# Is it possible to "train" for something that you never actually do?



## Steve

We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense."  Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport.  We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense." 

The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent.  Sport people train for sport.  Other people train for other things.

My question is simply this.  Can you train for something you never do?  Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?


----------



## frank raud

Short answer, yes. Many people train, and are certified in first aid, yet never use their training. Many teachers of first aid have never used their knowledge in real life. Is it necessary to have "seen the elephant" to be able to teach? That would eliminate most weapons instructors and practically all male rape defense instructors. You can train for a scenario to the point that you are an expert in that situation.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Training for the physical part of a confrontation is entirely possible. What you can't do is train for the emotional responses.


----------



## James Kovacich

The title of the thread instantly put in my mind Doomsday Preppers.  I think the notion that sport fighters can't streetfight is totally nonsense. In any case, the sport fighter is the one that is more likely to be in streetfight in my opinion...so that says enough.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

frank raud said:


> Short answer, yes. Many people train, and are certified in first aid, yet never use their training. Many teachers of first aid have never used their knowledge in real life. Is it necessary to have "seen the elephant" to be able to teach? That would eliminate most weapons instructors and practically all male rape defense instructors. You can train for a scenario to the point that you are an expert in that situation.


Thanks for the response. 

I distinguish between someone being 'certified' and someone being an expert.  For example, if we're talking about first aid certification, wouldn't you distinguish between a person who is "certified" in first aid and, say, an EMT?  Or an RN who has 10 years working in an urban ER?   And then, the extension of this would be, who is most competent to teach someone first aid?  The person who is certified, but never applied the skills, or the EMT/ER RN who has applied the skills over and over in every possible permutation over years of practical experience?


----------



## Steve

James Kovacich said:


> The title of the thread instantly put in my mind Doomsday Preppers.  I think the notion that sport fighters can't streetfight is totally nonsense. *In any case, the sport fighter is the one that is more likely to be in streetfight in my opinion...so that says enough.*
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Can you support that statement?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding.


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Training for the physical part of a confrontation is entirely possible. What you can't do is train for the emotional responses.


Thanks, DD.  In my response to Frank Raud, I tried to be a little more clear.  Do you think that one can become an expert in something he or she never actually does?


----------



## Drasken

I think it is possible, but it depends on method of training. However give me someone who has trained for years in reality based combat situations, and then someone who hasn't trained a day in their life but has survived several encounters on the street? My money goes on the survivor.

You can train all you want in the physical aspect, but it's not as easy for the emotional one. There ARE training methods that give you the same adrenaline dump, but most people don't pay attention to that.
Still, I think martial artists are underestimated in today's world. But I also think we as martial artists sometimes overestimate our abilities as well.


----------



## Sukerkin

In my art there is no option .  Barring a zombie apocalypse or I get really mad at a burglar I am never going to use the skills I have trained in all these years .  But, with a brush against the kata vs sparring debate, the form our training takes means that the techniques are executed precisely and at full force and extension.  So if I ever have to stand _kai shaku_ for someone I know *how* to do it ... whether I could bring myself to is a whole other matter.


----------



## Steve

Sukerkin said:


> In my art there is no option .  Barring a zombie apocalypse or I get really mad at a burglar I am never going to use the skills I have trained in all these years .  But, with a brush against the kata vs sparring debate, the form our training takes means that the techniques are executed precisely and at full force and extension.  So if I ever have to stand _kai shaku_ for someone I know *how* to do it ... whether I could bring myself to is a whole other matter.


So, then, would it be fair to say that you aren't training for combat. Rather, what you are actually training for is form?


----------



## celtic_crippler

Excellent question! 

I have to agree with Frank. Being a nurse, I'm trained in many things I don't actually do on a daily basis (and some I hopefully never will!) But I can tell you from experience, when the time comes... it just kind of "switches" itself on and you go into a kind of... robo-mode... where your training takes over. It's hard to explain... but, you just do it. 

Repetition in training is the key to being able to apply learned skills if needed. That is why one's training must adhere to some basic principles. In regards to martial arts, knowing one's lineage, and where their particular principles came from is an important part of understanding the answer to your question. 

Do some practicioners know the "need" for a high, jumping, flying side kick? Or have you simply been repeating what's been passed down for generations? Could it be possible, that initially, that manuever was involved in the system because it was once necessary to be able to take someone off a horse? How likely is that skill-set needed today? Knowing and understanding the principles behind what it is you're doing sheds light on the practicality of one's training. 

In the root system in which I train, it is believed one should constantly be evaluating their training and adapting it to today's environment. That requires actually being aware of what's going on in one's environment, and applying the principles learned to dealing with various scenarios. 

That's where the dojo becomes a lab to experiment, evaluate, and analyze. Keep in mind, there's no "super-system" of martial arts. We all train for different reasons, but in terms of self-defense we can only hope to tip the odds in our favor. After all, it only takes one good shot (intentional or not) to the right target to take someone down; regardless of rank.


----------



## martial sparrer

I was just thinking this weekend that one can train and never have to use their skills.  but in training martial arts you are also working on your soul and spirit and mind etc.  so even if you don't use your martial skills on the battle field there are always obstacles in life where you can apply.  some blackbelts tell me that they believe you MUST apply your martial skills in sparring.  but so many others have said that this is untrue....ever since I started reading martial arts books  and do mma exercises and do some kicking and boxing on the bag.....I have found that I am more of an effective teacher because I can deal with my conflicts and obstacles using better problem solving.  my mind feels more crisp to me because I train out stress and anger and issues I dwell on


----------



## Sukerkin

Steve said:


> So, then, would it be fair to say that you aren't training for combat. Rather, what you are actually training for is form?



Not really.  Yes, perfection of form is important but the battle happens in your mind as you train.  

Imagination is a very important aspect of training in any martial art but especially in the truly lethal arts where you simply cannot spar (tho' you can have some fun with bokken you still have to pull blows and that pollutes the form).  

When I perform a kata, I know what the perfect form is for it (whether I can do it or not being a different matter ).  I also know, with increasing experience (something we touched on in another thread recently), that many movements within the kata have different purposes depending on what the opponent does, what his posture is and where his sword is.  So when you train, you imagine this opponent and what he does and how he is trying to use the techniques you know against you - because you cannot have complete freeform freedom the rules of thumb are that he is about the same size as you, he is as good (if not better) than you and that he is schooled in the same style as you.  So you can, for example, allow yourself to be 'rushed' because you were too slow realising what what was happening and so what should have been a cut turns into a deflection to create an opening etc etc.

Watching Iai has been described as the martial equivalent of watching grass grow {:lol:} but the ultimate test of how 'good' someone is at the art is if an untutored bystander can 'see' your opponent in his own minds eye.


----------



## arnisador

My JKD instructor used to say that every real fight is worth 8 months of training.


----------



## elder999

When I hired on at the nuke plant, I trained regularly to do things I hoped I'd never get to do, and never did. Later, I trained people to do those things, and hoped they'd never get to them, and they never did. Could they do them? Sure, they could have, If needed....Cops train regularly to do things they hope they never do, and some never do-others, in fact, do wind up doing those things, and pretty well......at Los Alamos, I regularly practiced and trained to do things I hoped I'd never have to do. On the other hand, can one be called an "expert" in arming a nuclear weapon if they've never actually armed an deployed one? Yes.           I've also managed to get through a variety of armed assaults over the years-notably, I'd never actually stabbed anyone with a pen, until I did, but I'd trained to do so.......saved my life, I think....as for the rest of it, can competition training prepare one for self-defense? Yes, on a variety of levels-the competitive trainer is more likely to get hit, or hit the ground, and having experienced that shock and worked through it might serve them well. Likewise, actually hitting someone who is trying to actually hit them. On the other hand, such training might serve someone badly, dependent upon the situation. For myself, while not exactly "sport" training, with my primary training being in karate, judo and boxing, back in the time when I was mugged-or in "fights"-that training served me pretty well most of the time-in fact, my usual advice to someone seeking self defense training for their kids is to get them into judo and boxing.....


----------



## Tgace

Hmmmm....

The thing with this question is context. Martial Arts is really just a set of skills. A rather narrow set actually. Professions like LE require a whole range of skills...some you will do daily, some you may do once, some you may never do. Same with being a soldier. That job is far more than just shooting a weapon, but that seems to be the one skill many people put the most stock in. 

While I may not be an "expert cop"...I am a veteran cop. I'd say I have "expertise" in some of my job skills and passing aptitude with others.

The "thing" with martial arts is that many people seem to think they  need validation through an actual fight to see if what they are learning is any good. Its a narrow skill set...I think the question most MA students need to figure out for themselves is what exactly they want to get out of it...

Id take a broad experience/training background with a smattering of expertise in a few areas over expertise at one thing only anyday.


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Le Samourai

I think this is a rather complicated question, and often the answer depends on the individual.

A few random thoughts and observations based on my experiences&#8230;

* It seems that few people who train for self-defense ever actually engage in hard sparring. That means they probably cannot do what they train to do. If you&#8217;ve never practiced, say, groin shots against a resistant opponent in training, you might not be able to do it in a high stress street situation.

* The above reflects on the whole "sports" vs. "self-defense" arguments. Someone who trains for sport is used to sparring, being hit, and hitting back. Someone who trains for self-defense may or may not have engaged in this sort of training. Therefore, I think the sport martial artist has an advantage in a real fight. I think the best approach is to combine the two, and incorporate hard sparring into self-defense training. 

* Even the best classes cannot truly replicate what people go through in a real street fight. Rory Miller addresses this very well in his book _Meditations on Violence_.

* That being said, enough good, hard training with lots of work against opposing opponents can help prepare someone for a self-defense situation. For example, I was talking to someone who works for immigration services in Australia. He regularly trained in some very basic yet effective empty hand defenses against a knife. Recently, he had a knife drawn on him, and was able to use the techniques to defend himself. He said, &#8220;It was just like what we do in training.&#8221; Will that always be the case? Probably not, but things like this happen.


----------



## jks9199

I train regularly to shoot someone.  Haven't done it yet; closest is with the Taser, which I have shot someone with.  Or maybe marking cartridges... which I have shot people with plenty of times.  But really shooting someone dead?  Nope.  Been about 1/16th of an inch or so from it once... but they complied before I finished the trigger squeeze.

Sure as hell hope I never do have to shoot someone.  But I am confident that, if it was appropriate, I'd do it.

I'm trained in delivering a baby.  Don't really want to do that, either.  

But I think that sort of thing is going astray of the original question.  I think I can fairly rephrase the original question as: Is it possible to have sufficient knowledge in one area, even if your focus is something different -- or is the training and knowledge exclusive?  My answer there is that yes, it is possible to have the knowledge of one aspect, sufficient to coach and instruct it, when your focus is in a different area.  There will be limits -- but it's possible to learn enough and be able to do it.


----------



## James Kovacich

Steve said:


> Can you support that statement?  Maybe I'm misunderstanding.



When speaking of sport, in this case I'm referring to MMA where there are young loose cannons while traditional martialists have differant approach mentally and physically to the arts and many never get in a real fight. 

MMA train to fight and just add alcohol...

I'd like to add BJJ sport fighters are way underestimated in their overall abilities. In my opinion they are closely right up their with MMA in fight readiness.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> Thanks, DD. In my response to Frank Raud, I tried to be a little more clear. Do you think that one can become an expert in something he or she never actually does?



Sure, but like most other things, there are degrees of expertise. When there is opportunity to practice something in a real setting, the expertise garnered from that experience certainly outweighs purely theoretical or lab-setting experience.
I can teach you how to put in a chest tube using a side of beef or a cadaver of various species. That's fairly analogous to what we do in the dojang. And having performed the procedure on a few chunks of dead meat, you can be confident that you'll be able to perform it on an actual person. And having done it a few times on actual people, you can be confident that you'll be able to it on an actual person while squatting in a ditch, in the middle of the night, with a flashlight in your teeth.
Most trauma surgeons have never put in a chest tube in a ditch. I have. Which of us is the more expert?

The physical side of things is relatively simple, and there are always ways to train for it. The emotional side remains the part that no training can prepare you for.


----------



## Steve

James Kovacich said:


> When speaking of sport, in this case I'm referring to MMA where there are young loose cannons while traditional martialists have differant approach mentally and physically to the arts and many never get in a real fight.
> 
> MMA train to fight and just add alcohol...
> 
> I'd like to add BJJ sport fighters are way underestimated in their overall abilities. In my opinion they are closely right up their with MMA in fight readiness.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


I think you've got a pretty distorted impression of people who train MMA, and of people who train in "traditional" martial arts, too.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Drasken said:


> You can train all you want in the physical aspect, but it's not as easy for the emotional one.* There ARE training methods that give you the same adrenaline dump*, but most people don't pay attention to that.



No, there are not. No training will accurately replicate the physical and emotional responses of being faced by someone who is truly doing their best to kill you.


----------



## Steve

I appreciate all of the responses.  I think that the points regarding the context are really good ones, made by Tgace and a few others.  It seems that expertise on a broader level, such as being a veteran cop, is as much a function of experience as it is knowing how to do specific things.  

The points you've all made are solid and I largely agree.  But that leads me to another question, which is this.  I get that being a veteran cop means a broad range of experience and perhaps specific expertise in a few areas.  Same might go for being a veteran RN, like DD or Celtic.  DD mentioned teaching a person how to put a chest tube into a side of beef.  It's close to the real thing, but not quite.  If you've learned it from someone who has actual experience with it, let's say your experience is 2nd generation.  You never actually put in a chest tube, but have practiced it over and over and then you teach someone.  That person is 3rd generation.  They practice it over and over and then teach someone else, a 4th generation.  Then a 5th.

Applying that to martial arts, many martial arts instructors are many generations removed from the practical experience.  Do you think that there is a danger that the skills being taught risk becoming detached from reality?  Consider the phone call game many of us played as kids, where one person is given a short message, to tell to another person around the room until at the end, the message is completely different.  Is this a risk?  If not, how do you keep the theoretical skills practical, when taught to you by someone who has never actually done them, taught to them by someone who has never actually done them, and so on.

Sukerkin, perhaps sword arts like yours are the best example of this, but I think it could apply to any art purporting to teach "self defense."


----------



## Rich Parsons

Steve said:


> We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense."  Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport.  We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense."
> 
> The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent.  Sport people train for sport.  Other people train for other things.
> 
> My question is simply this.  Can you train for something you never do?  Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?



Steve,

People can train for a competition and not compete. They might have a fear of the crowd and might be good at the competition in small numbers but just cannot do it on the large scale. So yes they can train for it and even learn enough the teach it. 

I see your question though, and as others have stated they train for situations and hope they never happen. They might even be teachers and therefor a recognized expert in the field. Yet if we walk, or jump down the slope to the bottom , one could state that one should not teach shooting unless they have shot someone. Some might even say they should at least have been shot it. Boot Camp uses live fire to get people used to this. The same goes with other weapon fighting. 

Personally, I have been shot at, stabbed, hit by moving vehicles, gone throw plate glass windows, and have had chains, bats, golf clubs, tire irons and you name type weapons swung at me, as well as multiple opponents. Having survived those and also during my training it was helpful for learning. But I always tell people it is better to NOT have had to use those skills. Those are the true winners. Even if they have never trained a day in their life. I am not an expert first aid, yet I have applied some training to those one second I was trying to take out as they were trying to take me out. Then the next I was able to make sure they were alive to so they could tell their tale. I applied what little I knew and it worked. 

So yes some people can train for something they never do. 


Now, to say I go and train for knife fighting or say I want to Sword fight "Sukerkin" and I never pick up a sword, then no I cannot train for something I never do.


----------



## Drasken

Dirty Dog said:


> No, there are not. No training will accurately replicate the physical and emotional responses of being faced by someone who is truly doing their best to kill you.



There ARE training methods that will give you the same adrenaline dump. Militaries all over the world actually use them. It is based on psychology.

Now that doesn't mean that you will be able to handle it if you are attacked, but this type of training helps you to train for the high amount of adrenaline that will be present in your system if you have to deal with it. In fact we have had several posts in which we have discussed such training methods and people, Chris Parker being one of them, have given links and examples.

People that have never experienced these methods don't quite get it. The fear and panic are not apparent to someone just watching. I was highly sceptical myself. But if your brain can be tricked into feeling like you are in serious danger, it will react accordingly. Keep in mind that it is meant thelp prepare. It is no guarantee. Just the same as sparring and various techniques of training are meant to help prepare yu for a self defense situation in which techniques are to be applied. There's no guarantee that it will work.


----------



## James Kovacich

Steve said:


> I think you've got a pretty distorted impression of people who train MMA, and of people who train in "traditional" martial arts, too.



Your free to think whatever you want. Most styles don't take hard contact seriously enough. That combined with the "if" they ever get in a real fight leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Where I live it is a hotbed for MMA and thats the direction that the youngsters are flocking to. The reason is to fight. It's not rocket science. 



Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

James Kovacich said:


> Your free to think whatever you want. Most styles don't take hard contact seriously enough. That combined with the "if" they ever get in a real fight leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Where I live it is a hotbed for MMA and thats the direction that the youngsters are flocking to. The reason is to fight. It's not rocket science.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


Perhaps the issue is where you live and not inherent to martial arts, whether traditional or otherwise.


----------



## arnisador

Drasken said:


> There ARE training methods that will give you the same adrenaline dump. Militaries all over the world actually use them.



You can do pretty well at this but you just can't fully replicate the not knowing if you'll live another 5 minutes aspect of a real encounter.


----------



## arnisador

Rich Parsons said:


> Personally, I have been shot at, stabbed, hit by moving vehicles, gone throw plate glass windows, and have had chains, bats, golf clubs, tire irons and you name type weapons swung at me, as well as multiple opponents.



I think that was actually Rasputin, dude.


----------



## Drasken

arnisador said:


> You can do pretty well at this but you just can't fully replicate the not knowing if you'll live another 5 minutes aspect of a real encounter.



No, you can't fully replicate it. Heck, would you really want to put yourself in that much danger?
But my point was that if your brain is tricked into THINKING you're about to face a life or death situation then you can get the adrenaline dump because your brain reacts as though it is real. It gets as close as possible without actually risking death.

Just like sparring, even full contact, can't fully replicate an actual fight. But it does help you prepare. It's a very valuable tool. But nothing can fully prepare you for the emotional toll for having to defend your life or hurt someone else.


----------



## Rich Parsons

arnisador said:


> I think that was actually Rasputin, dude.



Luck, I swear it was all luck, no Mysticism involved at all.


----------



## Big Don

James Kovacich said:


> The title of the thread instantly put in my mind Doomsday Preppers.



Heh. My first thought was Zombie apocalypse


----------



## Big Don

James Kovacich said:


> The title of the thread instantly put in my mind Doomsday Preppers.



Heh. My first thought was Zombie apocalypse


----------



## Dirty Dog

Drasken said:


> There ARE training methods that will give you the same adrenaline dump. Militaries all over the world actually use them. It is based on psychology.



No, there are not. There are techniques that can get you some degree of emotional response. They do not even come _*close*_ to duplicating the effects of a real confrontation. I doubt that anybody who has experienced both simulated and real attacks will disagree with me.


----------



## ralphmcpherson

I would have to say yes you can. I know of two guys who got into their first real "fight" after about twenty years of training, one was a fourth dan, the other a fifth dan. Both are smallish guys who I wouldnt consider 'strong' or natural fighters. Both fought off much larger attackers with ease, and in one case beat the attacker quite badly. Both are certain that without their training they didnt have a hope in hell.


----------



## Drasken

Dirty Dog said:


> No, there are not. There are techniques that can get you some degree of emotional response. They do not even come _*close*_ to duplicating the effects of a real confrontation. I doubt that anybody who has experienced both simulated and real attacks will disagree with me.



I have. And I disagree lol

There is a huge difference between training for adrenaline and "fight or flight" and dealing with the emotional issues that come from having to hurt someone. 
It isn't very difficult to be put in a simulated situation that tricks your brain. In such a situation you have little time to logically remember that you're in no danger.

It isn't 100% the same. But it gets as close as one can be safely. Such training is meant to force adrenaline into your system. It helps to train yourself to react in a life or death situation rather than panic. There ARE differences. I don't deny that. But even a full contact sparring match is no actual fight either. Heck, getting in the octagon isn't either for that matter, but those going through simulated training are often better off than those with absolutely no training.


And before you ask, I'm not claiming to be some big action hero tough guy. I have been attacked on the street twice. Once against two men, one with a knife. The second occurrence was a guy attacking me with a bat. It was a case of road rage.

My father also went crazy under the influence of Meth and attacked me with a knife. I still have a scar to remind me. He then later got a gun because I managed to get the knife away from him. He went for the gun as I was patching up my cut hand. My mom warned me of what he was doing, and I grabbed my own gun. He was later picked up and arrested.

A combo of training and luck got me out of these situations alive. I can tell you, that had I never trained to deal with massive adrenaline and keeping a level head I would likely not be here debating with you. The emotional issues that come from harming someone? Can't prepare for it. But arenaline dump? You can get really friggin close.


----------



## zilverkakashi

Drasken said:


> I have. And I disagree lol
> 
> There is a huge difference between training for adrenaline and "fight or flight" and dealing with the emotional issues that come from having to hurt someone.
> It isn't very difficult to be put in a simulated situation that tricks your brain. In such a situation you have little time to logically remember that you're in no danger.
> 
> It isn't 100% the same. But it gets as close as one can be safely. Such training is meant to force adrenaline into your system. It helps to train yourself to react in a life or death situation rather than panic. There ARE differences. I don't deny that. But even a full contact sparring match is no actual fight either. Heck, getting in the octagon isn't either for that matter, but those going through simulated training are often better off than those with absolutely no training.
> 
> 
> And before you ask, I'm not claiming to be some big action hero tough guy. I have been attacked on the street twice. Once against two men, one with a knife. The second occurrence was a guy attacking me with a bat. It was a case of road rage.
> 
> My father also went crazy under the influence of Meth and attacked me with a knife. I still have a scar to remind me. He then later got a gun because I managed to get the knife away from him. He went for the gun as I was patching up my cut hand. My mom warned me of what he was doing, and I grabbed my own gun. He was later picked up and arrested.
> 
> A combo of training and luck got me out of these situations alive. I can tell you, that had I never trained to deal with massive adrenaline and keeping a level head I would likely not be here debating with you. The emotional issues that come from harming someone? Can't prepare for it. But arenaline dump? You can get really friggin close.



i totally agree with this ^


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve said:


> We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense."  Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport.  We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense."
> 
> The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent.  Sport people train for sport.  Other people train for other things.
> 
> My question is simply this.  Can you train for something you never do?  Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?



Yes.

But the real question is, what are you defining as "something you've actually done"? I mean, like Sukerkin, I train sword (amongst other things), in fact, I'm dealing with a number of systems of sword... as well as various staff weapons, spears and other long-arms, projectile weapons, short impact weapons, short bladed weapons, composite weapons, chain weapons, and more, in addition to the various unarmed systems I train, which include both very old traditional systems and very much RBSD modern approaches, with the traditional including methods against weapons not found today, against attacks not common, from positions (such as some seated positions) that are just not what you would ever find yourself in in a modern Western context, often utilizing responses that might not be considered "legal" today, applying very damaging versions of techniques (throws that aim to drop the opponent on their head, or break the neck, or back, or break the arm halfway through the throw etc), and I've done every single thing I train. Thing is, I've done it in a training context....which includes considerations such as the safety of my training partners (if there are any... there aren't always), combined with the mentality of it being "real" at all times (that Sukerkin was talking about earlier). And that is "actually doing it". I don't need to break my training partners arm to know that their arm would break. I don't need to cut my training partner down with a real sword, or even crack them in the head with a bokken to know that what I've done is real, effective, powerful, and that I've "actually done it".

The thing is, who says that doing something in a sporting context is "actually doing it"? I certainly don't think it is anything other than doing it in a sporting context. And that's fine. But you have to realize what that really is... it's just a sporting systems method of testing applications of it's training approach. Non sporting systems do the same thing, they just do it differently. I've seen plenty of "sport" martial artists get slammed hard because the context (the set-up, the timeline, the distance, the forms of attack etc) are just too different in a real assault. Now, I don't think that's a failing of the system, or of the practitioner, just an indication that contexts are more important than technical approaches. Technical approaches are defined by the intended context... and sporting forms of testing application is just one context. It's not real, it's not "actually doing it" (other than actually doing it in a sporting context), it's not self defence (if that's the "actually doing it" you're talking about). If you train for sport, fantastic (and I know that's more your approach, Steve), but recognize that sport testing is just that... sport testing. Other approaches have other methods of testing. That doesn't make them any less "real", just a different form of "actually doing it".


Dirty Dog said:


> No, there are not. There are techniques that can get you some degree of emotional response. They do not even come _*close*_ to duplicating the effects of a real confrontation. I doubt that anybody who has experienced both simulated and real attacks will disagree with me.



And just to jump in on this....

Mark, honestly, I'd say you're unfamiliar with the training methods being discussed here. I use them (I teach and train them myself constantly), and I've been in a number of assaults (on the receiving end), and I will categorically state that yes, they do "come close" to the reality. They're designed to. It's their real purpose. It's a hell of a lot closer than sparring will ever be, but it really does need to be done properly. It's a lot more than just training what you think are "realistic attacks".


----------



## Tgace

All that being said..."everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face". 

Till you have experienced what it feels like to actually try to punch/kick someone with "bad intent" (read try to KO) or experienced what it's like to have someone throw those blows at you....you are kind of assuming you will be able to operate under circumstances you haven't actually experienced. THAS the advantage sports like MMA and boxing have. 

Not to mention experienceing the fatiuge that you experience in a full contact match. It's different from the physical effort less than full contact training requires. You havent experienced what "gassed" means till you have boxed a couple of 3 minute rounds.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hmm. I'd disagree with everything there except the quote. Sparring or competition doesn't show you what it's like to face someone with "bad intent", as that's not the aim. The aim is to win the competition, or to practice sparring. The intention is completely different. I'd also say that while it can certainly help a lot with endurance, the form of "gassing" in a real encounter is rather different to a sparring match, for a large range of reasons. So, no, that's not really good preparation for anything other than more of the same.


----------



## Zero

I'd have to agree, it's amazing what stress levels and mental pressure will do on a physical level, particularly when you have not been previously expossed to that.  When I first started competition I was very, very fit on a cardiovascular level and in good physical/muscular condition. It amazed me how quickly I gassed out though when fighting "less fit" but much more fight experienced opponents. Sure the base fitness did help me a lot but it did not compare to "fight" fitness and mental fitness.  Again, when I started MMA, my initial fight was "ok this guy is trying to punch me, now there is a kick, hell, now he is trying to do a take-down!" You get used to that as well.  Then you have competent RBSD or the like and it is "ok, this guy is high and is focused on stabbing me or gorging out my eye without concern for his own well-being". When you are faced with a concerted, relentless attack, suddenly you are gasing out in 30 seconds, not 3 minutes.  It is amazing the impact of mental stress on your physical state and it is amazing the difference of exertion involved in fighting off an individual soley concerned with doing you injury compared to five three minute rounds in the ring, during which opponents disengage, feint, regain composure, re-group and are separated by the umpire.


----------



## Tgace

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm. I'd disagree with everything there except the quote. Sparring or competition doesn't show you what it's like to face someone with "bad intent", as that's not the aim. The aim is to win the competition, or to practice sparring. The intention is completely different. I'd also say that while it can certainly help a lot with endurance, the form of "gassing" in a real encounter is rather different to a sparring match, for a large range of reasons. So, no, that's not really good preparation for anything other than more of the same.



When I was boxing (for a short time) it was amazing how after years of "martial arts"...thinking you can throw a punch...you discover that REALLY trying to land a power blow on a guy whos trying to land one on you is a whole different world from point sparring, limited contact sparring or "control" sparring. It's the closest you are going to get to the "real thing" without being in the real thing in terms of someone actually trying to put you down. Not something I wanted to do all of the time (KO's at my age? No thanks....) but it's an eyeopener. 

Many MA'ists like to believe sport has no "real world" value but most MA have never been (intentionally) KO'ed or KO'ed someone else. Theres value in actually taking and receiving full contact shots in a sporting environemnt and seeing how you react to someone actually trying to put your lights out. At lest as much value as there is in practicing "killing" moves against a non-resisting opponent.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense." Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport. We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense."
> 
> The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent. Sport people train for sport. Other people train for other things.
> 
> My question is simply this. Can you train for something you never do? Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?



Can we train for something?  Sure.  Will be we an expert at it?  Probably not, but I'd say that'd depend on how often we actually put those skills into play.  The average citizen can take a Red Cross First Aid/CPR course.  What do those last on average...a 1 day, 8hr course, maybe 2 days?  The odds of that person, while those skills are very important, may fail to recall something or freeze up, if they had to actually use it, whereas if you worked as a Doctor, an EMT, Firefighter, Paramedic, Nurse, etc., the odds of you putting those skills into play, are alot higher, IMHO.  

As for the sport/non sport debate..lol..I don't think that'll ever die.  Alot of sport guys have come from a TMA background.  Chuck Liddell is Kempo/Kaju, Machida (sp) comes from a TMA background.  I'd like to think that even if its something that they normally don't train, that they'd still be able or capable of defending themselves if someone pulled a knife on them.


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> When I was boxing (for a short time) it was amazing how after years of "martial arts"...thinking you can throw a punch...you discover that REALLY trying to land a power blow on a guy whos trying to land one on you is a whole different world from point sparring, limited contact sparring or "control" sparring. It's the closest you are going to get to the "real thing" without being in the real thing in terms of someone actually trying to put you down. Not something I wanted to do all of the time (KO's at my age? No thanks....) but it's an eyeopener.
> 
> Many MA'ists like to believe sport has no "real world" value but most MA have never been (intentionally) KO'ed or KO'ed someone else. Theres value in actually taking and receiving full contact shots in a sporting environemnt and seeing how you react to someone actually trying to put your lights out. At lest as much value as there is in practicing "killing" moves against a non-resisting opponent.




Funny you should say that.  After years of training Kenpo, when I made my switch to Kyokushin, I felt the same way.  OH sure, I'm in good shape, 20+yrs in Kenpo, yet I couldn't make it thru my first Kyokushin class.  I had adjustments made, for the better, to my blocks, punches and kicks.  Sparring...LOL..yes, quite a shock when you were so used to sparring guys in my old school that barely tapped you, yet the Kyokushin guys were throwing hard shots to the body and the legs.  

Almost 2 yrs later, and I see some drastic improvements in what I can do now, compared to before.


----------



## harlan

I like this analogy - of comparing martial arts training to a fire alarm drill. 



elder999 said:


> When I hired on at the nuke plant, I trained regularly to do things I hoped I'd never get to do, and never did. Later, I trained people to do those things, and hoped they'd never get to them, and they never did. Could they do them? Sure, they could have, If needed....Cops train regularly to do things they hope they never do, and some never do-others, in fact, do wind up doing those things, and pretty well......at Los Alamos, I regularly practiced and trained to do things I hoped I'd never have to do. On the other hand, can one be called an "expert" in arming a nuclear weapon if they've never actually armed an deployed one? Yes. I've also managed to get through a variety of armed assaults over the years-notably, I'd never actually stabbed anyone with a pen, until I did, but I'd trained to do so.......saved my life, I think....as for the rest of it, can competition training prepare one for self-defense? Yes, on a variety of levels-the competitive trainer is more likely to get hit, or hit the ground, and having experienced that shock and worked through it might serve them well. Likewise, actually hitting someone who is trying to actually hit them. On the other hand, such training might serve someone badly, dependent upon the situation. For myself, while not exactly "sport" training, with my primary training being in karate, judo and boxing, back in the time when I was mugged-or in "fights"-that training served me pretty well most of the time-in fact, my usual advice to someone seeking self defense training for their kids is to get them into judo and boxing.....


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> When I was boxing (for a short time) it was amazing how after years of "martial arts"...thinking you can throw a punch...you discover that REALLY trying to land a power blow on a guy whos trying to land one on you is a whole different world from point sparring, limited contact sparring or "control" sparring. It's the closest you are going to get to the "real thing" without being in the real thing in terms of someone actually trying to put you down. Not something I wanted to do all of the time (KO's at my age? No thanks....) but it's an eyeopener.
> 
> Many MA'ists like to believe sport has no "real world" value but most MA have never been (intentionally) KO'ed or KO'ed someone else. Theres value in actually taking and receiving full contact shots in a sporting environemnt and seeing how you react to someone actually trying to put your lights out. At lest as much value as there is in practicing "killing" moves against a non-resisting opponent.


This actually gets to one of the key questions I have.  

In boxing, you train to box.  The punching is trained to be executed at full power in a ring against an opponent.  You are training for that and you practice it.  Over and over.  You aren't training to street fight.  

*BUT,*here's the million dollar question.  Is any school REALLY teaching self defense, if the students _never defend themselves?  _If you're training to sword fight, but never actually sword fight, then are you training to fight with a sword?  

Could the skills translate?  Sure.  In the same way that a proficient boxer or MMAist can defend him or herself effectively using the skills learned in the gym, a kenpoist or whatever might also have skills that translate.  But there is a transition.  Isn't there?  Training in wing chun isn't the same as fighting with wing chun. Training in Iaido isn't the same as fighting with a sword.


----------



## harlan

That is what supplementary stuff is for. Weapons training without contact is only half of the syllabus.



