strike you, they let you know loud and clear, and the test starts then. Exactly the same as your idea, but without the necessity of anyone having to run anywhere.

Incidentally, let me suggest that if you encounter any person with reasonable experience in martial arts (or even pillow-fighting, for that matter), they will calmly and efficiently, and with significant concentration on the task at hand, knock you flat on your arse first shot. And just looking at the standard "YB defensive stance", I'd be willing to bet that a simple, straight karate punch to the solar plexus will be more than sufficient to convince you you've been scammed.

Oh, one last question, petpower_2k: Did you pay the Yellow Bamboo people any money to learn this technique? If so, please write out the following sentence 100 times after class: "I WAS SCAMMED BY CONFIDENCE TRICKSTERS."

WildCat

16th January 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Zep
I see. And can I ask if ALL the other "YB gigs" just happen to have been staged by YB practioners, by any chance? Hmmm? I'd suggest you think about that for a bit before you respond.
How about having someone stand quite still right in front of you, well within striking distance, and they work themselves up into a "contentrated" state right there. Meanwhile, you do your own "preparation" at the same time. And then, when they are really REALLY good and ready to strike you, they let you know loud and clear, and the test starts then. Exactly the same as your idea, but without the necessity of anyone having to run anywhere.

Incidentally, let me suggest that if you encounter any person with reasonable experience in martial arts (or even pillow-fighting, for that matter), they will calmly and efficiently, and with significant concentration on the task at hand, knock you flat on your arse first shot. And just looking at the standard "YB defensive stance", I'd be willing to bet that a simple, straight karate punch to the solar plexus will be more than sufficient to convince you you've been scammed.

Oh, one last question, petpower_2k: Did you pay the Yellow Bamboo people any money to learn this technique? If so, please write out the following sentence 100 times after class: "I WAS SCAMMED BY CONFIDENCE TRICKSTERS."
:D :D :D :D

Zep, you're my favorite Aussie! Even though we disagree on a lot of things. :p

DevilsAdvocate

16th January 2005, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
The knocking down only works when the person is about to attack, ie: about to punch me to cause me bodily harm.
or 10 meters away: having a gun just about to shoot,
or 10 meters away: having only one thing in mind: to hurt me.
if he stands 10 meters away and does nothing, then I can not knock him down.
he must have intention to hurt, and the easiest way I know of for us to try that is when he starts running from 10 meters away. "10 meters away: having only one thing in mind: to hurt me." OK. He stands 10 meters away and whips baseballs at your chest. He obviously has the intention to hurt you because he is throwing hard objects at you. Standing 10 meters away, can you knock him down?

Donn

16th January 2005, 02:36 AM

By petpower_2k
he must have intention to hurt, and the easiest way I know of for us to try that is when he starts running from 10 meters away.
Emphasis by me.

I have to agree with others (like dann) - this is the pivot of all the excuses that will come.

It's about what they feel will "kickstart" their deflection power.

Examples:
"I didn't feel that he intended me harm."
"I didn't pick up the feeling of danger."
"If he really intended me harm, he would have harmed me."

Give it up, this is hopeless.

I say we should strap a YB'er down and grow real bamboo under them. Their task would then be to turn the growing shoot aside.
Now that should give them a real sense of danger!
(Assuming this is not a myth...)

DevilsAdvocate

16th January 2005, 02:50 AM

I don't see a problem with my protocol. A guy whipping baseballs at you "has an intention to hurt you".

Donn

16th January 2005, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
A guy whipping baseballs at you "has an intention to hurt you".
Which is the real problem : He doesn't want to get hurt, not really - this is so that he can always say you didn't intend harm.
(He really intends that no harm come to himself.)

For this reason, he will nix the baseball idea.

I suspect it will be something like "The balls would move too fast for me to prepare..."

Edited to add:
Not that I dislike your baseball idea :)
Boobam! Bullshido!

Ravenwood

16th January 2005, 03:57 AM

How about a 55lb pull bow with fowling blunts? In my younger( & stupider) days we used to shoot at each other with them in a very stupid (as in do not try this at home kids...) game. They hurt like you wouldn't belive, but didn't break the skin, although they leave a helluva bruise....I can't see how having an archer shooting at you would be different from the claimant's gun scenario, although this is considerably less lethal

DevilsAdvocate

16th January 2005, 04:07 AM

Originally posted by Donn
Which is the real problem : He doesn't want to get hurt, not really - this is so that he can always say you didn't intend harm.
(He really intends that no harm come to himself.)

For this reason, he will nix the baseball idea.

I suspect it will be something like "The balls would move too fast for me to prepare..."

Edited to add:
Not that I dislike your baseball idea :)
Boobam! Bullshido! "10 meters away: having only one thing in mind: to hurt me." I still don't see the problem. If I get hit in the chest with a fastball it will hurt. If I intentionally throw a fastball at your chest, I can't see how I do not have "one thing in mind: to hurt me". I know that the baseball will hurt you if I hit you in the chest I will attept to do so; threfore I have "one thing in mind: to hurt [you]". The only way that he could say that I didn't intend to hurt him is if I miss--and that was my next step; establish ni the protocol how many balls are thrown over what period of time and how many have to hit the YB guy. But we haven't gotten that far yet.

And if the balls are too fast, we could create some other protocol. Maybe the guy would start 25 meters away from the YB guy. stop 10 meters away from the YB guy then pick up the baseballs and start hurling. If this guy wants to prove what he can do, he shoudl start presenting protocols that he belives will prove his powers .

Ravenwood

16th January 2005, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
The knocking down only works when the person is about to attack, ie: about to punch me to cause me bodily harm.
or 10 meters away: having a gun just about to shoot,
.

Am I to understand that you are claiming to be able to knock down a gun armed opponent 10 yards away without touching him? If you wish to come to Maui to demonstrate that, I would be willing to take part in that test with my Glock loaded with Simunition (see link)
http://www.simunition.com/index.php?section_id=51&lang=en
not lethal but definitely very painful...

TheBoyPaj

16th January 2005, 04:20 AM

Are you sure you can hit a person with a baseball every time? Granted I'm a girly thrower but I would be likely to miss, leaving the possibility of YB guy claiming that he "deflected the ball".

I still don't see why it's not possible for someone to get focused, march up and punch. If the punch lands, test failed due to body contact.

kimiko

16th January 2005, 04:20 AM

Peter,
During the interview on Unscrewed with Martin Sargent, you said you had brought a relative from out of a coma, is that correct? Well, if the same power is being used for protection as for healing, then why would it matter what the other person is feeling? Wouldn't it be your intent that matters?

