In reading over this thread I notice that sometimes I overedit my posts to the point where some sentances contradict themselves and contradict what I am trying to say.
What I meant to say in the quote below was that I don't recommend people like MacYoung because even though they may make some valid points, they also make some stupid and dangerous ones, and not everyone can recognize and filter out the stupid and dangerous things that they say.
Originally Posted by ed l
Seems odd to me that lots of people are having problems with a video that was produced almost 20 years ago----a time in which the culture, the terminology, and the general self-defense knowledge was very different. Matter of fact, it interests me that that the focus was on "gimme 5 feet" as opposed to his commentary on the specific precursors to attack, the commentary on attention and awareness, etc.
Instead, what was chosen was a time-dependent phrase that may have been temporarily useful in a specific place.
Well, yes, that does make it easy to say it sucks.
Regarding his later stuff----hm. I've seen MacYoung in a couple of different seminars. And like everyone, I've seen him make mistakes. (and own up to them) I've also seen him teach a lot of good stuff. In addition, his commentary and work (along with Rory Miller) regarding Conflict Communications has some excellent stuff in it.
He is certainly wordy when he writes, and he certainly has a unique tone to his writing, some of which can be very annoying.
However, hearing lots of people dismiss him as a has-been (or wording like it) is interesting. Reading his older stuff it is certainly true that parts of it are incredibly dated, and the writing style matches the times. On the other hand, his commentary regarding assaults, precursors, and such, is still relevant. His newer stuff, especially the parts regarding legal aspects of self-defense, is worth reading.
YMMV, of course.
The thread title is "Gimme Five Feet." The OP asked about the specific phrase, "Gimme Five Feet," because it stood out to him against what he otherwise considered standard commentary on awareness. I'm not sure why it's therefore "interesting" that the thread has focused on the phrase, "Gimme Five Feet." Why would the OP ask about other aspects of the material that he considered "pretty standard"?
Probably because as I read the thread itself, quite a few parts discussed the "gimme five feet" and made judgements on the instructor based on that one point.The thread title is "Gimme Five Feet." The OP asked about the specific phrase, "Gimme Five Feet," because it stood out to him against what he otherwise considered standard commentary on awareness. I'm not sure why it's therefore "interesting" that the thread has focused on the phrase, "Gimme Five Feet." Why would the OP ask about other aspects of the material that he considered "pretty standard"?
Discussing the point itself, of course, makes sense--after all, that is what the question was about. However, using a single point from which to develop an entire opinion seems a little strange. Of course, we did have the standard followup of "oh, I know that guy, he sucks" that is common on forums, so that probably influenced people too.
Reply With Quote