Steve said:


> But there is a transition. Isn't there? Training in wing chun isn't the same as fighting with wing chun. Training in Iaido isn't the same as fighting with a sword.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Can we train for something?  Sure.  Will be we an expert at it?  Probably not, but I'd say that'd depend on how often we actually put those skills into play.  The average citizen can take a Red Cross First Aid/CPR course.  What do those last on average...a 1 day, 8hr course, maybe 2 days?  The odds of that person, while those skills are very important, may fail to recall something or freeze up, if they had to actually use it, whereas if you worked as a Doctor, an EMT, Firefighter, Paramedic, Nurse, etc., the odds of you putting those skills into play, are alot higher, IMHO.
> 
> As for the sport/non sport debate..lol..I don't think that'll ever die.  Alot of sport guys have come from a TMA background.  Chuck Liddell is Kempo/Kaju, Machida (sp) comes from a TMA background.  I'd like to think that even if its something that they normally don't train, that they'd still be able or capable of defending themselves if someone pulled a knife on them.


I don't know if I posted this or not, but the next question would be how removed from concrete expertise  one can be and still be confident that they are learning practical skills.  

Put it like this.  Let's say you're a veteran cop.  You've been at it for 20 years.  Are you an expert in every aspect of law enforcement?  Likely not, according to Tgace.  But, you're credible.  You've been there, and the skills you will teach (hard skills like firing a weapon or soft skills like critical thinking/decision making/conflict management) will be skills you've mastered through application.  The students you teach are learning practical skills, but are now 1 generation away from application.  They never use the skills in "real life," but continue to practice, and they teach students, who are now 2 generations away from application.  And so on.  

In martial arts, there are some students learning "self defense" who are 3, 4, 5 or more generations away from skills taught by someone who has enough real world application of the skills to be considered an "expert."  Does this matter?


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> That is what supplementary stuff is for. Weapons training without contact is only half of the syllabus.


What's the difference between weapons training with contact and training for a sport?  Aren't there still rules when you spar, however hard, in a school?  

Wouldn't the stakes of an actual sword fight make a huge difference?


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> This actually gets to one of the key questions I have.
> 
> In boxing, you train to box.  The punching is trained to be executed at full power in a ring against an opponent.  You are training for that and you practice it.  Over and over.  You aren't training to street fight.
> 
> *BUT,*here's the million dollar question.  Is any school REALLY teaching self defense, if the students _never defend themselves?  _If you're training to sword fight, but never actually sword fight, then are you training to fight with a sword?
> 
> Could the skills translate?  Sure.  In the same way that a proficient boxer or MMAist can defend him or herself effectively using the skills learned in the gym, a kenpoist or whatever might also have skills that translate.  But there is a transition.  Isn't there?  Training in wing chun isn't the same as fighting with wing chun. Training in Iaido isn't the same as fighting with a sword.



You seem to be implying that I think boxing is better for self defense...therefore study boxing. All I'm saying is that boxers\MMA really hit people, take punches, and are used to fighting while taking real blows. I think that's a valuable defensive trait those guys pick up in their arts. To be honest...id take a fit, conditioned boxer with me into a bar fight call over a MA who only point sparred anyday. 

Sure any MA can impart valuable skills...but not all skills are equally useful IMO. No offense intended to our Iado practiconers, but boxing is much closer to fighting than Iado is to a real sword fight. All MA'ists could benefit from a trip to a boxing ring for even just a month or two to put the experience under their belts...don't have to do it forever, but trying it may change the way you see\train your primary art.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## harlan

Steve...what is your experience with (albeit, archaic) 'weapons' study?



Steve said:


> What's the difference between weapons training with contact and training for a sport? Aren't there still rules when you spar, however hard, in a school?
> 
> Wouldn't the stakes of an actual sword fight make a huge difference?


----------



## Zero

Tgace said:


> Sure any MA can impart valuable skills...but not all skills are equally useful IMO. No offense intended to our Iado practiconers, but boxing is much closer to fighting than Iado is to a real sword fight. All MA'ists could benefit from a trip to a boxing ring for even just a month or two to put the experience under their belts...don't have to do it forever, but trying it may change the way you see\train your primary art.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


Generally I would agree with wanting to be with a conditioned, fight experienced boxer over a point fighter if it came to a bar brawl but it needs to be remembdered that many MAs do train hard and fight full contact in tournament - kyokoshin (I hate no punching to head but that topic has been done before), muay thai, some kickboxing styles and events are all as full contact as a boxing event - and now days obviously MMA/UFC etc. I would probably prefer to have a Pride fighter in my corner such as Fedor over most heavy weight boxing champs if it came to a bar brawl or lawless/ruleless fight in the street.

Other than that, I agree that having experienced full contact must to some extent better prepare you for a street fight or SD, than not having done so (from my own personal experience I would say so hands down)...although that said, way back in the day in a SD / potential street fight I was involved in (I was cornered and about to get jumped by four guys as I had ran across the street and accidently knocked over one of their kid-brothers on the curb and unfortunately hurt him) when I was a teenager and only had TKD training/really just point fighting (and judo as a kid) to draw on, I ended up lashing out a combo of punches and felled three of them without even knowing what I had done, it just went bam, bam, bam.  However, this was not life or death (although could have been I guess if I ended on the ground and they put in a stomping) and maybe their intent was not actually there but they had managed to corner me and I felt I was about to get a hammering. We never really did much on boxing combos or training in my TKD club. So who really knows what you draw on when it comes down to the line...


----------



## jasonbrinn

Steve said:


> I don't know if I posted this or not, but the next question would be how removed from concrete expertise  one can be and still be confident that they are learning practical skills.
> 
> Put it like this.  Let's say you're a veteran cop.  You've been at it for 20 years.  Are you an expert in every aspect of law enforcement?  Likely not, according to Tgace.  But, you're credible.  You've been there, and the skills you will teach (hard skills like firing a weapon or soft skills like critical thinking/decision making/conflict management) will be skills you've mastered through application.  The students you teach are learning practical skills, but are now 1 generation away from application.  They never use the skills in "real life," but continue to practice, and they teach students, who are now 2 generations away from application.  And so on.
> 
> In martial arts, there are some students learning "self defense" who are 3, 4, 5 or more generations away from skills taught by someone who has enough real world application of the skills to be considered an "expert."  Does this matter?



It only matters as much as the elements involved change.  Most self defense systems teach concepts and techniques based on human anatomy and hopefully basic physics principles and these things will remain relevant until either of those change or some other factor becomes so prevalent as to make them change.

However, I believe this is an interesting fact within your line of questions.  How do we as martial artists become aware of changing factors without regularly pressure testing our concepts and techniques?  I feel that there is not any honest way to keep training relevant without persistent testing and retesting in the environment or situations we hope to find the material useful.  If you want to know whether your boxing works you should box a little every now and then 

"Let what works be the judge for what's right"  Bruce Lee.

Jason Brinn


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> You seem to be implying that I think boxing is better for self defense...therefore study boxing.


Didn't mean to imply anything, and in fact, I was trying to articulate the opposite point, which is that boxers don't train to street fight.  They train specifically to box against boxers.





> All I'm saying is that boxers\MMA really hit people, take punches, and are used to fighting while taking real blows. I think that's a valuable defensive trait those guys pick up in their arts. To be honest...id take a fit, conditioned boxer with me into a bar fight call over a MA who only point sparred anyday.


Exactly.  We're saying the same thing, I think.


----------



## Drasken

Tgace said:


> You seem to be implying that I think boxing is better for self defense...therefore study boxing. All I'm saying is that boxers\MMA really hit people, take punches, and are used to fighting while taking real blows. I think that's a valuable defensive trait those guys pick up in their arts. To be honest...id take a fit, conditioned boxer with me into a bar fight call over a MA who only point sparred anyday.
> 
> Sure any MA can impart valuable skills...but not all skills are equally useful IMO. No offense intended to our Iado practiconers, but boxing is much closer to fighting than Iado is to a real sword fight. All MA'ists could benefit from a trip to a boxing ring for even just a month or two to put the experience under their belts...don't have to do it forever, but trying it may change the way you see\train your primary art.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



I agree that in GENERAL an MMA fighter or Boxer is generally more prepared due to how they train and fight in the ring. However keep in mind that many actual traditional martial arts schools actually do full contact sparring. In fact the Aikido dojo I went to did full contact sparring. But I believe that to be a rarity in Aikido, but the full contact was imphasized due to our sensei being an old marine.

I have always said it has more to do with training than style. Being primarily from a Krav Maga background, I can't see honest self defense training without full contact sparring being a part of it.

My point is, that assuming that a traditional martial artist does no full contact stuff is not entirely accurate. Especially with the trend in martial arts now, with the popularity of MMA, many schools are teaching in a more realistic manner.


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Steve...what is your experience with (albeit, archaic) 'weapons' study?


I would say about none.  I've had some experience, but nothing beyond beginner level stuff.  Why do you ask?


----------



## Steve

Drasken said:


> I agree that in GENERAL an MMA fighter or Boxer is generally more prepared due to how they train and fight in the ring. However keep in mind that many actual traditional martial arts schools actually do full contact sparring. In fact the Aikido dojo I went to did full contact sparring. But I believe that to be a rarity in Aikido, but the full contact was imphasized due to our sensei being an old marine.
> 
> I have always said it has more to do with training than style. Being primarily from a Krav Maga background, I can't see honest self defense training without full contact sparring being a part of it.
> 
> My point is, that assuming that a traditional martial artist does no full contact stuff is not entirely accurate. Especially with the trend in martial arts now, with the popularity of MMA, many schools are teaching in a more realistic manner.


What if you approach it from the other side?  MMA is a sport, and training in MMA teaches the participants the skills needed to compete in MMA.  And people who train in MMA, even if they aren't fighting in the cage, are participating in the sport of MMA.  They grapple, they clinch, they strike.  They do the drills, spar and perform the full range of sport.  There are varying levels of intensity, but training in MMA results in getting better at MMA.  It's not self defense training, although it would certainly teach some valuable skills.  It's MMA.  

And you can replace MMA with anything.   The guitar is a musical instrument.  I may not ever be a professional musician, but if I practice the guitar and play songs with the guitar and apply myself to learning the art of the guitar, I will get better at playing the guitar.  Will the skills translate to playing the tenor banjo?  Not all, but some.  The connection isn't direct, but it's there. The tenor banjo can be tuned like a guitar, minus two strings.  So, I will need to learn some new chords, but the transition will be a lot smoother.  But I'm not learning to play the Tenor Banjo.  I'm learning to play the guitar.  They're not the same.  

So, then, what am I doing when I learn Krav Maga?  Am I not learning the skills which will make me better at Krav Maga?  Could those skills translate to self defense?  Sure.  But am I learning self defense?  No.  I'm learning Krav Maga.  It's a subtle, but important distinction, IMO.


----------



## harlan

Thanks...especially for not biting my head off! (I realized after posting that my question could be taken negatively.)

As I read through the thread, I am personally inclined to keep seperate the question of empty-hand vs. weapon training. Even that seems like such a large field...as I personally keep koryu and more plebian arts mentally seperate and might consider the question/s you are framing can't be answered in the same way (as with empty-hand). Just thinking here...I mean....does one really mean to ask if sword arts need to be trained to an 'expert' level using the same criteria as karate?



Steve said:


> I would say about none. I've had some experience, but nothing beyond beginner level stuff. Why do you ask?


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Thanks...especially for not biting my head off! (I realized after posting that my question could be taken negatively.)
> 
> As I read through the thread, I am personally inclined to keep seperate the question of empty-hand vs. weapon training. Even that seems like such a large field...as I personally keep koryu and more plebian arts mentally seperate and might consider the question/s you are framing can't be answered in the same way (as with empty-hand). Just thinking here...I mean....does one really mean to ask if sword arts need to be trained to an 'expert' level using the same criteria as karate?


I don't take any of this stuff personally and, although I'm not perfect, I try to presume good intent.  

As to your questions, this is what I'm interested in discussing.  My personal belief is that there is no functional difference in the way human beings develop expertise in anything.  While there are practical considerations, such as aptitude, complexity of the skillset, time, immersion, related/transferable expertise and the quality of the instruction/curriculum, the way the human brain processes new information and the way that the human body acquires facility with new skills is the same.  

So, in other words, learning a sword art will be different in many ways to learning a non-weapon art, but the way that a person learns is the same.  At least, that's my belief.


----------



## James Kovacich

Steve said:


> but the way that a person learns is the same.  At least, that's my belief.


Are you suggesting that the training method does not matter?


Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog

Make up your mind, dude. You keep saying you can duplicate the effects of a real life or death attack and, in the same post, that it's not the same. All I have said is that it is NOT the same and that it cannot be the same. Better than nothing, sure, but it's not the same.




Drasken said:


> *No, you can't fully replicate it*. Heck, would you really want to put yourself in that much danger?
> But my point was that if your brain is tricked into THINKING you're about to face a life or death situation then you can get the adrenaline dump because your brain reacts as though it is real. It gets as close as possible without actually risking death.
> 
> Just like sparring, even full contact, can't fully replicate an actual fight. But it does help you prepare. It's a very valuable tool. But nothing can fully prepare you for the emotional toll for having to defend your life or hurt someone else.





Drasken said:


> I have. And I disagree lol
> 
> There is a huge difference between training for adrenaline and "fight or flight" and dealing with the emotional issues that come from having to hurt someone.
> It isn't very difficult to be put in a simulated situation that tricks your brain. In such a situation you have little time to logically remember that you're in no danger.
> 
> *It isn't 100% the same.* But it gets as close as one can be safely. Such training is meant to force adrenaline into your system. It helps to train yourself to react in a life or death situation rather than panic. There ARE differences. I don't deny that. But even a full contact sparring match is no actual fight either. Heck, getting in the octagon isn't either for that matter, but those going through simulated training are often better off than those with absolutely no training.
> 
> 
> And before you ask, I'm not claiming to be some big action hero tough guy. I have been attacked on the street twice. Once against two men, one with a knife. The second occurrence was a guy attacking me with a bat. It was a case of road rage.
> 
> My father also went crazy under the influence of Meth and attacked me with a knife. I still have a scar to remind me. He then later got a gun because I managed to get the knife away from him. He went for the gun as I was patching up my cut hand. My mom warned me of what he was doing, and I grabbed my own gun. He was later picked up and arrested.
> 
> A combo of training and luck got me out of these situations alive. I can tell you, that had I never trained to deal with massive adrenaline and keeping a level head I would likely not be here debating with you. The emotional issues that come from harming someone? Can't prepare for it. But arenaline dump? You can get really friggin close.



So what part of "you cannot duplicate the real deal" do you disagree with?


----------



## Drasken

The whole point I was arguing is that there are techniques that prepare you. And will replicate the adrenaline dump accompanying a life or death situation. The adrenal dump CAN be fully replicated without any actual danger being present. Your brain just to PERCEIVE danger.
However the emotional effects are never able to be TRUELY replicated. People don't realize the emotional toll it takes on a person to have to harm someone. The first time I had to hurt someone was my father at the age of 13. I was slightly hesitant, though he was methed out of his mind and really trying to kill me. My hesitation got me hurt, though I was able to react and do what was necissary. The emotional aspect was the hardest to overcome. Even though I was confident that I would be able to do it without hesitation. That opened my eyes.

But the adrenaline was what I was referring to. And that can be replicated. Your first post seemed like you were contradicting that point, which I adamantly disagree with as I have unfortunately had experience in this.
So I suppose this whole thing may have just been mixed up communication?


----------



## Steve

James Kovacich said:


> Are you suggesting that the training method does not matter?
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2



I'm saying that there is no secret to how people learn.  Some training methods recognize this better than others.  But training, regardless of how good, will only get you so far.  To develop expertise in something, you must do that thing.

Lets say you have a drivers license but have only ever driven an automatic.  I can explain how to drive a stick shift.  I can do it poorly or I can do it well.  But no matter how convincingly you can describe it, you still can't do it. 

Next step.  I can show you how to drive a stick shift.  While you might be able to mimic the motion of shifting gears and pushing the clutch, you still can't do it.

Next step.  I let you start and stop and shift gears in a wide open, empty parking lot.  You are getting there, but you still can't drive.  This step is where I see most martial arts training stopping.  But it's not good enough...  You need to drive a stick.  

So what's missing?  In order to marry your previously acquired expertise in the rules of the road to your newly acquired skills shifting a manual transmission, you have to take the car out into traffic.  And only by shifting in traffic hundreds... Thousands of times, will it become second nature.  

Now, at each step, how I train you matters.  It can be fast or slow, effective or ineffective.  But that is irrelevant to the steps it takes to become more than a novice.  