A baseball coming toward your chest would be a physical threat similar to having someone run at you, and you could wear protective clothing to prevent possible injury.

There are tennis ball and baseball pitching machines that can be used to ensure every throw is at the same speed and lands in the same place. I'm sure plenty of people on the board would volunteer to paypal Larsen some money to contribute to renting a place at a batting cage or gym to do the trial.

You obviously believe YB works, and I think if you're willing to travel to Denmark, it is worth everyone's time to ensure a fair protocol. Please give us your opinion on using a baseball or other object.

DevilsAdvocate

16th January 2005, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by Ravenwood
How about a 55lb pull bow with fowling blunts? In my younger( & stupider) days we used to shoot at each other with them in a very stupid (as in do not try this at home kids...) game. They hurt like you wouldn't belive, but didn't break the skin, although they leave a helluva bruise....I can't see how having an archer shooting at you would be different from the claimant's gun scenario, although this is considerably less lethal Great example. How about this: YB guy stands in a circle with 2 foot diameter. Attacker stands 25 away. Attacker runs to within 10 fet of YB guy, he picks up a paintball gun and shoots YB guy. Attacker is iven 30 round of amunition. From what I have heard these paintballs hurt a little.

Can YB guy, without leaving his 2 foot circle, drop Attacker to his knees?

rppa

16th January 2005, 04:36 AM

I accept the challenge.

It's a little hard to attack on the run as people have said, and actually fairly easy to defend against a running attacker too. I'm a pretty basic-level student of Aikido, but I think that even I could manage a decent neck throw on a running attacker.

Instead I propose that I attack this guy with one of the standard attacks we use for practice in Aikido class, which are clearly intended to harm the partner. This is strongly emphasized, that you must be committed (i.e. give the partner some momentum to work with). If the partner isn't ready or you go too fast for their expertise, pain does indeed ensue (our dojo tends to be nice, so we try to calibrate attacks to the partner). The stuff the black belts do to each other would probably break my arm, or my neck.

So I'm perfectly willing to do a standard punch on this guy, which starts at about 2 m distance and comes in straight to the solar plexus. Or I could do a strike with wooden sword or stick aimed at the body, hands, or knees. No faces. I guarantee pain if it's not deflected, but no serious injury. Where do I sign up?

DevilsAdvocate

16th January 2005, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Are you sure you can hit a person with a baseball every time? Granted I'm a girly thrower but I would be likely to miss, leaving the possibility of YB guy claiming that he "deflected the ball".

I still don't see why it's not possible for someone to get focused, march up and punch. If the punch lands, test failed due to body contact. Yes, that would be very much a concern. I'm not personally very good at thowing a ball, so even at ten meters I would probably miss every time. But the question is for the best protocol. It seems my protocol for a guy marching up and punching was not acceptable, so I was trying to create a protocol accptable based on the persons claims.

My preferred protocol whould be what Randi suggested for the initial Yellow Bamboo test: A guy strolls up with a 12 inch piece of bamboo and casually touches the YB guy with the stick. That is not at all what happened.

This YB guy wants to do another test. He challenged a forum guy for the test. I'm just trying to get what it actually is that the YB guy claims that he can do. I still don't know. In the mean time I'm proposing possible protocols: these really don't mean anything until YB guy actually says what he can do--then we can work on the details of the protocol fit the claim.

Of course this is not a JREF claim and it was a challenge to Claus and I can't speak on any authority for anyof this--I'm just trying t find out exactly what the claim is and what would be an acceptable protocol.

If we go for throwing baseballs, then we have to make rules about "no ducking" and how man balls will be thrown and who will thow the balls, etc. but first we need to know what the paranormal claim is and leave it up to the claimant to offer the standards of what they can demonstarte.

DevilsAdvocate

16th January 2005, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by rppa
I accept the challenge.

It's a little hard to attack on the run as people have said, and actually fairly easy to defend against a running attacker too. I'm a pretty basic-level student of Aikido, but I think that even I could manage a decent neck throw on a running attacker.

Instead I propose that I attack this guy with one of the standard attacks we use for practice in Aikido class, which are clearly intended to harm the partner. This is strongly emphasized, that you must be committed (i.e. give the partner some momentum to work with). If the partner isn't ready or you go too fast for their expertise, pain does indeed ensue (our dojo tends to be nice, so we try to calibrate attacks to the partner). The stuff the black belts do to each other would probably break my arm, or my neck.

So I'm perfectly willing to do a standard punch on this guy, which starts at about 2 m distance and comes in straight to the solar plexus. Or I could do a strike with wooden sword or stick aimed at the body, hands, or knees. No faces. I guarantee pain if it's not deflected, but no serious injury. Where do I sign up? The problem here is that YB usually requires a run at them (so they know that you are serious about hat attack) and they put their hands out in front of their body and yell loudly, and they do have some martial arts training. So I would expect that if you charge with a wooden sword at a persons mid-section with a wooden sword when they know someone will charge at their mid-section with a wooden sword and have their hands already out in front of their mid-section and have martial arts training to deflect such blows and yell loud when it happens that you probably won't actually hit them in the mid-section and very well may be knocked down because the stationary person has much more power than the guy running wildly about and thrusting a lever.

So rather than use something like a wooden sword that could not only be deflected but also directed back into the swinger to make them fall down, it would be preferable to just have a straight fist-punch. And much more preferable to have some remote aggression (like throwing baseballs or shooting paint guns) because then the video and test woul dbe much more clear.

DevilsAdvocate

16th January 2005, 05:22 AM

And I don't want to put words into the mouthed of the YB guys that claim to have these powers. But it seems they may be claimng that they can drop a person standing 10 meters away tha is intending to hurt them by hurling baseballs or shoooting paintballs at them. Of course there would be some question of the ability to actually hit them with baseballs or paintballs. If it was up to me, I probably couldn't hit someone withing ten feet with a baseball. But that isn't even an issue until SOME protocol is esblished. That can't be established until the YB guys say what they can do.

It appears some YB guy claims t be able to do omehting within this realm, so we just need to nail down a protocol and let CFLarson know that he is a prticipant :)

petpower_2k

16th January 2005, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by kimiko
Peter,
During the interview on Unscrewed with Martin Sargent, you said you had brought a relative from out of a coma, is that correct? Well, if the same power is being used for protection as for healing, then why would it matter what the other person is feeling? Wouldn't it be your intent that matters?

A baseball coming toward your chest would be a physical threat similar to having someone run at you, and you could wear protective clothing to prevent possible injury.

There are tennis ball and baseball pitching machines that can be used to ensure every throw is at the same speed and lands in the same place. I'm sure plenty of people on the board would volunteer to paypal Larsen some money to contribute to renting a place at a batting cage or gym to do the trial.

You obviously believe YB works, and I think if you're willing to travel to Denmark, it is worth everyone's time to ensure a fair protocol. Please give us your opinion on using a baseball or other object.

what I want to test is the level 1 protection, wich is protection from people trying to punch or kick you, I´m not at the level where you can survive knife and bullets. So I prefer that the attacker punches at me in this test.

btw- I was hoping people would later donate money (paypal) for me or CFLarsen if he agrees to the test, so either he comes to Sweden or I come to Denmark. First we must ofcoruse agree on a protocol.

TheBoyPaj

16th January 2005, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
btw- I was hoping people would later donate money (paypal) for me or CFLarsen if he agrees to the test, so either he comes to Sweden or I come to Denmark. First we must ofcoruse agree on a protocol.

You can whistle for it, pal. I'm not funding your delusions.

petpower_2k

16th January 2005, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by DevilsAdvocate
And I don't want to put words into the mouthed of the YB guys that claim to have these powers. But it seems they may be claimng that they can drop a person standing 10 meters away tha is intending to hurt them by hurling baseballs or shoooting paintballs at them. Of course there would be some question of the ability to actually hit them with baseballs or paintballs. If it was up to me, I probably couldn't hit someone withing ten feet with a baseball. But that isn't even an issue until SOME protocol is esblished. That can't be established until the YB guys say what they can do.

It appears some YB guy claims t be able to do omehting within this realm, so we just need to nail down a protocol and let CFLarson know that he is a prticipant :)

What I believe, and want to test is:
I can knock down a person that is full of hate and agression towards me.

when I practiced kung fu before I noticed that people can hit me quite hard, without having the intention to hurt me and that we called sparring, the teacher said: kick and punch, but only for practice not to hurt.

I would be happy if the attacker whoever it is in this test would afterwards be able to say: I did everything to knock him down, I really wanted to hurt him.

Donn

16th January 2005, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
what I want to test is the level 1 protection, wich is protection from people trying to punch or kick you, I´m not at the level where you can survive knife and bullets. So I prefer that the attacker punches at me in this test.

1. Why do you need an attacker to punch you?
2. Do you or do you not have control of this "power"?

First we must ofcoruse agree on a protocol.

Fine. Answer the questions asked of you in this thread.

Don't be vague, be precise.

Don't use too few words, or too many.

jmercer

16th January 2005, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
because I want him to run, I believe it is the best way because all the other YB gigs ive seen they always run.

No I don´t "want him in a bad stance so he can not throw a solid punch", he can run, then stop, then hit. And if the first punch is not a solid enough punch for him, then he can throw an other, and another etc..

You're on, if you have a New York YB practitioner available that's willing to do this.

The rules are:

1) I will run up to them with full intent to injure them
2) I will stop and throw multiple punches (no less than 2, no more than 5)
3) Success for me will be my opponent either falling down, running away, or showing injury (at which time I will immediately CEASE to hit them.)
4) Success for them will be my passing out, falling down, or not being able to strike them

One requirement - I want them to sign a release absolving me from all liability for any injury they may experience as a result of this test. I'll also sign a release.

Ready whenever you are.:D

jmercer

16th January 2005, 07:03 AM

BTW, I can't "hate" you. Hate's a non-trivial emotion, and anyone who can just turn it on for no real reason needs help. I can't do that. You'd have to do something sufficient to make me hate you.

You'll just have to settle for disdain, disgust, and a sense of "warrior spirit". :)

(edited for grammar)

16th January 2005, 07:45 AM

This must be a very slow week. I call Troll.

Incidentially, if simple and clear proof is wanted go to 125th and Amsterdam in NY and just call out "Yo, Ni**ers, you want some of this?" then stop punches to your hearts content. That is called "Black whup-ass" and is far, far stronger than yellow bamboo.

Fraud.

TheBoyPaj

16th January 2005, 09:18 AM

Possibly a troll. I suppose, in comparison with other forums, we do give trolls rather more satisfaction than they deserve. But when you consider the outlandish nature of our subject matter, it is so much harder to tell when someone is just having a laugh.

WildCat

16th January 2005, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Ed
This must be a very slow week. I call Troll.

Incidentially, if simple and clear proof is wanted go to 125th and Amsterdam in NY and just call out "Yo, Ni**ers, you want some of this?" then stop punches to your hearts content. That is called "Black whup-ass" and is far, far stronger than yellow bamboo.

Fraud.
But since he's in Europe wouldn't it be easier to just go to a British soccer game and openly root for a team while sitting in the section rooting for the opposing team? There should be no dispute after that failed test as to whether or not hate or a desire to hurt was involved. ;)

Hellbound

16th January 2005, 10:44 AM

You know, there's a few interesting points here, but not about a protocol, so this is a slight derail (ignore if desired).

Okay, so the attacker must be full of hate for the technique to work. How sueful is this, really? Do you think a mugger is full of hate towards you, or does he just see beating you over the head as the quickest, easiest path to your wallet? I mean, there aren't too many situations where you're going to be able to use this, it seems.

Second, if the attacker has to be full of hate, how the heck do you practice this? Are your dojos little havens of aggrssion and malice? Does everyone there hate each other? Do all the students that get knocked down in these demonstrations hate their master (this could acually be feasible, when they consider the amountof money they've spent compared to what they've actually learned to do)? I mean, does everyone in a YB dojo hate everyone else? They must, for this to work at all in training.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. It's bull<expletive deleted>.

MRC_Hans

16th January 2005, 11:29 AM

thaiboxerken

16th January 2005, 12:07 PM

I guess the yellow bamboo people are defenseless against cold-blooded muggers. It's too bad i don't live in Sweden, so i could kick that guy and show him that it does not take any "hate in the heart" to do it.

16th January 2005, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by WildCat
But since he's in Europe wouldn't it be easier to just go to a British soccer game and openly root for a team while sitting in the section rooting for the opposing team? There should be no dispute after that failed test as to whether or not hate or a desire to hurt was involved. ;)

Missed his location. Yes, Rugby or Soccer hooligans would do nicely. Reminf me to tell you my funny Rugby Hooligan story sometime.

scratchy

16th January 2005, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's too bad i don't live in Sweden, so i could kick that guy and show him that it does not take any "hate in the heart" to do it.

Well, i do, so we're ganging up huligans in Stockholm who's eager to deliver some smacking. He has promised a new test, and i think its going to be crowded this time....

I´ll keep you all informed.