And to extend some other points brought up, how effective of an instructor would I be if I am teaching you to drive a stick, but I've only ever driven in a parking lot?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Dirty Dog

Drasken said:


> The whole point I was arguing is that there are techniques that prepare you. And will replicate the adrenaline dump accompanying a life or death situation. The adrenal dump CAN be fully replicated without any actual danger being present. Your brain just to PERCEIVE danger.



It cannot be replicated. A similar, but significantly less extreme, reaction may be induced, but this is not, and cannot be, a duplicate for the response to a real situation. In all simulations, you KNOW you're not really going to die or be seriously hurt. If you didn't, then you'd really try to seriously hurt or kill the person(s) simulating the attack. That is my point. You can TRY, and that's better than nothing, but you cannot duplicate the response.

Maybe when we achieve a true virtual reality it will be possible. But at this point? No. It's not possible.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve, you asked about how many "generations" away from real practical testing we can get without the teachings losing effectiveness. 
Excellent question. I don't know that we can really answer it though. The suggestion that the more generations removed we are from actual testing, the more likely we are to have allowed "drift" to creep in and alter the technique (and it's effectiveness) is sound. But the only way I can think of to test the hypothesis is to use them "for real" and compare the results from various generational distances. 
If we could do that, the question would never arise.
I think the only thing we can do is consider our techniques and consider not only how we use them in sparring, but how they might be used in a life or death situation. Training with a BOB or somesuch might help somewhat in that you can alter target areas to more lethal ones, but it's certainly not a replacement for real application. Same thing applies to limited contact sparring using the more lethal targets.


----------



## Drasken

Dirty Dog said:


> It cannot be replicated. A similar, but significantly less extreme, reaction may be induced, but this is not, and cannot be, a duplicate for the response to a real situation. In all simulations, you KNOW you're not really going to die or be seriously hurt. If you didn't, then you'd really try to seriously hurt or kill the person(s) simulating the attack. That is my point. You can TRY, and that's better than nothing, but you cannot duplicate the response.
> 
> Maybe when we achieve a true virtual reality it will be possible. But at this point? No. It's not possible.



Well, rather than argue with you on something you have obviously never been put through I will allow you to have your opinion. Even though I believe, from my own experience and understanding of the psychology of this training, that you are wrong.

As to seriously trying to harm someone during this training, it happens. Thus people are closely watched and all attempts are made to preserve safety of all involved. Including safety equipment in many cases.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Drasken said:


> Well, rather than argue with you on something you have obviously never been put through
> 
> Actually, you are incorrect. I have been through it, and am regularly exposed to confrontations with people who would have no qualms at all about harming me.





Drasken said:


> I will allow you to have your opinion.



Well gosh, that's mighty nice of you. In that case, you have my permission to have an opinion as well.



Drasken said:


> Even though I believe, from my own experience and understanding of the psychology of this training, that you are wrong.
> 
> As to seriously trying to harm someone during this training, it happens. Thus people are closely watched and all attempts are made to preserve safety of all involved. Including safety equipment in many cases.



And the very fact that this equipment and supervision is in use and possible confirms what I said - you KNOW it's a simulation and your responses are not the same. You will get SOME adrenalin. But you will NOT get the same level of response as from a real live or death situation.


----------



## James Kovacich

Steve said:


> I'm saying that there is no secret to how people learn.  Some training methods recognize this better than others.  But training, regardless of how good, will only get you so far.  To develop expertise in something, you must do that thing.
> 
> Lets say you have a drivers license but have only ever driven an automatic.  I can explain how to drive a stick shift.  I can do it poorly or I can do it well.  But no matter how convincingly you can describe it, you still can't do it.
> 
> Next step.  I can show you how to drive a stick shift.  While you might be able to mimic the motion of shifting gears and pushing the clutch, you still can't do it.
> 
> Next step.  I let you start and stop and shift gears in a wide open, empty parking lot.  You are getting there, but you still can't drive.  This step is where I see most martial arts training stopping.  But it's not good enough...  You need to drive a stick.
> 
> So what's missing?  In order to marry your previously acquired expertise in the rules of the road to your newly acquired skills shifting a manual transmission, you have to take the car out into traffic.  And only by shifting in traffic hundreds... Thousands of times, will it become second nature.
> 
> Now, at each step, how I train you matters.  It can be fast or slow, effective or ineffective.  But that is irrelevant to the steps it takes to become more than a novice.
> 
> And to extend some other points brought up, how effective of an instructor would I be if I am teaching you to drive a stick, but I've only ever driven in a parking lot?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



So we agree that the training that is most realistic is key. Techniques can be accumulated, practiced and ingrained in any training method but somethings missing if we fail to try it out in the lab. 

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

Dirty Dog said:


> Steve, you asked about how many "generations" away from real practical testing we can get without the teachings losing effectiveness.
> Excellent question. I don't know that we can really answer it though. The suggestion that the more generations removed we are from actual testing, the more likely we are to have allowed "drift" to creep in and alter the technique (and it's effectiveness) is sound. But the only way I can think of to test the hypothesis is to use them "for real" and compare the results from various generational distances.
> If we could do that, the question would never arise.
> I think the only thing we can do is consider our techniques and consider not only how we use them in sparring, but how they might be used in a life or death situation. Training with a BOB or somesuch might help somewhat in that you can alter target areas to more lethal ones, but it's certainly not a replacement for real application. Same thing applies to limited contact sparring using the more lethal targets.


There's another possibility.  We can be more specific about what we are teaching and what we are learning.  This is where I see sport arts as having a head start.  They teach to the test, so to speak. 

In BJJ, lineage speaks to the quality of instruction, something that James Kovacich brought up.  But, if I train under a BJJ legend, am I then a legend by proxy?  Of course not.  In fact, my BJJ legend instructor might be a terrible coach.  So, it's important in BJJ to test yourself from time to time and see what's what.  And, fortunately, the tests are easy to come by.  We spar.  We compete.  We train for the test, and we routinely apply our skills in context.

Other sports do the same.  But, how do you test your self defense skills without ever defending yourself?  How do you test your sword fighting skills without dueling with swords?  

And, the same could be said with marksman skills.  While a police office might never draw his sidearm, a soldier might see combat routinely in a time of war.  Wouldn't the soldier be more expert in the area of marksmanship while under fire than the average, domestic LEO?  

I want to be clear, I'm asking.  While I might be posting assertions without a question mark at the end, I'm not fixed on anything and am really interested in hearing alternatives.


----------



## Steve

James Kovacich said:


> So we agree that the training that is most realistic is key. Techniques can be accumulated, practiced and ingrained in any training method but somethings missing if we fail to try it out in the lab.
> 
> Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


To be more specific, I'd say that there are many ways to go about training effectively.  But the important point I'm driving at is that training can only get you to a certain point.  


Knowing -->  Understanding --> Doing --> Mastering --> Evaluating -->  Innovating

This is how I see the learning process.  You can't understand something you don't know.  You can't do something you don't understand.  You can't master something you've never done.  And nevermind the evaluation and innovation stages, which can't happen if you haven't internalized the skills to the point that you can improve on them.


----------



## Drasken

Dirty Dog said:


> Well gosh, that's mighty nice of you. In that case, you have my permission to have an opinion as well.
> 
> 
> 
> And the very fact that this equipment and supervision is in use and possible confirms what I said - you KNOW it's a simulation and your responses are not the same. You will get SOME adrenalin. But you will NOT get the same level of response as from a real live or death situation.



I can see your logic. However I will also say to look up these methods. There have been threads about it. You will find most of them in the discussions about knife defense if I remember correctly. You'd be surprised how easily the brain can be tricked into forgetting the safe setting a person is in, and how easily fight or flight mode can be activated.
People overestimate the brain's capability to default to logic in a stressful situation. I can tell you from personal experience that the adrenaline dump from this training is indeed on par witha real confrontation in most cases. I have felt the adrenaline from both training and real life.

Your opinion is your own, however I would also say that until you go through both situations as I, and MANY other people have, that your opinion is based mainly on a logical idea but not true understanding. I don't fault you for this as I felt very much the same way until I had experienced it myself.

It is what it is, and I feel nothing else can come from this debate other than repeating ourselves and progressing from debate into a pointless argument. So I believe out of respect that we should agree to disagree and leave it at that


----------



## Dirty Dog

Steve said:


> There's another possibility. We can be more specific about what we are teaching and what we are learning. This is where I see sport arts as having a head start. They teach to the test, so to speak.
> 
> In BJJ, lineage speaks to the quality of instruction, something that James Kovacich brought up. But, if I train under a BJJ legend, am I then a legend by proxy? Of course not. In fact, my BJJ legend instructor might be a terrible coach. So, it's important in BJJ to test yourself from time to time and see what's what. And, fortunately, the tests are easy to come by. We spar. We compete. We train for the test, and we routinely apply our skills in context.
> 
> Other sports do the same. But, how do you test your self defense skills without ever defending yourself? How do you test your sword fighting skills without dueling with swords?



You cannot test your own execution of these skills in a real situation without BEING in a real situation. Sparring/simulations/dream walking/whatever can certainly help, but nothing totally duplicates a real world experience except a real world experience.

Does that we we shouldn't TRY? Absolutely not. Sparring helps, and it's even fun. So put away your steel and do some free sparring with shinai. It's not perfect, but it's the best available option.



Steve said:


> And, the same could be said with marksman skills. While a police office might never draw his sidearm, a soldier might see combat routinely in a time of war. Wouldn't the soldier be more expert in the area of marksmanship while under fire than the average, domestic LEO?



Probably.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tgace said:


> When I was boxing (for a short time) it was amazing how after years of "martial arts"...thinking you can throw a punch...you discover that REALLY trying to land a power blow on a guy whos trying to land one on you is a whole different world from point sparring, limited contact sparring or "control" sparring. It's the closest you are going to get to the "real thing" without being in the real thing in terms of someone actually trying to put you down. Not something I wanted to do all of the time (KO's at my age? No thanks....) but it's an eyeopener.



Nope. You can get closer. I'm not saying it's not an eye-opener (it is, and is highly recommended), but it's not really an analogue for an assault. There are other methods for that. 



Tgace said:


> Many MA'ists like to believe sport has no "real world" value but most MA have never been (intentionally) KO'ed or KO'ed someone else.



I have. Does that count?



Tgace said:


> Theres value in actually taking and receiving full contact shots in a sporting environemnt and seeing how you react to someone actually trying to put your lights out. At lest as much value as there is in practicing "killing" moves against a non-resisting opponent.



See, now, here's the issue.... who ever said these things were practiced against "non-resisting opponents"? If they are, then maybe it's time to look at the way things are supposed to be done... compliant doesn't mean non-resistant, it means that both parties are working towards the same end, and helping each other. That's very different to not resisting, as no resistance (within the context of the training) means that there's nothing for the training to work against, and it just doesn't work that way. The opponent should be actively trying to hurt/injure/kill (depending on the training drill) the defender... and if the defenders technique isn't working, it shouldn't work. 

I have to say, the idea of compliant training is probably the least understood I've come across, especially by any who train sporting or sparring systems.



Steve said:


> This actually gets to one of the key questions I have.
> 
> In boxing, you train to box.  The punching is trained to be executed at full power in a ring against an opponent.  You are training for that and you practice it.  Over and over.  You aren't training to street fight.
> 
> *BUT,*here's the million dollar question.  Is any school REALLY teaching self defense, if the students _never defend themselves?  _If you're training to sword fight, but never actually sword fight, then are you training to fight with a sword?
> 
> Could the skills translate?  Sure.  In the same way that a proficient boxer or MMAist can defend him or herself effectively using the skills learned in the gym, a kenpoist or whatever might also have skills that translate.  But there is a transition.  Isn't there?  Training in wing chun isn't the same as fighting with wing chun. Training in Iaido isn't the same as fighting with a sword.



The problem with this way of thinking is that you're not comparing the same types of thing. I know that it's easy to try to group them together, but they aren't really that similar (contextually). But, to answer your questions, yes, they are teaching self defence, yes, you are training to fight with a sword, no, training in boxing or MMA isn't training to defend yourself with either (so arguing that they are training to "actually do it" isn't correct either, as they aren't training for self defence), and yes, training in Iaido is the same as fighting with a sword (in it's ideal context).



Steve said:


> I don't know if I posted this or not, but the next question would be how removed from concrete expertise  one can be and still be confident that they are learning practical skills.
> 
> Put it like this.  Let's say you're a veteran cop.  You've been at it for 20 years.  Are you an expert in every aspect of law enforcement?  Likely not, according to Tgace.  But, you're credible.  You've been there, and the skills you will teach (hard skills like firing a weapon or soft skills like critical thinking/decision making/conflict management) will be skills you've mastered through application.  The students you teach are learning practical skills, but are now 1 generation away from application.  They never use the skills in "real life," but continue to practice, and they teach students, who are now 2 generations away from application.  And so on.
> 
> In martial arts, there are some students learning "self defense" who are 3, 4, 5 or more generations away from skills taught by someone who has enough real world application of the skills to be considered an "expert."  Does this matter?



The problem with this is that you're equating experience with expertise. They're related, but not always directly the way you're implying.



Steve said:


> What's the difference between weapons training with contact and training for a sport?  Aren't there still rules when you spar, however hard, in a school?
> 
> Wouldn't the stakes of an actual sword fight make a huge difference?



That's where different training methodologies (other than sparring) come into it.



Tgace said:


> You seem to be implying that I think boxing is better for self defense...therefore study boxing. All I'm saying is that boxers\MMA really hit people, take punches, and are used to fighting while taking real blows. I think that's a valuable defensive trait those guys pick up in their arts. To be honest...id take a fit, conditioned boxer with me into a bar fight call over a MA who only point sparred anyday.



While I don't disagree with anything there, there are others I'd pick over the boxer (or MMA practitioner), and certainly other training methods I'd pick over theirs. It'd include many of the same things, or similar, but there'd be a definite difference in the approach, design, set-up, and more. 



Tgace said:


> Sure any MA can impart valuable skills...but not all skills are equally useful IMO. No offense intended to our Iado practiconers, but boxing is much closer to fighting than Iado is to a real sword fight. All MA'ists could benefit from a trip to a boxing ring for even just a month or two to put the experience under their belts...don't have to do it forever, but trying it may change the way you see\train your primary art.



No, boxing isn't, for the record. And I'm saying that as both an Iai student and someone who's trained in a boxing gym for a while. I agree that some boxing training is highly beneficial, but not entirely for the same reasons you're putting forth. I will say that (physically) boxing gives more applicable skills, but that's not the same thing.


----------



## harlan

Instead of trying to define what an 'expert' is, I think the OP should simply acknowledge that all studies and students will have 'gaps' in their training. Grasping at the idea that somehow someone that deals with violence on any kind of scale, whether it's a survivor of war, domestic assault, or a street-experienced police officer (or even someone that is an LEO and so automatically rates as an 'expert') and are somehow 'better' for addressing 'real-world' violence is an unexamined bias (for the most part).

Continuously 'upping the ante' for 'preferred credentials' for survival simply don't take into account...luck; Surviving the vast field of 'potential violent actions' cannot be reduced to a simplistic heirarchy of 'credentials'. If that was so, we'd all have to take a back seat to the chest-thumping of individuals touting this or that 'experience'. 

Specialist, or generalist, it's about gaps, and continuously addressing them. Everybody has them, which is why we get together to train, and talk and maybe see outside of our particular boxes.


----------



## Tgace

Drasken said:


> The whole point I was arguing is that there are techniques that prepare you. And will replicate the adrenaline dump accompanying a life or death situation. The adrenal dump CAN be fully replicated without any actual danger being present. Your brain just to PERCEIVE danger.
> However the emotional effects are never able to be TRUELY replicated. People don't realize the emotional toll it takes on a person to have to harm someone. The first time I had to hurt someone was my father at the age of 13. I was slightly hesitant, though he was methed out of his mind and really trying to kill me. My hesitation got me hurt, though I was able to react and do what was necissary. The emotional aspect was the hardest to overcome. Even though I was confident that I would be able to do it without hesitation. That opened my eyes.
> 
> But the adrenaline was what I was referring to. And that can be replicated. Your first post seemed like you were contradicting that point, which I adamantly disagree with as I have unfortunately had experience in this.
> So I suppose this whole thing may have just been mixed up communication?