Zep

17th January 2005, 01:27 AM

I still reckon a nice straight karate punch to the solar plexus will resolve the situation!
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/karate/punch.jpg

A full-blooded front kick would be too dangerous, of course. ;)
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/karate/kick.jpg

Ravenwood

17th January 2005, 01:54 AM

I'm curious to see if YB has someone who can (or is willing to try) to knock down someone 10 meters away firing a gun at them, as petpower 2K claims. I went to the range today to test my theory, & with a pre-ban 15 round mag & firing as fast as I could at a standard IPSC target 25 meters away, I was able to put all of the simunition rounds into a 4" circle. If this guy claims he could knock me down or deflect them away from hitting him, I say lets try it out...I'll even loan him my face shield & throat protector;) If you guys thought those other YB videos were funny, just imagine watching one of them getting lit up by 15 really nasty powder propelled "paintbullets"...(I have been hit by them & they hurt a hundred times more worse than paintballs) This claim has got to rank up there with the moron who wanted to be gassed with Zyklon B...

Dragon

17th January 2005, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Missed his location. Yes, Rugby or Soccer hooligans would do nicely. Reminf me to tell you my funny Rugby Hooligan story sometime. Rugby hooligan?? - do you have any evidence that such a thing exists? I thought you had some understanding of British cultural matters, Ed.

What I would like to see is a YB practitioner facing a Rugby prop forward - never mind a linebacker with all that girlie padding. No punching required, just a nice "friendly" rugby tackle. :)

MRC_Hans

17th January 2005, 02:46 AM

Heheh, I see a new "sport" to replace dwarf throwing; the more PC: "Beat the crap out of a Yello Bamboozle supporter" :D.

Hans

Zep

17th January 2005, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
:D :D :D :D

Zep, you're my favorite Aussie! Even though we disagree on a lot of things. :p I must have missed this - thanks! And I don't think we disagree TOO much...!

Zep

17th January 2005, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Dragon
What I would like to see is a YB practitioner facing a Rugby prop forward - never mind a linebacker with all that girlie padding. No punching required, just a nice "friendly" rugby tackle. :) Oh no - "friendly" is not how the YB want it. This attack has got to be "full of hatred", so I suggest one of those bone-rattling no-step-backwards tiny-halfback-meets-prop-forward-front-on type of rugby tackles. WHUMP!

http://www.la16.com.ar/tackle1.jpg

Flo

17th January 2005, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
What I believe, and want to test is:
I can knock down a person that is full of hate and agression towards me.

when I practiced kung fu before I noticed that people can hit me quite hard, without having the intention to hurt me and that we called sparring, the teacher said: kick and punch, but only for practice not to hurt.

I would be happy if the attacker whoever it is in this test would afterwards be able to say: I did everything to knock him down, I really wanted to hurt him.

I call severely deluded. With all these woowoos claiming supernatural powers in combat, you really have to wonder why martial artists still have to actually engage in actual physical training, when all you have to do to win battles is to concentrate and stop even the most rabid attackers from afar :rolleyes:

I also wonder (well, not really) why instead of issuing mostly empty challenges to strangers on internet forums, they don't just practice what real martial artists who established valid disciplines like karate or judo did: "dojo-crashing" or in other words, visit dojos and training centers of other disciplines (I suggest judo, mainstream full-contact karate, boxing, K1, Kendo) and claim you can lick anyone who dares to attack you. That way, you'll get all the animosity and intensity of attack you desire. You also get a full dose of reality ...

Don't worry, most dojos in Europe are required to have someone trained in first help ...

MRC_Hans

17th January 2005, 06:50 AM

Yeah, or use a modified version of MRC_Hans' Solopsism Test [tm]:

1) Go to busy downtown corner of large city.

2) Wait for large, aggressive-looking male to come by.

3) Walk up behind him and direct a healthy kick at the lower rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, say: "That's because your mother's so ugly!".

5) Use your Yello Bamboozle powers to avert attack.

Hans

dann

17th January 2005, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
2) Wait for large, aggressive-looking male to come by.
3) Walk up behind him and direct a healthy kick at the lower rear portion of his body.
4) When he turns, say: "That's because your mother's so ugly!"
Please, Hans, do not persuade people to harass innocent bystanders and their equally innocent mothers! It's probably illegal too: 'requesting people to act violently' or something.

Ashles

17th January 2005, 09:00 AM

Please, Hans, do not persuade people to harass innocent bystanders and their equally innocent mothers! It's probably illegal too: 'requesting people to act violently' or something.
Normally I'd agree, but does this still apply to someone who is actively encouraging people to donate money so a complete stranger can be flown in from another country with the express purpose of driving them into such a rage that they wll run at him with the express intent of physically attacking him repeatedly until he falls over?

Surely in this instance it's more of a guideline than a rule.

baliwesternman

21st January 2005, 09:25 AM

Hey Petpower,

Did Larsen accept your challenge?

Details?

I also heard on 30 january you are doing a public demo, will youi have media there to record it IE reporters?

Baliw Western Man

IllegalArgument

21st January 2005, 09:36 AM

Argh, I saw a video somewhere showing a yellowbamboo person getting leveled durning one of these trials... but where!!! It's out there somewhere.

dann

23rd January 2005, 04:26 AM

Wasn't it this one? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51010

CFLarsen

23rd January 2005, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by baliwesternman
Hey Petpower,

Did Larsen accept your challenge?

Details?

I also heard on 30 january you are doing a public demo, will youi have media there to record it IE reporters?

Baliw Western Man

I have emailed with Peter, and the ball is in his court. He is probably away for the weekend.

petpower_2k

26th January 2005, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have emailed with Peter, and the ball is in his court. He is probably away for the weekend.

this is the latest email I sent in reply to CFLarsens mail.
sent 01-19:

If a test occurs I will wear protection.

Yes what I mean by repel is that the attacker will not be able to hit me (or the protection) at all.

I have tested before and know it works but I haven’t tested with a sceptic.

January 30 I am conducting a knocking down test in Stockholm, Sweden with several martial artists from the Swedish martial arts forum (www.kampsport.se/forum)

Anyone who wished to try attacking can come. We will have several video cameras recording it.

This will be the second knocking down test we do with the Swedish martial arts forum people.

In the first test (which you can see here: www.yellowbamboo.net/testet) we let the forum moderator “monkeyBoy” attack me and Elisabette,

We were unable to knock him down, we asked him to really try to hurt us and punch with all his strength, but he said he could not do that with the fear that we might get hurt. Now he has changed his mind and promised us he would cause us harm without problem, so we will see the 30th if we can knock him down or not.

Peter

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Claus Larsen [mailto:editor@skepticreport.com]
Skickat: den 19 januari 2005 10:55
Till: Peter Semjonow
Ämne: Re: SV: Yellow Bamboo test

Hello,

First, I would like to stress that it is completely out of the question that any harm can come to you in any way. If you are being hit, you have to wear protection.

So, if I - or someone else - stand in front of you and hits your (protected) stomach, I will not be able to hit you at all? Is that what "repel" means?

Have you been tested before, so you know it works?

/Claus

thaiboxerken

26th January 2005, 03:38 PM

Wow, it would be very nice if this idiot was in Oregon. I haven't kicked a person full force for a while.

baliwesternman

26th January 2005, 08:44 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by petpower_2k
[B]this is the latest email I sent in reply to CFLarsens mail.
sent 01-19:

If a test occurs I will wear protection.

Yes what I mean by repel is that the attacker will not be able to hit me (or the protection) at all.

I have emailed with Peter, and the ball is in his court. He is probably away for the weekend.

__________________
SkepticReport.com
Email: editor@skepticreport.com

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-23-2005 11:37 AM

Mr Larsen

WHy is it that Peter responded to you on 19th but as of 23rd claim he had not contacted you?

Did you miss his email or are you already practicing deception on this gig?

BWM

Zep

26th January 2005, 09:28 PM

Here's a thing...We were unable to knock him down, we asked him to really try to hurt us and punch with all his strength, but he said he could not do that with the fear that we might get hurt. Now he has changed his mind and promised us he would cause us harm without problem, so we will see the 30th if we can knock him down or not.OK, Peter, this is an utterly confusing paragraph so let's try to make this quite clear. Who is knocking who down for this test? Who tried to knock who down last time? Who was the attacker, who was using YB power?

And everyone can also see that baliwesternman is looking for an escape hatch here - he's somehow going to claim Claus woosed out on challenging Peter. Or something like that. Actually, BWM, I'd be willing to bet Peter is having heaps of second thoughts now. And if this "testing" is at all feasible, I don't think Claus will let him off the hook that easily.

Incidentally, why don't YOU get your own Yellowbamboozle powers tested by a skeptic? Instead of letting this misguided idiot get pounded on your behalf. Don't you really think it will work after all??

Hey, Ken! I'd like to see your kicks! We practice full-force on each other but with kick-pads, and even us 3rd kyus can knock a first dan backwards if it's done right. So I can only imagine what effect they would have on a fresh-meat unprotected stationary off-balance target!

DevilsAdvocate

26th January 2005, 11:21 PM

Just to interject needlessly: FREAKING HELL! I posted some small bit on this thread weeks ago. And there is still NO PROTOCOL? I'm getting an inkling of what KRAMER must go through every day.

How hard can it be to agree to stand there and get punched? We draw a circle on the ground. The YB guy stands there and does his YB stuff. Attacker guy (with intention of hurting YB guy, which is sort of the point) makes contact with YB guy. If attacker guy makes contact with YB guy, then game is over.

If you want to get in to specifics, lets say circle around YB guy is 2 foot diameter. And time for attacker guy to make contact is 10 minutes.

The only question would be about attacker guy's intention to hurt. Meaning that attacker guy is not just reaching out to touch YB guy's hair, but is actually throwing a punch or kick, etc. Well, the difference between a "touch" and a "punch" might be subjective, but for an informal test I think we could know the difference.

C'mon. Simple, simple stuff. YB guy stands there. Attacker guy punches or kicks YB guy. Does YB guy not get touched. Simple as that. Simple.

baliwesternman

27th January 2005, 12:32 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zep
[B]Here's a thing...

Here is a thing............

I am just curious........all I am asking is this

Peter claims he emailed cf back on 19th

cf claims as of 23rd not to have heard back from peter.

Either Peter is mis representing, cf is misrepresenting or the email was lost in transition :-)

Just curious is all- this is Peters gig after all. No matter what

I believe about the yb test this is for sure- I do give credit to those who believe enough in their practice to allow it to be tested.

On 30 January there will be some important yb tests- it will be very interesting to see the outcomes.

From the correspondence cf and peter seem to agree on the basics so for my part I am going to let them agree to a format between themselves and watch what happens.

After all it is their gig.

BWM

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
this is the latest email I sent in reply to CFLarsens mail.
sent 01-19:

I'm afraid I haven't received it. But thanks for posting your email. I assume you want to discuss matters here?

Originally posted by petpower_2k
If a test occurs I will wear protection.

The protection must be enough to ensure that you don't get hurt.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
Yes what I mean by repel is that the attacker will not be able to hit me (or the protection) at all.

Excellent. I suggest that we cover the attacker's hands, knees, feet, whatever, with blue chalk. If, after the attack, there is even a smidgen of blue chalk on you, you lose.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
I have tested before and know it works but I haven’t tested with a sceptic.

OK.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
January 30 I am conducting a knocking down test in Stockholm, Sweden with several martial artists from the Swedish martial arts forum (www.kampsport.se/forum)

Anyone who wished to try attacking can come. We will have several video cameras recording it.

This will be the second knocking down test we do with the Swedish martial arts forum people.

In the first test (which you can see here: www.yellowbamboo.net/testet) we let the forum moderator “monkeyBoy” attack me and Elisabette,

We were unable to knock him down, we asked him to really try to hurt us and punch with all his strength, but he said he could not do that with the fear that we might get hurt. Now he has changed his mind and promised us he would cause us harm without problem, so we will see the 30th if we can knock him down or not.

Judging from the videos, you are not successful in repelling an attacker. Let's see if it works on Jan 30th. I assume that the test with us is still on, regardless of what happens on the 30th?

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by baliwesternman
Mr Larsen

WHy is it that Peter responded to you on 19th but as of 23rd claim he had not contacted you?

Did you miss his email or are you already practicing deception on this gig?

No deception at all. I don't know why I haven't received his mail, but he has posted it here. So, everything's fine.

Zep

27th January 2005, 02:55 AM

HAJIME!

petpower_2k

27th January 2005, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm afraid I haven't received it. But thanks for posting your email. I assume you want to discuss matters here?

The protection must be enough to ensure that you don't get hurt.

Excellent. I suggest that we cover the attacker's hands, knees, feet, whatever, with blue chalk. If, after the attack, there is even a smidgen of blue chalk on you, you lose.

OK.

Judging from the videos, you are not successful in repelling an attacker. Let's see if it works on Jan 30th. I assume that the test with us is still on, regardless of what happens on the 30th?

the email must have been lost in transition I guess.

something like this?:
NO-Touch-KO Test Protocol
----------------------------------

YB person= me or any other YB teacher.
Attacker=whoever does the attacking.
YB assistant= a YB assistant that is with the attacker making sure he is angry, then when the YB Person is ready the YB assistant tells the Attacker that he can attack.