I agree with you. The military and LE have been successfuly "simulating" combat for training for YEARS now with pretty decent results. Simunituions/Airsoft, video simulations, scenario training, "box drills" etc. are extremely valuable in showing students/soldiers/LEO what happens to your range/dojo training when you have to apply it under stress. The same sort of value MMA/grappling/boxing gives in seeing how punching and getting punched really works vs your typical dojo session.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> I appreciate all of the responses.  I think that the points regarding the context are really good ones, made by Tgace and a few others.  It seems that expertise on a broader level, such as being a veteran cop, is as much a function of experience as it is knowing how to do specific things.
> 
> The points you've all made are solid and I largely agree.  But that leads me to another question, which is this.  I get that being a veteran cop means a broad range of experience and perhaps specific expertise in a few areas.  Same might go for being a veteran RN, like DD or Celtic.  DD mentioned teaching a person how to put a chest tube into a side of beef.  It's close to the real thing, but not quite.  If you've learned it from someone who has actual experience with it, let's say your experience is 2nd generation.  You never actually put in a chest tube, but have practiced it over and over and then you teach someone.  That person is 3rd generation.  They practice it over and over and then teach someone else, a 4th generation.  Then a 5th.
> 
> Applying that to martial arts, many martial arts instructors are many generations removed from the practical experience.  Do you think that there is a danger that the skills being taught risk becoming detached from reality?  Consider the phone call game many of us played as kids, where one person is given a short message, to tell to another person around the room until at the end, the message is completely different.  Is this a risk?  If not, how do you keep the theoretical skills practical, when taught to you by someone who has never actually done them, taught to them by someone who has never actually done them, and so on.
> 
> Sukerkin, perhaps sword arts like yours are the best example of this, but I think it could apply to any art purporting to teach "self defense."



I wonder about this too. While trad arts like to talk about "direct transmission" and "preserving ancient arts"....if we had time machines I'd bet my fortune that their arts are not as "unchanged" as they like to think.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> I don't know if I posted this or not, but the next question would be how removed from concrete expertise one can be and still be confident that they are learning practical skills.
> 
> Put it like this. Let's say you're a veteran cop. You've been at it for 20 years. Are you an expert in every aspect of law enforcement? Likely not, according to Tgace. But, you're credible. You've been there, and the skills you will teach (hard skills like firing a weapon or soft skills like critical thinking/decision making/conflict management) will be skills you've mastered through application. The students you teach are learning practical skills, but are now 1 generation away from application. They never use the skills in "real life," but continue to practice, and they teach students, who are now 2 generations away from application. And so on.
> 
> In martial arts, there are some students learning "self defense" who are 3, 4, 5 or more generations away from skills taught by someone who has enough real world application of the skills to be considered an "expert." Does this matter?



Good points Steve.  To use the martial arts analogy...one would possibly get more out of training with Rickson himself, rather than the student of a student of a student, etc. lol.  I'd like to think though, that if you've been a cop for 20yrs, that while you may not know everything, that you'd be pretty damn close.  Then again, just like there're crappy martial artists...well, you see where I'm going.  

My suggestion would be: if one is serious about training, even if that day never comes, do anything and everything, to keep your training as real as possible.  Yes, I know when people read that, the next thing they tend to say is, "Well, you can replicate things 100% real life!"  Umm...yes, no kidding! LOL!.  However, LEOs, firefighters, Military, they all do training scenarios that put them as close as possible, and IMO, if it works for them, it'll work for the serious martial artist.

Just my .02.


----------



## MJS

Dirty Dog said:


> It cannot be replicated. A similar, but significantly less extreme, reaction may be induced, but this is not, and cannot be, a duplicate for the response to a real situation. In all simulations, you KNOW you're not really going to die or be seriously hurt. If you didn't, then you'd really try to seriously hurt or kill the person(s) simulating the attack. That is my point. You can TRY, and that's better than nothing, but you cannot duplicate the response.
> 
> Maybe when we achieve a true virtual reality it will be possible. But at this point? No. It's not possible.



I see the point he's trying to make though.  Peyton Quinn did it with his adrenal stress conditioning.  Sure, the guy wearing the padded suit, really isn't going to rape you, stab you, etc, but the idea is to trick the mind into really thinking that you are going to die, get raped, stabbed, etc.  I've never been to his courses, but from what i've heard of them, he makes them pretty realistic.

A few years ago, the PD I dispatch for, had a firearms training simulator available for the cops to use.  I took advantage of an opportunity to use it.  So yes, while I 'knew' the guy pointing the gun at me, really wasn't going to shoot and kill me, I still did my best to put my mindset, into that of an LEO who was actually facing a shoot/don't shoot scenario.  It was pretty cool!


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> The problem with this is that you're equating experience with expertise. They're related, but not always directly the way you're implying.
> 
> That's where different training methodologies (other than sparring) come into it.
> 
> While I don't disagree with anything there, there are others I'd pick over the boxer (or MMA practitioner), and certainly other training methods I'd pick over theirs. It'd include many of the same things, or similar, but there'd be a definite difference in the approach, design, set-up, and more.


I think that you're misunderstanding me, Chris.  I'm not equating experience and expertise.  I'm suggesting that experience is an essential component to developing expertise.  You cannot become an expert in something with which you have no experience.  

So, then, the next step is to further define "experience."  I think many martial arts equate training to experience.  You seem to be doing this very thing.  While training can prepare you to a point, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread through multiple examples, it is no replacement for actual, practical experience.  

And notice that I'm not saying that all training is the same.  Some is better suited than others for different applications.  Learning iaido won't help me in a BJJ tournament, for example.  And some training methods are more effective than others.  But in the end, no matter how good the training is, without ample real experience, all of the skills remain theoretical.  


harlan said:


> Instead of trying to define what an 'expert' is, I think the OP should simply acknowledge that all studies and students will have 'gaps' in their training. Grasping at the idea that somehow someone that deals with violence on any kind of scale, whether it's a survivor of war, domestic assault, or a street-experienced police officer (or even someone that is an LEO and so automatically rates as an 'expert') and are somehow 'better' for addressing 'real-world' violence is an unexamined bias (for the most part).


Harlan, frankly, I have no idea what you're referring to, here.  Could you elaborate a little?  What I think I've written doesn't seem to be the same thing as what you think I've written.





> Continuously 'upping the ante' for 'preferred credentials' for survival simply don't take into account...luck; Surviving the vast field of 'potential violent actions' cannot be reduced to a simplistic heirarchy of 'credentials'. If that was so, we'd all have to take a back seat to the chest-thumping of individuals touting this or that 'experience'.


If you're training to be a street fighter, but the person who is teaching you has never been in a street fight, are you learning from an expert?  If you're learning to be sniper and the person you're learning from has never been a sniper in a live, field operation, are you learning from an expert?  If you're learning to perform open heart surgery from someone who has only ever done it on a cadaver, is your instructor an expert?  It has nothing to do with escalation, and while I think simplistic is a little patronizing, I think I'd agree that it's simple.  It's a simple question: can you be an expert in something you've never actually done?  My assertion is that you cannot.


Tgace said:


> I wonder about this too. While trad arts like to talk about "direct transmission" and "preserving ancient arts"....if we had time machines I'd bet my fortune that their arts are not as "unchanged" as they like to think.


Agreed.  It's sort of like that 'phone call' game many of us played as kids at parties.  One person is given a short message, and then that message is passed around the room until at the end, we all hear the original message and the end result.  The difference is astounding, even through each person passed along the "same" message.  This is precisely the hazard of learning from someone who is not an actual expert.  They have no practical experience.  It's all theory, regardless of how well trained.  



MJS said:


> Good points Steve.  To use the martial arts analogy...one would possibly get more out of training with Rickson himself, rather than the student of a student of a student, etc. lol.  I'd like to think though, that if you've been a cop for 20yrs, that while you may not know everything, that you'd be pretty damn close.  Then again, just like there're crappy martial artists...well, you see where I'm going.
> 
> My suggestion would be: if one is serious about training, even if that day never comes, do anything and everything, to keep your training as real as possible.  Yes, I know when people read that, the next thing they tend to say is, "Well, you can replicate things 100% real life!"  Umm...yes, no kidding! LOL!.  However, LEOs, firefighters, Military, they all do training scenarios that put them as close as possible, and IMO, if it works for them, it'll work for the serious martial artist.
> 
> Just my .02.


Agreed, MJS.  Here's a question, though.  The instructors at the training that first responders and military appoint.  Aren't they people with actual, real life experience?


----------



## Sukerkin

Tgace said:


> I wonder about this too. While trad arts like to talk about "direct transmission" and "preserving ancient arts"....if we had time machines I'd bet my fortune that their arts are not as "unchanged" as they like to think.



It's a phenomenon that is guarded against as rigorously as possible.  It's known by different names but we've always termed it Kata Drift.  What do we mean by that?  Simply it is that there is a range of motion that is permitted within a given form inside which it is a valid execution of that form.  If someone is taught the form and they learn that it is okay to be an inch either way at a certain point then they practise that form and get good at it and their sword naturally begins to be always in the same place (because that is what we train so hard for at the end of the day ).  If that person teaches another person the form then the new student learns that sensei places his sword 'here' but that an inch either way is still okay.  So they practise the form and get good at it and, eventually, they too begin to teach ... and so on with each successive generation learning as best they can a technique that, potentially, could become more and more different from what it should be (assuming that the 'drift' is always in the same direction of course, which it likely would not be given the natural physics of sword work).

That is why the koryu place such store by the direct line back to the beginning and to having strong links to those that hold the original material of the art.  It's part of why seminars with such masters as Iwata Sensei (sadly now gone) are so highly prized - it lets you look 'back in time' and detect if you have kata drift setting in.


----------



## harlan

Sorry...I'm finding this thread a little unwieldy to navigate...seems like several cross-discussions and points being made...so forgive me as I think this through.

At one point, I thought that there was a suggestion that someone teaching the 'martial' in ALL arts should be some kind of 'expert'. Agreed...using your logic a street fighter would prefer to learn from someone that has actually done that. I wouldn't know what makes an expert 'street-fighter'. Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? What?

And I think you were suggesting that by extension, a teacher, say in karate, should be an 'expert' in utilizing the martial techniques being transmitted. (You mentioned weapons previously, but I prefer to keep it simple.)

So...what makes an expert karate teacher? Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? *Are the criteria the same...*even if what wants is some self-defense?

It seems to be that karate and street-fighting are different animals, with different objectives, training and tools and there are bound to be gaps which is why everyone cross-trains. Yes?



Steve said:


> Harlan, frankly, I have no idea what you're referring to, here. Could you elaborate a little? What I think I've written doesn't seem to be the same thing as what you think I've written.If you're training to be a street fighter, but the person who is teaching you has never been in a street fight, are you learning from an expert? If you're learning to be sniper and the person you're learning from has never been a sniper in a live, field operation, are you learning from an expert? If you're learning to perform open heart surgery from someone who has only ever done it on a cadaver, is your instructor an expert? It has nothing to do with escalation, and while I think simplistic is a little patronizing, I think I'd agree that it's simple. It's a simple question: can you be an expert in something you've never actually done? My assertion is that you cannot.


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Sorry...I'm finding this thread a little unwieldy to navigate...seems like several cross-discussions and points being made...so forgive me as I think this through.
> 
> At one point, I thought that there was a suggestion that someone teaching the 'martial' in ALL arts should be some kind of 'expert'. Agreed...using your logic a street fighter would prefer to learn from someone that has actually done that. I wouldn't know what makes an expert 'street-fighter'. Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? What?


Hard to say, and frankly, the value of experience is relative.  There's no single formula.  I'm not suggesting that an expert has necessarily done things a million times.  But I am saying that they will have done the thing (whatever that thing might be) enough to be credible as an expert. 





> And I think you were suggesting that by extension, a teacher, say in karate, should be an 'expert' in utilizing the martial techniques being transmitted. (You mentioned weapons previously, but I prefer to keep it simple.)


Kind of.  I'm suggesting that an expert in Karate may be exactly that.  But, even if the style is intended to impart self defense skills, the expert in karate would only ALSO be an expert in self defense if he or she has applied those skills in real world, self defense situations.  How much?  Well, that's going to vary.  But the point is the skills would need to be applied enough times for this karate expert to transition from theoretical self defense proficiency to actual self defense expertise.  





> So...what makes an expert karate teacher? Is it so many entanglements on the street? So many years...on the street? A badge? *Are the criteria the same...*even if what wants is some self-defense?


No.  A karate expert is an expert in karate.  And one can teach karate, I presume, without ever being in a fight.  However, this karate teacher is not an expert in self defense, and shouldn't allege to be, without practical experience.  The karate expert is not a street fighting expert, either.  And a self defense expert may not be an expert in street fighting.  And so on... 





> It seems to be that karate and street-fighting are different animals, with different objectives, training and tools and there are bound to be gaps which is why everyone cross-trains. Yes?


Side question here: does everyone cross train?  More on topic, though, is I think this is correct.  The puzzle here is whether a student can move past basic proficiency and claim expertise in something he has never done outside of a laboratory.


----------



## harlan

Ah...so 'expert' is akin to the discussions of what is a 'master'.

I've always been told that if someone calls themself a master...he/she probably isn't.

As for being an expert in self-defense if one is teaching karate for self-defense: I think I'd have to say 'no', it's not crucial. Self-defense is only a portion of training in that art, and I don't think 'street creds' are necessary. I DO think (as a beginner albeit), that one needs to constantly push the envelope in training...the laboratory...as you call it.



Steve said:


> More on topic, though, is I think this is correct. The puzzle here is whether a student can move past basic proficiency and claim expertise in something he has never done outside of a laboratory.


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Ah...so 'expert' is akin to the discussions of what is a 'master'.


Not sure I'd consider the two to be the same, although mastery of something implies expertise.  If you can give me a better idea of what you mean by "master," maybe I can respond a little more specifically.  An expert, in the way I think of it, is someone who has extensive knowledge and skill in a particular area.  What that's called within that specific area is beside the point.  


> I've always been told that if someone calls themself a master...he/she probably isn't.


Probably true.  But if someone is an expert, does it matter what they're called?





> As for being an expert in self-defense if one is teaching karate for self-defense: I think I'd have to say 'no', it's not crucial. Self-defense is only a portion of training in that art, and I don't think 'street creds' are necessary. I DO think (as a beginner albeit), that one needs to constantly push the envelope in training...the laboratory...as you call it.


Back up a minute.  Where are you getting the street cred business?


----------



## harlan

Am I incorrect? Doesn't an 'expert in street fighting' equate to 'street credentials'? 

Could you please summarize for this old lady what are the credentials that make for a 'self-defense expert'?

(Apologies...if I missed a summary in the thread please link. Thank you.)


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Am I incorrect? Doesn't an 'expert in street fighting' equate to 'street credentials'?
> 
> Could you please summarize for this old lady what are the credentials that make for a 'self-defense expert'?
> 
> (Apologies...if I missed a summary in the thread please link. Thank you.)


Okay.  I'll try again.   I think you're fixated on this street fighting thing.  When you brought it up the first time, I thought you were being hypothetical.  I have no idea what a "street fighting" instructor would look like or what his or her credentials would be.  What I am asserting is that if a person is alleging to be an expert {insert anything here}, that person should have practical experience doing that thing sufficient to master that activity.  That activity can be anything: street fighting, karate, knitting, cooking, golfing, camping, driving, writing...  anything. 

If you're putting Master Chef on your resume, but have never set foot in a kitchen, it wouldn't matter how many cookbooks you've read or recipes you've memorized.   If you're putting Expert Self Defense Instructor on your resume, but have no practical experience, it doesn't matter how great your training is.  If you're putting 10th Degree Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but have never rolled on the mats, it wouldn't matter how many techniques you've memorized from YouTube or matches you've watched. 

Do you see what I'm saying now?


----------



## harlan

Sorry...was referring to post #79 where you asked, 'If training to be a ST...'. My assumption is that you equated 'street fighting' with 'street experience'. I may have gone off tangent there. 

You state, one needs to 'have practical experience' in whatever they are teaching...but from what I glean from the thread...when it comes to the 'self defense portion' of xxx art, I still am confused. 

When it comes to 'self-defense', do you think that there is a commonality, a base-line for skills-set and experiences across the board...regardless of art?

Thank you.



Steve said:


> Okay. I'll try again.  I think you're fixated on this street fighting thing. When you brought it up the first time, I thought you were being hypothetical. I have no idea what a "street fighting" instructor would look like or what his or her credentials would be. What I am asserting is that if a person is alleging to be an expert {insert anything here}, that person should have practical experience doing that thing sufficient to master that activity. That activity can be anything: street fighting, karate, knitting, cooking, golfing, camping, driving, writing... anything.
> 
> If you're putting Master Chef on your resume, but have never set foot in a kitchen, it wouldn't matter how many cookbooks you've read or recipes you've memorized. If you're putting Expert Self Defense Instructor on your resume, but have no practical experience, it doesn't matter how great your training is. If you're putting 10th Degree Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but have never rolled on the mats, it wouldn't matter how many techniques you've memorized from YouTube or matches you've watched.
> 
> Do you see what I'm saying now?


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Sorry...was referring to post #79 where you asked, 'If training to be a ST...'. My assumption is that you equated 'street fighting' with 'street experience'. I may have gone off tangent there.


Okay.  Glad we got through it.





> You state, one needs to 'have practical experience' in whatever they are teaching...but from what I glean from the thread...when it comes to the 'self defense portion' of xxx art, I still am confused.