Preparations for the test:
1) YB person and Attacker sign a waiver so nobody gets problems incase someone gets hurt.
2) YB person wear a protection vest over chest and stomach area.
3) Attacker punches at something to show that he indeed can punch witch considerable force.
4) Attacker stands minimum 20 meters away from YB person.
5) YB person or his assistant do their best to make the attacker angry so he can attack with the intention to harm the YB person.
6) Attacker runs towards the YB person to punch him in the chest and stomach area.

notes about the attack point nr 6:
a)Attacker is required to be running or jogging towards the YB person.
b)Attacker does his best to stop infront of YB person to deliver full force blows to the body of YB person. He keeps hitting YB person for minimum 30 seconds with full force.

the test is sucessful (YB person win) if any of these things happen:

a) Attacker falls to the ground before he gets infront of YB person.
b) Attacker falls to the ground suddenly while hitting YB person during the 30 second punch time.

the test is failed if:
the attacker is not knocked down before the time runs out.

note:
the 30 seconds that the attacker is required to punch at the YB guy start counting when the attacker has stopped infront of YB guy and threw his first punch.

And finally:
a) The test happens in full day light or equally good conditions,

b) Atleast one digital video camera records the test when the
Attacker begins his attack.

c)No people are allowed to be closer than 5 meters from YB person or Attacker during the test. with the exception from the YB assistant that is with the Attack minimum 20 meters away from YB person before attacker starts running, the assistant is not allowed to run with the Attacker, he/she must stay put.
The function of the assistant is to make sure that the Attacker is ready to attack, and to tell the Attacker when he can attack.

-End of protocol-

steenkh

27th January 2005, 03:54 AM

It seems to me that this protocol is flawed:

Originally posted by petpower_2k
YB assistant= a YB assistant that is with the attacker making sure he is angry, then when the YB Person is ready the YB assistant tells the Attacker that he can attack.

This requirement opens up for fraud from the YB assistant. Nobody should be close to the attacker or the YB person. Th YB person could give some sign when he is ready to be attacked, but only the attacker can decide when he is ready. Any incitement from any YB assistant could damage the attacker's judgement and make him commit mistakes. It is also possible that threads, tasers or similar could be employed by th YB assistant.

b)Attacker does his best to stop infront of YB person to deliver full force blows to the body of YB person. He keeps hitting YB person for minimum 30 seconds with full force.

Why this requirement? A single hit should be enough! Again it opens up for fraud from anybody standing close to the attacker.

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 04:10 AM

Peter,

Thanks for your suggestion for a protocol. I have a few comments.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
YB assistant= a YB assistant that is with the attacker making sure he is angry, then when the YB Person is ready the YB assistant tells the Attacker that he can attack.

How does the assistant decide if the attacker is "angry"?

Originally posted by petpower_2k
3) Attacker punches at something to show that he indeed can punch witch considerable force.

How do we determine this?

Originally posted by petpower_2k
5) YB person or his assistant do their best to make the attacker angry so he can attack with the intention to harm the YB person.

And if they fail? We need to determine when the attacker is "angry".

Originally posted by petpower_2k
6) Attacker runs towards the YB person to punch him in the chest and stomach area.

Assuming that YB person does absolutely nothing to avoid it, other than scream at attacker. The YB person cannot fend for himself, touch the attacker, move out of the way, or in any other way seek to avoid the punch.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
a)Attacker is required to be running or jogging towards the YB person.

We need to establish when the attacker is running or jogging. Jogging, I believe, is running. Suggestion: The attacker has to move from X to Y within P seconds.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
b)Attacker does his best to stop infront of YB person to deliver full force blows to the body of YB person. He keeps hitting YB person for minimum 30 seconds with full force.

I think that the claim has been altered. The claim was that the attacker could not even touch the YB person:

Originally posted by petpower_2k
Yes what I mean by repel is that the attacker will not be able to hit me (or the protection) at all.

It will be sufficient if the attacker simply doesn't hit the YB person at all.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
the test is sucessful (YB person win) if any of these things happen:

a) Attacker falls to the ground before he gets infront of YB person.
b) Attacker falls to the ground suddenly while hitting YB person during the 30 second punch time.

Now you are definitely changing the claim. There are way too many ways that someone could trick the attacker to fall to the ground. It is far better, if we simply stick with the original claim, and see if the YB person can prevent the attacker from hitting him.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
the test is failed if:
the attacker is not knocked down before the time runs out.

This will open up for the possibility of the attacker either tripping, or is tripped. The assistant could also "psych" the attacker in such a way that the attacker gets nervous and trips. I think we should stick to the old claim that the attacker is not able to touch the YB person at all.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
note:
the 30 seconds that the attacker is required to punch at the YB guy start counting when the attacker has stopped infront of YB guy and threw his first punch.

This will put the two persons in full contact for 30 seconds. How do you suggest we avoid the possibility of the YB person simply pushing the attacker in the scuffle?

Again, we should stick to the original claim.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
And finally:
a) The test happens in full day light or equally good conditions,

Full day light, period. It will most likely be outdoors. We have an excellent park in Central Copenhagen that will suit the test perfectly.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
b) Atleast one digital video camera records the test when the
Attacker begins his attack.

I suggest that one camera record the test, and another record everything. As many cameras as possible, in fact. All video tapes are copied, unaltered in any way, and both you and I get a copy. All tapes can be distributed freely by anyone.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
c)No people are allowed to be closer than 5 meters from YB person or Attacker during the test. with the exception from the YB assistant that is with the Attack minimum 20 meters away from YB person before attacker starts running, the assistant is not allowed to run with the Attacker, he/she must stay put.
The function of the assistant is to make sure that the Attacker is ready to attack, and to tell the Attacker when he can attack.

The assistant must be sufficiently away from the attacker, so there is no chance of the assistant tripping or pushing the attacker.

What do you think of this?

SezMe

27th January 2005, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
5) YB person or his assistant do their best to make the attacker angry so he can attack with the intention to harm the YB person.
Uh-oh, this is a problem. Imagine this scenario:

Test begins. CFL runs up to YB, stops just in front of him, gathers his strength, plants feet, and wacks the crap out of YB.

Rebuttal: You weren't angry enough to have intention to hurt because you cooly and logically stopped before striking YB so the test is no good.

The problem is the word "intention" because it makes the test subject to interpretation.

steenkh

27th January 2005, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by SezMe
The problem is the word "intention" because it makes the test subject to interpretation.
You are right. This one word is the escape hatch for the YB. I believe that the assistant must be eliminated from the procedure, and there must be some stipulation of how fast everything must happen. The running must be accomplished in X seconds, and the single hit must be performed immediately when possible.