Pretty much.  If we're presuming that being an expert in something is a reasonable pre-req. for being a good instructor.  





> When it comes to 'self-defense', do you think that there is a commonality, a base-line for skills-set and experiences across the board...regardless of art?
> 
> Thank you.


What do you think?


----------



## Blindside

Steve said:


> Okay.  I'll try again.   I think you're fixated on this street fighting thing.  When you brought it up the first time, I thought you were being hypothetical.  I have no idea what a "street fighting" instructor would look like or what his or her credentials would be.  What I am asserting is that if a person is alleging to be an expert {insert anything here}, that person should have practical experience doing that thing sufficient to master that activity.  That activity can be anything: street fighting, karate, knitting, cooking, golfing, camping, driving, writing...  anything.
> 
> If you're putting Master Chef on your resume, but have never set foot in a kitchen, it wouldn't matter how many cookbooks you've read or recipes you've memorized.   If you're putting Expert Self Defense Instructor on your resume, but have no practical experience, it doesn't matter how great your training is.  If you're putting 10th Degree Black Belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but have never rolled on the mats, it wouldn't matter how many techniques you've memorized from YouTube or matches you've watched.
> 
> Do you see what I'm saying now?



Steve, I very much understand your point, and it is one that I have struggled with.  So my main art teaches sword (think machete) fighting and knife fighting as a regular part of the art, I have never been in an actual sword or knife fight.  So who am I to tell someone that I am an expert at swordwork?  When we are sparring with training blades I do OK, but again not "real."  

The FMA in general have some fairly recent history (WWII) of use of the various bladed weapon arts to fall back on as well as a culture that tacitly permitted duelling until very recently, so many of the FMA do have some first or second hand experience.  I have heard credible second hand accounts of recent (past 5 years) of a "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" type sword match to the death, one of the participants was a kali player.  But again, not me.  I can watch video of haitian machete fights, seeing how people look when they are actually trying to kill each other with machetes.  So while I am a teacher of the art, I do not call myself an expert at sword fighting, of course I don't even call myself and expert at Kali either. 

Now how about "self-defense."  How does the art that I am an instructor of work in the US in non-duelling situations?  I have been in a couple of fist fights when I was younger and dumber, I verbally diffused a situation that could have been a life-or-death situation.  I don't think that makes me an expert either.  I read somewhere that the Air force set '5" as the standard for an ace because it was after 5 kills that you actually started using your training and your weren't just acting out of pure instinct.  Makes sense to me from my not-yet-an-ace experience.  I am a civilian, if I am at all smart and reasonably lucky I will never get the opportunity to become an ace.

So now what the hell do I do?  How can I pass on good self-defense techs/methods/approaches?  I study, I read, I talk with guys who do have the firsthand accounts, I watch video of real attacks, I take training that tries to simulate those adrenalized situations, I steal, ahem, borrow ideas that seem to work really well.  I try to test out the material on the floor in sparring or heavy contact situationals.  And all of that training comes with the upfront caveat that "all training is not real."  I don't call myself an expert, though I will say that I don't "die" as frequently as I used to in those sims and sparring matches.  

Did that babbling make sense?


----------



## Steve

Blindside said:


> Steve, I very much understand your point, and it is one that I have struggled with.  So my main art teaches sword (think machete) fighting and knife fighting as a regular part of the art, I have never been in an actual sword or knife fight.  So who am I to tell someone that I am an expert at swordwork?  When we are sparring with training blades I do OK, but again not "real."
> 
> The FMA in general have some fairly recent history (WWII) of use of the various bladed weapon arts to fall back on as well as a culture that tacitly permitted duelling until very recently, so many of the FMA do have some first or second hand experience.  I have heard credible second hand accounts of recent (past 5 years) of a "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" type sword match to the death, one of the participants was a kali player.  But again, not me.  I can watch video of haitian machete fights, seeing how people look when they are actually trying to kill each other with machetes.  So while I am a teacher of the art, I do not call myself an expert at sword fighting, of course I don't even call myself and expert at Kali either.
> 
> Now how about "self-defense."  How does the art that I am an instructor of work in the US in non-duelling situations?  I have been in a couple of fist fights when I was younger and dumber, I verbally diffused a situation that could have been a life-or-death situation.  I don't think that makes me an expert either.  I read somewhere that the Air force set '5" as the standard for an ace because it was after 5 kills that you actually started using your training and your weren't just acting out of pure instinct.  Makes sense to me from my not-yet-an-ace experience.  I am a civilian, if I am at all smart and reasonably lucky I will never get the opportunity to become an ace.
> 
> So now what the hell do I do?  How can I pass on good self-defense techs/methods/approaches?  I study, I read, I talk with guys who do have the firsthand accounts, I watch video of real attacks, I take training that tries to simulate those adrenalized situations, I steal, ahem, borrow ideas that seem to work really well.  I try to test out the material on the floor in sparring or heavy contact situationals.  And all of that training comes with the upfront caveat that "all training is not real."  I don't call myself an expert, though I will say that I don't "die" as frequently as I used to in those sims and sparring matches.
> 
> Did that babbling make sense?


This absolutely made sense to me.  This was very much at the heart of what I'm thinking about right now.  Thanks for sharing.

Edit:  I just want to add that you touch on another important point, I believe.  If you acknowledge that you aren't an "expert," you may still have a lot to share that is valuable.  What I mean is, I'm not making a value judgement here.  At least, that's not my intent.  You may have much to teach someone on the subject of fighting with a blade.  I would argue that being self aware, that is, aware of where your expertise ends, would make your training that much better.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Scenario Based Training, Sparring, Rolling (Grappling), Kata, Technique Training, etc, etc, etc.   I think if you want to be a martial practitioner who has the opportunity to be effective in a personal protection situation then you need multiple avenues in your training.  Experience over time has shown this to be the case for myself and those I train.  Real life experience in violent encounters is some thing that while not wanted certainly gives you an edge that is really, really, really, really hard to duplicate.  Not impossible but hard.  I have had the opportunity to work with both trained and minimally trained people in various work related activities through the years.  Some times the person with more training froze and some times they did not.  Some times the person with minimal training froze and some times they did not.  However, even though they may have froze as the situation unfolded their training usually kicked in especially with a little verbal direction!  Bottom line, martial practitioiners need to participate in multiple martial activities from technical training to resistance training to adrenaline based training.  That is a sure fire way to give yourself a chance in a violent situation!


----------



## Chris Parker

Steve said:


> I think that you're misunderstanding me, Chris.  I'm not equating experience and expertise.  I'm suggesting that experience is an essential component to developing expertise.  You cannot become an expert in something with which you have no experience.



Except, Steve, you have been equating them throughout the entire thread... starting with the idea itself of experience being required for expertise (part of the OP). From there (as you didn't definitively pick a side in your OP, leaving it open to debate and discussion), post 46 has you commenting that Tgace's post gets "To one of the key questions" you're asking.... stating that "in boxing you train to box...." and then asking "is any school really teaching self defence, if the students never defend themselves?". It's been a constant underlying thematic concept of the whole thread, experience = expertise, lack of experience = can't be an expert. And I'm saying that it's not even as clean-cut as you're making out here.

You can be an expert without experience (say, in sword fighting if studying Iai, or defending yourself against a lethal threat, if teaching self defence, and so on), and you can be experienced without being close to an expert (at handling violence etc). It's not an essential component... it can certainly be of great value, but that's something different entirely. For example, my favourite story of my application of self defence involves absolutely no violence whatsoever... and, if it had come to violence, that might be considered a self defence "fail"... so is that experience at defending myself, or not? Does it show a higher level of expertise, or a lower one? Or is it actually not indicative one way or the other? I mean, I used absolutely no physical skills taught in my school... especially not the traditional stuff....



Steve said:


> So, then, the next step is to further define "experience."  I think many martial arts equate training to experience.  You seem to be doing this very thing.  While training can prepare you to a point, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread through multiple examples, it is no replacement for actual, practical experience.



No, I'd disagree with that as well. Training IS experience, the question becomes experience at what. Additionally, it is a replacement (well, not actually a replacement, it's more an analogue when done well and properly, a true representation... it doesn't take the place of a real experience, it is one) for practical experience, as it is practical experience. It's just practical experience geared towards a certain aim or goal. This really isn't that easy to explain, but if your training isn't a real, true representation, done in a way that replicates and creates the same conditions while allowing the goal to be achieved, then get a new school, or a new approach. If it's so extreme that it's just pure chaos, and no real goal can be achieved, then the "training" isn't working. And, if it's so easy that the same conditions (which are more to do with internal reality, rather than external, when you really understand it) are not created, then the "training" is just calisthenics. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about kata training, by the way. It should always be real. Even when there isn't a "real" opponent.

I'd also say that there has been nothing in this thread that has "amply demonstrated" anything of the sort, for the record. All it's told me is about some lacking training approaches. In fact, looking back over the thread, I can't find any examples of anything of the kind... some approximations, but that's about it.



Steve said:


> And notice that I'm not saying that all training is the same.  Some is better suited than others for different applications.  Learning iaido won't help me in a BJJ tournament, for example.  And some training methods are more effective than others.  But in the end, no matter how good the training is, without ample real experience, all of the skills remain theoretical.



Actually, Steve, speaking as someone who has trained in BJJ, and does train in Iai, you might be surprised as to how much it might help you... 

But to get to the crux of all of this, I think the wrong equation has been made from the very beginning, and that is that "expert" equals someone who can apply the skills of the art, while ignoring the context of the art itself. I've said many times that I don't believe any martial art is designed for (modern) self defence, so to insist that an "expert" is someone who can, or even has applied it in self defence is, to me, completely besides the point. An "expert" is someone who knows a subject deeply. That's it. So, even if you've never been in a self defence situation, if you know your subject (martial arts, your personal art, self defence, whatever) deeply, then you're an expert. If you've "done it" (in this case referring to having defended yourself against some form of assault or attack), then you're "experienced". You're not an "expert" based on that. As a result, the idea that "all of the skills remain theoretical" is, firstly, incorrect, and secondly, irrelevant. You might as well say that a studied and skilled chef only has theoretical skills until they've fed 350 people at a sitting in a busy restaurant.

I think that's the real issue. The very premise of this thread is taking a false approximation of what being an "expert" really is. The OP seems to make a distinction between "doing the art" (ie, training, learning, developing the contextually correct and applicable skill sets, and employing them in the way the art is designed, within it's context, which for a sport art includes competition, but for other arts doesn't, yet at the same time, doesn't even necessarily include free-form, sparring, self defence, or anything else) and "employing the skills"... when both are really "actually doing it" (gaining the experience, depth of knowledge, and skills to be considered an "expert" in these forms). Whether it's employed outside of class or not is irrelevant.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> Agreed, MJS.  Here's a question, though.  The instructors at the training that first responders and military appoint.  Aren't they people with actual, real life experience?



Yes, usually they are. Now, on the other hand, how many times have we heard in discussions, that its possible that we, as martial artists, could go our entire 'career' and never get into a fight.  I know I've heard that many times.  So, going on that, you have someone who trained in the arts for 15yrs.  He was never involved in a physical confrontation.  Now, he's running a school or teaching classes.  He's supposedly teaching people who to defend themselves.  Yet he himself, has never had to fight.  Is it possible for someone in that case, to pass on info?


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Yes, usually they are. Now, on the other hand, how many times have we heard in discussions, that its possible that we, as martial artists, could go our entire 'career' and never get into a fight.  I know I've heard that many times.  So, going on that, you have someone who trained in the arts for 15yrs.  He was never involved in a physical confrontation.  Now, he's running a school or teaching classes.  He's supposedly teaching people who to defend themselves.  Yet he himself, has never had to fight.  *Is it possible for someone in that case, to pass on info?*



That's exactly my question, MJS.  Further, is it possible for him to teach someone, who also never uses the skills in context, well enough to pass the skills along?  And so on...  

@chris, I'll get back to your message when I can read it as I presume you intend it.  Frankly, first thing in the morning, pre-coffee, the first line, where you arrogantly presume to tell me what I really think makes it tough to get through the lengthy prose.  For now, I can only suggest to you that I mean what I say I mean, just as I'm sure you didn't intend the tone I "heard" in your note.  I will presume good intent, and if you misunderstand, I'll take responsibility for being unclear.    But please, don't tell me what I'm really saying or really mean again.  You take responsibility for your words, and I'll do the same.  Thanks.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace

"Expert" is a subjective term. Having been through ALL sorts of training from martial arts, military, LE, SWAT, Federal LE schools I can attest that there are experts and there are EXPERTS. 

Seeing that more of my training now centers around the "tactical" and firearms. In this world you have experts like Todd Jarret:






Todd has no military or LE background and I doubt he has ever had to shoot anyone. That being said, LE and Mil actively seek his instruction/expertise in what he does.

On the other end of the spectrum are guys like Kyle Lamb:






Former Army Delta. "Blackhawk Down" veteran...Iraq war Vet..etc. Has shot people, has been shot at...numerous times.

While Jarret is probably faster and more "expert" than Lamb when it comes to driving a gun, Lambs instruction is coming from an ENTIRELY different source. Shooting is shooting. Jarret and Lamb are both drawing, aiming and shooting firearms...what makes one "different" from the other?

This isnt to imply that I think one is "better" than the other. LE/MIL seek them both but what they provide isnt identitical.

So what is an "expert"? I myself have been through all sorts of training, Ive won some awards and tactical/firearms competitions. Im former mil, SWAT officer, a veteran police officer..so I am an "expert" of sorts compared to others. But Im nowhere near the "expert" these guys are and likely never will be....


----------



## Tgace

I think that some artists have too much invested in either their Arts legitimacy as a "combat proven over centuries...teaching TRUE WARRIOR skills..." art, or in their own estimations of themselves as "warriors".

If you are only depending on your martial arts style/school/teacher as the SOLE source of you training (or the core of your life) you are a table with one leg.


----------



## harlan

I'll tell you what 'ticks me off', is schools that resort to marketing to people's fears and ignorance and promoting 'self-defense'. It seems to be especially true about schools targeting women. They draw off potential students to traditional arts and blind them with false confidence, that in my opinion, that may well contribute to getting them killed in a serious encounter.

Thank you for addressing my question which is what IS an expert (subjective), and what are the criteria (context specific).



Tgace said:


> "Expert" is a subjective term. Having been through ALL sorts of training from martial arts, military, LE, SWAT, Federal LE schools I can attest that there are experts and there are EXPERTS.
> ....


----------



## Sukerkin

:chuckles:  All I know is I am fairly handy with a katana ... whether I'm a warrior or not I've yet to find out (one super-brief fight *ever* does not a 'fighter' make ).


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Except, Steve, you have been equating them throughout the entire thread... starting with the idea itself of experience being required for expertise (part of the OP).


  Okay.  Had some coffee.  A little more awake now.  I'll just clarify that, if you understood this from my posts, it is because I was unclear.  I see a clear distinction between a person being an expert on some topic and that person having experience with some thing.  I hope that's settled, because the rest of your post builds on this misunderstanding.





> From there (as you didn't definitively pick a side in your OP, leaving it open to debate and discussion), post 46 has you commenting that Tgace's post gets "To one of the key questions" you're asking.... stating that "in boxing you train to box...." and then asking "is any school really teaching self defence, if the students never defend themselves?". It's been a constant underlying thematic concept of the whole thread, experience = expertise, lack of experience = can't be an expert. And I'm saying that it's not even as clean-cut as you're making out here.


You're close.  Experience /= Expertise, but yes, expertise is (IMO) a critical component of building expertise... one of many.  Sugar does not equal cake, but certainly any good cake has sugar in it.  

Regarding the theme of the thread, I'd suggest that it's self awareness.  And if there's one solid conclusion I've seen amply supported in this thread, it is that the danger is in mis-identifying the area of expertise through a lack of self-awareness.  Tgace and MJS articulated two aspects of this.  In Tgace's post, he pointed out that Todd Jaret is an "expert" and that his instruction is valuable and in demand.  But Tgace stated very concisely what Todd Jaret's area of expertise really is... and what it isn't.   It's clear to the students and(this is the part I think many martial arts instructors don't get) it is very clear to the instructor.

Are martial arts instructors so careful?  Some are and some are not.  The martial arts connection here is that the "self defense" oriented martial arts instructor is not typically as self aware as someone like Todd Jaret.  





> You can be an expert without experience


You can be an expert only on what you have experience with.  It's being self-aware that is the key.  It is possible, for example, to be expert on theory.  