I think it is a good precaution to have the attacker been coated in chalk. In this way, there will be no doubt that the YB person is hit, even if the YB person tries to evade so that the impact is not clear enough on the film.

Personally I would have preferred a pillow fight!

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 04:39 AM

Originally posted by SezMe
Uh-oh, this is a problem. Imagine this scenario:

Test begins. CFL runs up to YB, stops just in front of him, gathers his strength, plants feet, and wacks the crap out of YB.

Rebuttal: You weren't angry enough to have intention to hurt because you cooly and logically stopped before striking YB so the test is no good.

The problem is the word "intention" because it makes the test subject to interpretation.

Well, yes and no. Peter specifically stated that the assistant decides when the attacker is angry enough. Once that has happened, the attacker can start running. And then, there can be no doubt that the attacker was angry enough.

How we determine this level of anger, is a good question, though.

steenkh

27th January 2005, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well, yes and no. Peter specifically stated that the assistant decides when the attacker is angry enough.

No the role of the assistant is more than that! Look at

Originally posted by petpower_2k
5) YB person or his assistant do their best to make the attacker angry so he can attack with the intention to harm the YB person.

What exactly are they doing? Calling names? Pinching?

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
What exactly are they doing? Calling names? Pinching?

That is to be determined. However, there will be no physical contact whatsoever between the assistant and the attacker.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have the participants wear microphones as well.

steenkh

27th January 2005, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That is to be determined. However, there will be no physical contact whatsoever between the assistant and the attacker.
I think that the YB person and assistant need to be searched for hidden devices, and that nobody - not even the assistant - may come closer to the attacker than a certain distance, like, say, 5 meters. We need to be sure that the assistant cannot throw an invisible thread around the legs of the attacker or fire a dart or whatever.

steenkh

27th January 2005, 05:28 AM

I would like to add that the precautions are also to protect the YB from accusations made later if the test succeeds.

T'ai Chi

27th January 2005, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That is to be determined. However, there will be no physical contact whatsoever between the assistant and the attacker.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to have the participants wear microphones as well.

If it even happens. I doubt it will..

petpower_2k

27th January 2005, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Peter,

Thanks for your suggestion for a protocol. I have a few comments.

How does the assistant decide if the attacker is "angry"?

How do we determine this?

And if they fail? We need to determine when the attacker is "angry".

Assuming that YB person does absolutely nothing to avoid it, other than scream at attacker. The YB person cannot fend for himself, touch the attacker, move out of the way, or in any other way seek to avoid the punch.

We need to establish when the attacker is running or jogging. Jogging, I believe, is running. Suggestion: The attacker has to move from X to Y within P seconds.

I think that the claim has been altered. The claim was that the attacker could not even touch the YB person:

It will be sufficient if the attacker simply doesn't hit the YB person at all.

Now you are definitely changing the claim. There are way too many ways that someone could trick the attacker to fall to the ground. It is far better, if we simply stick with the original claim, and see if the YB person can prevent the attacker from hitting him.

This will open up for the possibility of the attacker either tripping, or is tripped. The assistant could also "psych" the attacker in such a way that the attacker gets nervous and trips. I think we should stick to the old claim that the attacker is not able to touch the YB person at all.

This will put the two persons in full contact for 30 seconds. How do you suggest we avoid the possibility of the YB person simply pushing the attacker in the scuffle?

Again, we should stick to the original claim.

Full day light, period. It will most likely be outdoors. We have an excellent park in Central Copenhagen that will suit the test perfectly.

I suggest that one camera record the test, and another record everything. As many cameras as possible, in fact. All video tapes are copied, unaltered in any way, and both you and I get a copy. All tapes can be distributed freely by anyone.

The assistant must be sufficiently away from the attacker, so there is no chance of the assistant tripping or pushing the attacker.

What do you think of this?

I think all of your points are good.
we can remove the 30 second punching thing, simply let the attacker attack, and if he hits I loose the test, if attacker is unable to hit YB person or attacker is knocked down then we win.

About determining if the attacker is angry or not.
I believe it is impossible to know for sure how angry the attacker is.
Since it is impossible to know the intention of the attacker, all we can do is to do our best, and then see what happen.
Before and after the test we can ask the attacker if he is angry, and if he was angry during the attack. thats all we can do.

petpower_2k

27th January 2005, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
No the role of the assistant is more than that! Look at

What exactly are they doing? Calling names? Pinching?
among other things yes :)

Flo

27th January 2005, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well, yes and no. Peter specifically stated that the assistant decides when the attacker is angry enough. Once that has happened, the attacker can start running. And then, there can be no doubt that the attacker was angry enough.

How we determine this level of anger, is a good question, though.

Are you trained in martial arts ? Have you talked about this "test" with a trained, high level, martial artist ?

To me (40 years in Japanese martial arts, 5th dan Kendo, 1st dan aikido, years of judo, competitions galore), the whole procedure is pure BS:

- One of the first thing you learn in martial arts is never to get "angry", or at least never to show anger, it clouds jugdement and impairs your reactions.

- There is no single school of combat that teaches you to run 20 meters before you hit your opponent. There is no way you can correctly assess distances and the correct moment of attack (ma-ai) that way, whereas the guy waiting has all the time in the world to find out when and how you'll attack and devise a way to evade or trick you. Randi is right when he recommends that you just walk calmly towards the guy and just touch him (the colored chalk bit is good).

- 30 seconds of continuous serious punching ? BS ! Look at any real fight (instead of MA movies where the heroes can keep fighting at maximum intensity for minutes on end), almost nobody keeps punching that long. 10 seconds then careful observation, then a few seconds more, etc.

In short, either those guys are planning tricks, or they are seriously deluded as to what they are doing. Send someone really trained in martial arts.

Ossai

27th January 2005, 08:33 AM

Flo
"dojo-crashing" or in other words, visit dojos and training centers of other disciplines (I suggest judo, mainstream full-contact karate, boxing, K1, Kendo) and claim you can lick anyone who dares to attack you. What is K1? I’m never heard of that one before?

And isn’t dojo-crashing what the Gracies did to establish themselves?

Ossai

Atlas

27th January 2005, 08:41 AM

I think Flo makes good points.

It sure sounds like any test could be done easily inside 10 seconds. Five to cover the distance and 5 more to hit or fall down.

Are you considering making it the best 3 of 5?

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
I think that the YB person and assistant need to be searched for hidden devices, and that nobody - not even the assistant - may come closer to the attacker than a certain distance, like, say, 5 meters. We need to be sure that the assistant cannot throw an invisible thread around the legs of the attacker or fire a dart or whatever.