> (say, in sword fighting if studying Iai, or defending yourself against a lethal threat, if teaching self defence, and so on), and you can be experienced without being close to an expert (at handling violence etc). It's not an essential component... it can certainly be of great value, but that's something different entirely. For example, my favourite story of my application of self defence involves absolutely no violence whatsoever... and, if it had come to violence, that might be considered a self defence "fail"... so is that experience at defending myself, or not? Does it show a higher level of expertise, or a lower one? Or is it actually not indicative one way or the other? I mean, I used absolutely no physical skills taught in my school... especially not the traditional stuff....
> 
> No, I'd disagree with that as well. Training IS experience,


Training experience is experience with training.  Sounds simple, I know, but I've seen you argue this same point.  Sparring is not fighting.  It is sparring.  In MMA, sparring is not the same as fighting in the cage.  Which is, in turn, not the same thing as self defense.  And so on.  So, training is training.  There are a million different ways to train, some more effective at others. And training is an important step in the development of expertise.  But, training it remains.  The question becomes experience at what. 





> Additionally, it is a replacement (well, not actually a replacement, it's more an analogue when done well and properly, a true representation... it doesn't take the place of a real experience, it is one) for practical experience, as it is practical experience. It's just practical experience geared towards a certain aim or goal. This really isn't that easy to explain, but if your training isn't a real, true representation, done in a way that replicates and creates the same conditions while allowing the goal to be achieved, then get a new school, or a new approach. If it's so extreme that it's just pure chaos, and no real goal can be achieved, then the "training" isn't working. And, if it's so easy that the same conditions (which are more to do with internal reality, rather than external, when you really understand it) are not created, then the "training" is just calisthenics. This is what I'm talking about when I talk about kata training, by the way. It should always be real. Even when there isn't a "real" opponent.
> 
> I'd also say that there has been nothing in this thread that has "amply demonstrated" anything of the sort, for the record. All it's told me is about some lacking training approaches. In fact, looking back over the thread, I can't find any examples of anything of the kind... some approximations, but that's about it.


Well, if you've already decided that you are right, I appreciate your contribution.  Thanks.  It's helpful for me to know what your thoughts are on the subject.  





> Actually, Steve, speaking as someone who has trained in BJJ, and does train in Iai, you might be surprised as to how much it might help you...


Where have I suggested that it must be otherwise?  





> But to get to the crux of all of this,


Excellent.  The crux.  The nut, as they say.





> I think the wrong equation has been made from the very beginning, and that is that "expert" equals someone who can apply the skills of the art, while ignoring the context of the art itself. I've said many times that I don't believe any martial art is designed for (modern) self defence, so to insist that an "expert" is someone who can, or even has applied it in self defence is, to me, completely besides the point.


Ah...  here it is.  You don't understand at all what I'm saying.  Because if you did, you'd understand that I agree that most (if not all) modern martial arts are NOT designed for modern self defence.  





> An "expert" is someone who knows a subject deeply.


It's helpful to understand your definition of the term.   I define the term differently.  To me, an expert is someone who has particular skill and knowledge.  Obviously, if the subject is academic, then the expertise will also be academic.  But in a physical skill being taught, there must be an intimate, physical familiarity.

I am not saying that only experts can teach.  Certainly, even a novice can share helpful information.  What I am saying is that an expert is, IMO, deeper than knowing.  Knowing is the lowest form of understanding.  I've said before, I see learning as moving through predictable and unavoidable stages:  
Developing Expertise:

Knowing something,
Understanding that thing,
then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)
Refining Expertise:

Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
 then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
and, finally, you can innovate

Some would reserve the term expert to the very last stage.



> That's it. So, even if you've never been in a self defence situation, if you know your subject (martial arts, your personal art, self defence, whatever) deeply, then you're an expert. If you've "done it" (in this case referring to having defended yourself against some form of assault or attack), then you're "experienced". You're not an "expert" based on that. As a result, the idea that "all of the skills remain theoretical" is, firstly, incorrect, and secondly, irrelevant. You might as well say that a studied and skilled chef only has theoretical skills until they've fed 350 people at a sitting in a busy restaurant.


 I don't agree. To use your chef analogy (which I think I have earlier in the thread), I'd say that one could not call himself a chef if he has only ever read cookbooks.  So, in order to be a chef, one must have experience actually, physically cooking.  To be an expert chef, one must have done this... a lot.  How much?  Well, that depends.  As Tgace pointed out, there is expert and then there is EXPERT.  

To extend your analogy further, one doesn't need to work in a restaurant kitchen in order to be an excellent cook.  However, to be an expert in cooking AND in managing a kitchen in a restaurant, one must have expertise in both skill sets.  And you don't become an expert chef in a busy restaurant without experience.  





> I think that's the real issue. The very premise of this thread is taking a false approximation of what being an "expert" really is.


You forgot to add, "in my opinion."  Surely you understand that, in spite of your absolute declaration, your definition of expert is your own.  As I said before, it's helpful to know how you define the term, but I don't agree.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> That's exactly my question, MJS.  Further, is it possible for him to teach someone, who also never uses the skills in context, well enough to pass the skills along?  And so on...



IMO, I can view this 2 different ways.  In the first case, I'd say yes, it is possible for someone to pass on the skills.  Second, I'd say that the quality may not be that good.  Just like anything, I think it's always wise to question things.  I've seen many 'suspect' things that were taught by people who seemed to be living in a fantasy land, whereas if things were taught by someone with more real world/hands on experience, well, perhaps the transmission of the techs would be passed on better.


----------



## harlan

Sorry, but could you clarify: what is 'modern' self-defense'? That is a new twist to this thread.



Steve said:


> Okay. Had some coffee. A little more awake now. I'll just clarify that, if you understood this from my posts, it is because I was unclear. I see a clear distinction between a person being an expert on some topic and that person having experience with some thing. I hope that's settled, because the rest of your post builds on this misunderstanding.You're close. Experience /= Expertise, but yes, expertise is (IMO) a critical component of building expertise... one of many. Sugar does not equal cake, but certainly any good cake has sugar in it.
> 
> Regarding the theme of the thread, I'd suggest that it's self awareness. And if there's one solid conclusion I've seen amply supported in this thread, it is that the danger is in mis-identifying the area of expertise through a lack of self-awareness. Tgace and MJS articulated two aspects of this. In Tgace's post, he pointed out that Todd Jaret is an "expert" and that his instruction is valuable and in demand. But Tgace stated very concisely what Todd Jaret's area of expertise really is... and what it isn't. It's clear to the students and(this is the part I think many martial arts instructors don't get) it is very clear to the instructor.
> 
> Are martial arts instructors so careful? Some are and some are not. The martial arts connection here is that the "self defense" oriented martial arts instructor is not typically as self aware as someone like Todd Jaret. You can be an expert only on what you have experience with. It's being self-aware that is the key. It is possible, for example, to be expert on theory. Training experience is experience with training. Sounds simple, I know, but I've seen you argue this same point. Sparring is not fighting. It is sparring. In MMA, sparring is not the same as fighting in the cage. Which is, in turn, not the same thing as self defense. And so on. So, training is training. There are a million different ways to train, some more effective at others. And training is an important step in the development of expertise. But, training it remains. The question becomes experience at what. Well, if you've already decided that you are right, I appreciate your contribution. Thanks. It's helpful for me to know what your thoughts are on the subject. Where have I suggested that it must be otherwise? Excellent. The crux. The nut, as they say.Ah... here it is.* You don't understand at all what I'm saying. Because if you did, you'd understand that I agree that most (if not all) modern martial arts are NOT designed for modern self defence. *It's helpful to understand your definition of the term. I define the term differently. To me, an expert is someone who has particular skill and knowledge. Obviously, if the subject is academic, then the expertise will also be academic. But in a physical skill being taught, there must be an intimate, physical familiarity.
> 
> I am not saying that only experts can teach. Certainly, even a novice can share helpful information. What I am saying is that an expert is, IMO, deeper than knowing. Knowing is the lowest form of understanding. I've said before, I see learning as moving through predictable and unavoidable stages:
> Developing Expertise:
> 
> Knowing something,
> Understanding that thing,
> then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)
> Refining Expertise:
> 
> Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
> then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
> and, finally, you can innovate
> 
> Some would reserve the term expert to the very last stage.
> 
> I don't agree. To use your chef analogy (which I think I have earlier in the thread), I'd say that one could not call himself a chef if he has only ever read cookbooks. So, in order to be a chef, one must have experience actually, physically cooking. To be an expert chef, one must have done this... a lot. How much? Well, that depends. As Tgace pointed out, there is expert and then there is EXPERT.
> 
> To extend your analogy further, one doesn't need to work in a restaurant kitchen in order to be an excellent cook. However, to be an expert in cooking AND in managing a kitchen in a restaurant, one must have expertise in both skill sets. And you don't become an expert chef in a busy restaurant without experience. You forgot to add, "in my opinion." Surely you understand that, in spite of your absolute declaration, your definition of expert is your own. As I said before, it's helpful to know how you define the term, but I don't agree.


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Sorry, but could you clarify: what is 'modern' self-defense'? That is a new twist to this thread.


Ask Chris.  It's his term.  

For myself, I take it to mean self defense in a contemporary setting.


----------



## Tgace

The problem with an "art"...or instructor...or technique being taught... with a lack of updated experience is that some instructors begin teaching things apparently based on an imagined or fantasy perspective of what will "work in combat" and you get stuff like this.

http://tgace.com/2011/08/16/we-do-dangerous-things/


----------



## Dirty Dog

Tgace said:


> The problem with an "art"...or instructor...or technique being taught... with a lack of updated experience is that some instructors begin teaching things apparently based on an imagined or fantasy perspective of what will "work in combat" and you get stuff like this.
> 
> http://tgace.com/2011/08/16/we-do-dangerous-things/



Oh my...

I quote... "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong..."


----------



## Tgace

Then you have issues with "experts" who may indeed have rank/certification in some skills/arts who try to claim expertise in fields they don't.

http://www.papadeltabravo.com/blog/?p=1150

The issue of martial arts instructors trying to hang shingles as firearms instructors too can be found in a few arts. To me it seems like instructors are trying to get modern "warrior" cred by bolting on tactical firearms training to their arts. In the military people like this would be told to "stay in their lane".


----------



## Drasken

Tgace said:


> The problem with an "art"...or instructor...or technique being taught... with a lack of updated experience is that some instructors begin teaching things apparently based on an imagined or fantasy perspective of what will "work in combat" and you get stuff like this.
> 
> http://tgace.com/2011/08/16/we-do-dangerous-things/



Wow... Just...... Wow. I'd like to see the numbers relating to how many training accidents they've had. My wife, who has little training at all was just staring wide eyed at my screen as I watched this video. Her only comment was "Well they have the music right for this video. These people are idiots..."

But it is worth it to mention that all martial arts have their fair share of this level of stupid. Though when live weapons are involved it kind of ups the level of Wtf to a higher level.


----------



## Carol

Tgace said:


> This isnt to imply that I think one is "better" than the other. LE/MIL seek them both but what they provide isnt identitical.



Actually I think this is a great reason why MAists should seek a broad base of experiences.  Seminars, slapping leather with as many people as possible, even cross-training.

I think expertise is not defined by what you've seen or done.  I think its defined by how well a person uses existing skills to put together an effective solution to an unfamiliar problem in a timely fashion.  

What is timely?  In my day job as a network engineer, I can be alerted to an issue with a device/appliance that I am not familiar with.  If I have the root cause diagnosed and service restored in about an hour, I might be seen as a hero.  But in a physical confrontation?  Someone could brutalize me and escape to another next time zone in the same window of time.  The scenario is different, the timing is different, but the results still depend on timely delivery of an effective solution one can provide to an unfamiliar problem.  

Personally, I have been spending more time on the hiking trails than I have in the dojo.  If something happens in the back country, you have to be able to save yourself....with no instructor, no cell phone reception, and perhaps no other sign of human life for miles.  I've limped down Cannon Mountain with a sprained ankle.  I've trudged for miles in the Pemigewasset wilderness with a sudden onset of bronchitis, complete with a fever north of 100F.  Each time what has saved me was my preparation (including my gear) and my training.  The bronchitis, by the way, was far worse than the sprained  ankle.  The sprained ankle was only painful.  

I am skeptical.  I'm not ashamed to say so.  To hear that someone has been doing X the same way for years is not good enough for me.  I want to know _how _an imperfect 40-something woman can utilize X to my benefit in 2013, because my own experiences have proven that my life, safety, health and well-being will depend on it.


----------



## Chris Parker

Hey Steve,



Steve said:


> Okay.  Had some coffee.  A little more awake now.  I'll just clarify that, if you understood this from my posts, it is because I was unclear.  I see a clear distinction between a person being an expert on some topic and that person having experience with some thing.  I hope that's settled, because the rest of your post builds on this misunderstanding.



To be honest, Steve, I don't think that you're quite seeing how you're saying things here.... as you're still saying what I have been commenting on. While there's a distinction, you're still saying that experience is required. It isn't.



Steve said:


> You're close.  Experience /= Expertise, but yes, expertise is (IMO) a critical component of building expertise... one of many.  Sugar does not equal cake, but certainly any good cake has sugar in it.


 
But are we discussing a cake? That's the thing...

I think the initial post was too limiting, really. And that there is a real lack of understanding of the different contexts involved. It dealt with sport versus self defence, and there are huge numbers of arts that don't fit either category. It attempted to equate both to a similar skill set, and a similar method of attaining (and testing) skills, which just isn't the case. The criteria for "expert" in a sports art are different to the criteria in a self defence one... and different again in many non-sport, non-self defence ones. They're not all cakes. And don't really share the same ingredients.



Steve said:


> Regarding the theme of the thread, I'd suggest that it's self awareness.  And if there's one solid conclusion I've seen amply supported in this thread, it is that the danger is in mis-identifying the area of expertise through a lack of self-awareness.  Tgace and MJS articulated two aspects of this.  In Tgace's post, he pointed out that Todd Jaret is an "expert" and that his instruction is valuable and in demand.  But Tgace stated very concisely what Todd Jaret's area of expertise really is... and what it isn't.   It's clear to the students and(this is the part I think many martial arts instructors don't get) it is very clear to the instructor.



Self awareness? I really don't get that from this thread at all... and, bluntly, you're still making the same type of connections I observed earlier (when you told me not to tell you what you were saying or thinking). Tgace did compare two different forms of expertise, but was at pains to state that he wasn't making any judgement of one being "better" than the other. As he said, both Jarrett and Lamb are offering very different instruction, but that doesn't make only one of the "expert" when it comes to firearms... just expert in different approaches. 



Steve said:


> Are martial arts instructors so careful?  Some are and some are not.  The martial arts connection here is that the "self defense" oriented martial arts instructor is not typically as self aware as someone like Todd Jaret.



So careful as what? I'm not really following what you're saying here... and I'm not sure what you mean by Jarret being "self aware".



Steve said:


> You can be an expert only on what you have experience with.  It's being self-aware that is the key.  It is possible, for example, to be expert on theory.



The problem is the insistence on what exactly the experience should be when it comes to martial arts instructors. 



Steve said:


> Training experience is experience with training.  Sounds simple, I know, but I've seen you argue this same point.  Sparring is not fighting.  It is sparring.  In MMA, sparring is not the same as fighting in the cage.  Which is, in turn, not the same thing as self defense.  And so on.  So, training is training.  There are a million different ways to train, some more effective at others. And training is an important step in the development of expertise.  But, training it remains.  The question becomes experience at what.



Hate to say it, Steve, but you've never seen me argue that point, as I'd patently disagree with the way you've presented it here. What I have argued is that training for one context is not the same as training for another. But, simply, training is experience... especially when it comes to things that are not practical to gain other forms of experience in.



Steve said:


> Well, if you've already decided that you are right, I appreciate your contribution.  Thanks.  It's helpful for me to know what your thoughts are on the subject.



The thing is, Steve, I haven't seen anything to counter my position. 



Steve said:


> Where have I suggested that it must be otherwise?


 
Uh... the quote I was replying to? Where you said "Learning Iaido won't help me in a BJJ tournament, for example"....?



Steve said:


> Excellent.  The crux.  The nut, as they say.



Yep.



Steve said:


> Ah...  here it is.  You don't understand at all what I'm saying.  Because if you did, you'd understand that I agree that most (if not all) modern martial arts are NOT designed for modern self defence.



Okay.... except the OP was a direct contrast between "sport and self defence", you haven't really taken on board other approaches for martial arts (asking about whether or not the lack of sword combative experience lessens the "expertise" for an Iai practitioner, etc), and the discussion has focused on the need for real-world self defence experience to validate whether or not a martial art instructor should be considered an "expert" in what they teach. 



Steve said:


> It's helpful to understand your definition of the term.   I define the term differently.  To me, an expert is someone who has particular skill and knowledge.  Obviously, if the subject is academic, then the expertise will also be academic.  But in a physical skill being taught, there must be an intimate, physical familiarity.



Okay... but the question again is where does the intimate, physical familiarity come from? Honestly, the answer is the training. Some real-world experience can help... but not necessarily. A lack of training, though...