Naturally.

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by steenkh
I would like to add that the precautions are also to protect the YB from accusations made later if the test succeeds.

Of course.

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
I think all of your points are good.

Thank you.

Originally posted by petpower_2k
we can remove the 30 second punching thing, simply let the attacker attack, and if he hits I loose the test, if attacker is unable to hit YB person or attacker is knocked down then we win.

I don't like the "knocked down" part. I am wary of pushing, tripping methods, etc. To keep it simple, why don't we just check if the YB person has blue chalk on him?

Originally posted by petpower_2k
About determining if the attacker is angry or not.
I believe it is impossible to know for sure how angry the attacker is.
Since it is impossible to know the intention of the attacker, all we can do is to do our best, and then see what happen.
Before and after the test we can ask the attacker if he is angry, and if he was angry during the attack. thats all we can do.

Very well: The attacker decides if he was angry.

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by petpower_2k
among other things yes :)

You need to supply a complete list of things that the assistant and the YB person will do to the attacker. Then, we will see what is acceptable.

Any physical contact with the attacker is out, though.

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Flo
Are you trained in martial arts ? Have you talked about this "test" with a trained, high level, martial artist ?

We are in contact with martial arts experts. One will be the attacker, not me. I don't hit people.

Originally posted by Flo
- One of the first thing you learn in martial arts is never to get "angry", or at least never to show anger, it clouds jugdement and impairs your reactions.

Perhaps. But we are not talking about a prolonged match, we are talking about a martial arts expert simply touching - or hitting someone who will not fight back. That should not be a problem.

Originally posted by Flo
- There is no single school of combat that teaches you to run 20 meters before you hit your opponent. There is no way you can correctly assess distances and the correct moment of attack (ma-ai) that way, whereas the guy waiting has all the time in the world to find out when and how you'll attack and devise a way to evade or trick you. Randi is right when he recommends that you just walk calmly towards the guy and just touch him (the colored chalk bit is good).

I don't see any reasons as to why the attacker has to come running, either. We'll talk to the martial arts expert and see what he says.

Originally posted by Flo
- 30 seconds of continuous serious punching ? BS ! Look at any real fight (instead of MA movies where the heroes can keep fighting at maximum intensity for minutes on end), almost nobody keeps punching that long. 10 seconds then careful observation, then a few seconds more, etc.

Peter has already agreed to drop this.

Originally posted by Flo
In short, either those guys are planning tricks, or they are seriously deluded as to what they are doing. Send someone really trained in martial arts.

We will. ;)

Flo

27th January 2005, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Ossai
Flo
What is K1? I’m never heard of that one before?

And isn’t dojo-crashing what the Gracies did to establish themselves?

Ossai

K1 is a recent form where "everything goes", very popular in Japan, mixing bosers, judokas, sumo wrestlers, etc. Gracie recently defeated Akebono (aka Chad Rowan, ex sumo yokozuna) in a K1 event. Gracie is ~80 kg, Ake 220 kg ...

Yes, dojo-crashing is what they did. It is what Jigoro Kano did in Japan to establish judo, too.

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Atlas
I think Flo makes good points.

It sure sounds like any test could be done easily inside 10 seconds. Five to cover the distance and 5 more to hit or fall down.

Are you considering making it the best 3 of 5?

Depending on how long one trial takes, I don't see any reason why we couldn't have more. However, there will be a set time limit within all pre-agreed tests will take place. Failure to complete the tests in full means that YB has failed.

I will not have a test that lasts many hours into the night.

Flo

27th January 2005, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We are in contact with martial arts experts. One will be the attacker, not me. I don't hit people.

you should try, you've no idea how liberating it is. It's the main reason why I still enjoy kendo: you are encouraged to hit people on the head with a big stick while yelling out loud and stamping your foot (if we could also slam doors, it would be perfect). ;)

Perhaps. But we are not talking about a prolonged match, we are talking about a martial arts expert simply touching - or hitting someone who will not fight back. That should not be a problem.

I know anger should not be a problem for a trained martial artist. The problem I see is with the bamboozled people: on the one hand, if they really think only someone angry can really hit hard, they really don't know much about what fighting sports are really about. On the other hand, getting their attacker angry amounts to a trick in order to make him lose control of the procedure.

I don't see any reasons as to why the attacker has to come running, either. We'll talk to the martial arts expert and see what he says.

As I wrote, I see two: such a condition ensures the attack will lack force and precision, and it gives ample time to trick/distract the attacker.

Another point: if they really believe there is a form of one on one combat where people start to run at each other from so far apart, it just shows how bogus the whole concept is.

CFLarsen

27th January 2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Flo
you should try, you've no idea how liberating it is. It's the main reason why I still enjoy kendo: you are encouraged to hit people on the head with a big stick while yelling out loud and stamping your foot (if we could also slam doors, it would be perfect). ;)

I stick(!) to yelling and stamping my foot. Books are more liberating to me. ;)

Originally posted by Flo
I know anger should not be a problem for a trained martial artist. The problem I see is with the bamboozled people: on the one hand, if they really think only someone angry can really hit hard, they really don't know much about what fighting sports are really about. On the other hand, getting their attacker angry amounts to a trick in order to make him lose control of the procedure.

Peter has agreed that the attacker alone decides if he is angry.

Originally posted by Flo
As I wrote, I see two: such a condition ensures the attack will lack force and precision, and it gives ample time to trick/distract the attacker.

Nope: The attacker can stop right before the YB person and focus, before he punches. But, let's see what the attacker says.

Originally posted by Flo
Another point: if they really believe there is a form of one on one combat where people start to run at each other from so far apart, it just shows how bogus the whole concept is.

Perhaps.

jmercer

27th January 2005, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Flo Another point: if they really believe there is a form of one on one combat where people start to run at each other from so far apart, it just shows how bogus the whole concept is. [/B]

Argh - I cannot believe that I'm going to actually write something that supports YB in any way whatsoever... but I guess I'm going to have to point something out.

Prior to the invention of firearms, people did charge each other from far apart to engage in hand-to-hand combat. (In fact, if you think about it, non-throwing spears and other weapons were designed as stand-off weapons to keep charging attackers at a safe distance.)

Granted, we're not talking "one-on-one" as in martial artists dueling - but a lot of the basic martial arts taught to soldiers in China pre-firearms (if they were lucky to even GET training) had to do with dealing with charging opponents. Special weapons were even developed for that purpose, such as the "horse cutters", etc. There are also a number of attacks (noteably kicks) that involve running forward rapidly. (Not from 20 meters away, obvi