Steve said:


> I am not saying that only experts can teach.  Certainly, even a novice can share helpful information.  What I am saying is that an expert is, IMO, deeper than knowing.  Knowing is the lowest form of understanding.  I've said before, I see learning as moving through predictable and unavoidable stages:
> Developing Expertise:
> 
> Knowing something,
> Understanding that thing,
> then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)
> Refining Expertise:
> 
> Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
> then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
> and, finally, you can innovate
> 
> Some would reserve the term expert to the very last stage.



Okay, so you're applying the term "knowledge" in a different way.... this is why I qualified by saying "deep knowledge". The way you're applying the term here I'd class as some exposure, and not the same thing. As for the rest, again, I have to say that this is thoroughly coloured by your experience in martial arts. You don't train for self defence (by your own words), your exposure is to sports training (for which I'd be agreeing with much of what you're saying), but it just doesn't apply across the board. Again, my background (to explain where I'm coming from) includes modern self defence, RBSD, BJJ, karate, TKD, Koryu, traditional arts, semi-traditional (not really sure how else to describe the Ninjutsu side of things... it's kinda halfway between traditional and modern), weaponry, unarmed, and so on. I can see where you're coming from, but really, you're missing a bit.



Steve said:


> I don't agree. To use your chef analogy (which I think I have earlier in the thread), I'd say that one could not call himself a chef if he has only ever read cookbooks.  So, in order to be a chef, one must have experience actually, physically cooking.  To be an expert chef, one must have done this... a lot.  How much?  Well, that depends.  As Tgace pointed out, there is expert and then there is EXPERT.


 
Sure. But it's really not the same thing here, honestly. I agree about the person only reading cookbooks, and would equate that to someone thinking they're self-learning (through books, DVDs etc) a martial art... to be a cook, you need to be in the kitchen. To be a martial artist, you need to be in the dojo/kwoon/dojang/gym etc. You don't need to get into a situation where you need to defend yourself. It's a false expectation, and a false connection. 



Steve said:


> To extend your analogy further, one doesn't need to work in a restaurant kitchen in order to be an excellent cook.  However, to be an expert in cooking AND in managing a kitchen in a restaurant, one must have expertise in both skill sets.  And you don't become an expert chef in a busy restaurant without experience.



And here you've added another aspect to the requirements. 



Steve said:


> You forgot to add, "in my opinion."  Surely you understand that, in spite of your absolute declaration, your definition of expert is your own.  As I said before, it's helpful to know how you define the term, but I don't agree.



No, I didn't. Mind you, you forgot to add the rest of my quote, where I clarified and qualified what I said, which wasn't as hardline as you're implying here.



harlan said:


> Sorry, but could you clarify: what is 'modern' self-defense'? That is a new twist to this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask Chris.  It's his term.
> 
> For myself, I take it to mean self defense in a contemporary setting.
Click to expand...


Pretty much.



Tgace said:


> I think that some artists have too much invested in either their Arts legitimacy as a "combat proven over centuries...teaching TRUE WARRIOR skills..." art, or in their own estimations of themselves as "warriors".
> 
> If you are only depending on your martial arts style/school/teacher as the SOLE source of you training (or the core of your life) you are a table with one leg.



And, just to address this, I think that many modern martial artists have too little understanding of what exactly such things are, as pertaining to the old arts. Vastly.


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Steve,
> 
> To be honest, Steve, I don't think that you're quite seeing how you're saying things here.... as you're still saying what I have been commenting on. While there's a distinction, you're still saying that experience is required. It isn't.


Yes, Chris.  It is.  Or can you provide an example of expertise absent experience?  Maybe I'd benefit from an illustration.  

Side note, has it ever occurred to you that if there is misunderstanding, some of that could be on your side?  I'm perfectly okay admitting that I don't get something, and if you explain to me that I'm wrong, I will happily admit it.  I don't get that from you, Chris.  You're a smart guy, Chris.  I respect your broad range of experience and you are very credible, in my opinion.  But it occurs to me that you never seem to sit back and think to yourself, "Hmmm...  maybe Chris Parker is the one that doesn't get it."  Perhaps it's just me, but I'd be surprised if that phrase ever pops into your head spontaneously.  





> But are we discussing a cake? That's the thing...


No.  We're discussing the development of expertise in human adults, and how human beings acquire skills and learn.  This is, IMO, independent of the subject.  





> I think the initial post was too limiting, really. And that there is a real lack of understanding of the different contexts involved. It dealt with sport versus self defence, and there are huge numbers of arts that don't fit either category. It attempted to equate both to a similar skill set, and a similar method of attaining (and testing) skills, which just isn't the case. The criteria for "expert" in a sports art are different to the criteria in a self defence one... and different again in many non-sport, non-self defence ones. They're not all cakes. And don't really share the same ingredients.


Chris.  You're missing the point.  The intent of the initial discussion wasn't to prove I was right.  It was to start a discussion.  As I said before, I'm happy to hear more from you on this, but at this point, your posts can be boiled down to, "You're wrong, Steve."  That's it.  Not much there.  In order for your posts to further the conversation, you're going to have to back that up with some meat.  I've gone out of my way to provide examples and to explain the rationale behind my assertions, and you're doing little more than saying, "Nope.  You're wrong."  Of course, you say it very articulately, but your responses have no meat.  

So, your definition of expert is different from mine?  Fine, share your definition.  How would you define expertise in self defense?  More to the point, explain to me how a person acquires expertise in self defense differently than in every other knowledge, skill or ability in human existence.  What makes "self defencs" different from everything else?





> Self awareness? I really don't get that from this thread at all... and, bluntly, you're still making the same type of connections I observed earlier (when you told me not to tell you what you were saying or thinking). Tgace did compare two different forms of expertise, but was at pains to state that he wasn't making any judgement of one being "better" than the other. As he said, both Jarrett and Lamb are offering very different instruction, but that doesn't make only one of the "expert" when it comes to firearms... just expert in different approaches.


LOL.   Circling back, perhaps the message was lost on you.  My suggestion to you is to focus on your own thoughts.  I'm certainly not going to start fighting over what he really did or didn't mean.  He's a big boy and will explain his words, if he feels like it.





> So careful as what? I'm not really following what you're saying here... and I'm not sure what you mean by Jarret being "self aware".


Jarret doesn't claim to have expertise in areas where he has none.  He does claim expertise in areas in which he is an expert.  You really don't get that?  Now you're just being coy.

You spoke to this and presumed that it is based upon my martial arts training:

_Developing Expertise:_


Knowing something,
Understanding that thing,
then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)

_Refining Expertise:_


Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
and, finally, you can innovate

It is not.  It's actually based upon adult learning theory.  It, or versions of it, have been used in every field of training and instruction since the 1950s.  Just, FYI.  And it has been a foundational principle in instructional design in every field for decades.  Martial Arts instructors who are effective use this model, whether intentionally or intuitively.  Why?  Because it's how people learn things.  Kids, adults, old, young.  

Chris, I'm sorry buddy.  I don't have the time to be the only one trying here.  You're going to have to give me something back to make this interesting.  So, stop being defensive.  Stop being coy.  Start giving something back.  Use the pronoun "you" a lot less and start writing sentences that begin with "I".  For example, "I think that..."  (and it doesn't count if you say, "I think that you're wrong."  That's cheating).  

Let's get a little less of Chris the defensive critic and more of Chris the actual, constructive participant in the thread, sharing his own ideas.  Because frankly, I haven't seen anything from you at all, much less that would indicate to me that I'm off base.


----------



## Tgace

Let me take you back to 2004.......

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...eness-of-Empty-Hand-Arnis?p=204707#post204707



> I don&#8217;t think any of us are trying to equate "experience" with skill. My friend Paul M. made an analogy with hockey, I&#8217;m going to try and make a comparison with a different sport, rock climbing.
> 
> Climbing is a very technical sport. There are specific physical techniques for climbing different features and various ways to use your hands and feet to adhere to the rock. Beyond using your body, there are ropes and knots. There&#8217;s hardware with specific uses and precise applications; carabineers, descenders, cams+chocks, harnesses, chalk, webbing and on and on. Many climbers (me) start by top roping (rope goes from ground to top and back to climber, so you don&#8217;t fall more than a few feet) or gym climbing. This is a safe environment where you can practice technique, train with gear and even compete. Many climbers never leave this level and that&#8217;s OK, it's as close to a real cliff as you can get without a real cliff. The skills built here can be applied to the "real thing". Most walls are 50'-100'.
> 
> "Real" rock climbing is called lead climbing. A length of rope connects two climbers. One climbs up placing anchors and clipping the rope through them as he goes. The length of fall depends on how far back your last anchor is and if it holds. Once the rope runs out the leader sets up an anchor system called a belay and the second climber climbs up, removing the anchors and the system repeats. I&#8217;ve climbed faces as high as 800'-900' and those are on the small side of average.
> 
> The first time I "lead" a climb, it was an eye-opener.... I had the technical skills; I knew the ropework, the knots, and the gear placement techniques. I could climb gym routes 2-3 grades higher than the cliff I was on BUT.... I could die here, I was getting way up, I was getting scared, my physical technique was degrading, I was clinging and scrambling more than I was climbing, I was slapping in anchors as quick as I could (OK was good enough, #@$% perfect). I learned that some techniques I could pull off in the gym I couldn&#8217;t do (yet) on the face so I tossed them. Many times I "just did things" without thought, sometimes there were moments of "wow I actually planned to do that and I did". I did it though and made it to the top.
> 
> Did the gym training help? Couldn&#8217;t have done without it. Did it apply on the cliff? Yep. Did "real" climbing improve my technique? That is a qualified "yes", yes in the sense that it gave me a better grasp on what I had to work on back in the gym. It gave me a different perspective on what my training produced and my "real" (current) ability to apply what I learned. Was the "real" climbing "necessary"? Obviously no. I did my first climb successfully with what I had. If I lived near real cliffs and could climb on them regularly I probably could have improved my technique with constant practice on them, if I survived. Did "real" climbing give me more clout in teaching a new climber? Not really, there are many climbers WAY better than me in the gym and on the cliff , BUT...I think I could give a new climber a better grasp on what the "real" thing is like and what he should know, at a minimum, to reach the top than a gym only climber. I would advise him to get better training on technique than I could provide though.
> 
> Now an analogy can&#8217;t be perfect in all its facets. I chose to climb, it wasn&#8217;t something I was forced into or would rather have avoided like a fight. But this is as close to an explanation of "experience counts" as I can make right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The other bottom line is this: "Experience" is not conducive of success in a self-defense encounter. The experienced vet could take a bullet just as easily as the green private. The experienced "brawler" can be taken out by a first timer. One doesn't mean the other.
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I do understand what you are saying here and I don&#8217;t say this as argument. Yes the random bullet can kill the commando as easily as the private, but every military man will tell you that experienced soldiers will put themselves into fewer situations where that random bullet will get the chance. Every war tells the story of new replacements being killed quicker than the veterans. In your field whom would you hire? 2 applicants with identical educations and personnel traits but one has 5 years of successful experience in the field where the other has none? Again, a perfect analogy, no. But I think you get my point.
> So, in the martial arts, do I believe that "fight experience" (read:street fight) is necessary for my personal development? No, I would rather have MA training as a "better to have it and not need it, than a need it and not have it" type thing. However I would want to simulate it as close and often as possible.
Click to expand...


That entire thread (more towards the end) had an interesting discussion on the "experience" thing.


----------



## Tgace

Chris Parker said:


> Tgace did compare two different forms of expertise, but was at pains to state that he wasn't making any judgement of one being "better" than the other. As he said, both Jarrett and Lamb are offering very different instruction, but that doesn't make only one of the "expert" when it comes to firearms... just expert in different approaches.



True. But if both of them were to start a "Way of the Gun-Dojo" which would you say has more clout when it comes to being a gun*fighter*?


----------



## Chris Parker

This probably won't be short...



Steve said:


> Yes, Chris.  It is.  Or can you provide an example of expertise absent experience?  Maybe I'd benefit from an illustration.


 
First off, let's clarify what is meant when we talk about "experience" here. I'm taking the term to refer to non-training experiences, what might be called "real life" experience, in this case, in the context of self defence, or any other area taught as part of a martial art class/self defence class. I'm using this definition as all your discussions, from the OP onwards, have used this context for "experience", with a denial of training being a form of experience itself. And, in that context, no, it's not necessary, nor indeed even indicative of anything of real benefit. But let's get to some examples. I'm going to use myself and my students here, for the record.

Let's look at knife defence. I've never had a knife pulled on me (well, not in a genuine threat, at least...), but I teach knife defence a fair bit each year. All my exposure to knife defence has been in classes, both as a student as an instructor, as well as research (looking into realistic knife assaults, behaviour patterns, psychology of both defender and attacker, and more), some of which comes from my instructor, some comes from my personal endeavours, and so on. And, while I haven't been in a "real" knife defence situation, some of my students have.... including one about a month and a half ago. He avoided an attack, controlled the weapon arm, disarmed the attacker, and sent them packing. When he was telling me about it, he went through what happened (as he remembered it), saying that he wasn't sure where it all came from. I was able to point out what he did, where in our teachings it came from, how he applied it, what worked, and why. My personal skills are superior to his, as is my knowledge and understanding... but he has the "real experience" (although he couldn't really identify why what he did worked, or even what he did exactly). So which would you consider more "expert"? Who would you learn from? Someone who has a deeper understanding of the topic, a wider and more developed skill set, or someone who managed to get through an encounter, without recognizing what was done that was good, and what was lucky?

How about knife combat? I spent three hours teaching that yesterday... and, again, it's not something I've ever "tested" in real life. But my skill set, knowledge, understanding etc are superior to the rest of the school here... I don't have any experience fighting against someone in armour, but can talk you through what targets are available, where grips are advisable, or not, how to tell if a technique/system is armour based depending on such aspects, and more. Same with sword combat... I haven't needed to respond against a gun either (my instructor did, but that's another story...), but do cover both pistol and shotgun defence. Haven't gone to ground in a self defence situation either, but that's covered. Now, I'm not saying that I'm an expert in these... but I would say I have an amount of expertise. I would also say I have an amount of expertise, not only in these broad stroke areas, but in the specific areas of my martial arts... the way they approach combat, the way they approach training methods, the contexts, the uses of them, what is and what is not part of them, and so on. And that's where part of your ideas fall down completely, as you're ignoring what it is to be an expert in this area... it's not related to any experience outside of the art itself... in other words, training experience.

For other examples, or illustrations, you have Elder's comments on working in a nuclear plant (expertise in an area, such as dealing with what could go wrong, without actually experiencing it), Sukerkins' comments on sword training, Tgace's two gun examples, with Jarrett not having "experience", but still being an "expert"... really, Steve, it's not me that's not been listening here.... 



Steve said:


> Side note, has it ever occurred to you that if there is misunderstanding, some of that could be on your side?  I'm perfectly okay admitting that I don't get something, and if you explain to me that I'm wrong, I will happily admit it.  I don't get that from you, Chris.  You're a smart guy, Chris.  I respect your broad range of experience and you are very credible, in my opinion.  But it occurs to me that you never seem to sit back and think to yourself, "Hmmm...  maybe Chris Parker is the one that doesn't get it."  Perhaps it's just me, but I'd be surprised if that phrase ever pops into your head spontaneously.


 
Constantly, Steve. Each time I do a post like this, I constantly review the entire thread to ensure I haven't misunderstood something, or missed a comment (it does still happen from time to time, but it's not due to me willfully ignoring contrary positions), always questioning my take on things. But really, Steve, you posted a question asking if it was possible... and a number of people, including myself, have all answered "yes, it is". You have kept questioning, pushing against the answer you've been given. I have explained that your take on things is coming from, bluntly, a limited perspective (which you've misunderstood again), and you're still arguing against it. The message from myself and others has been consistent... yes, it is possible. Not only possible, but common in areas where real-world experience/exposure is not practical.



Steve said:


> No.  We're discussing the development of expertise in human adults, and how human beings acquire skills and learn.  This is, IMO, independent of the subject.



Hmm, perhaps I should have put quotation marks around "cake" there.... what I meant was "are we discussing the same thing?", by extending your metaphor of a single ingredient being essential to a cake. When I asked "But are we discussing a cake?", what I meant was "are all martial arts to be judged as the same thing, therefore subject to the same set of requirements and essential aspects?", to which the answer is, well, no. And that's what you've missed in your OP and beyond.

But to take what you say here, acquiring skills and learning are not dependent upon real life experience. Again, that's been shown by Elder, Suke, myself, Tgace, and so on throughout the thread, mate. In self defence, it comes down to training, not real life usage in self defence, as that's just not practical. Sport arts are different entirely, as it is practical to test them in a sporting context. The exact methods, requirements etc are absolutely dependent on the subject.



Steve said:


> Chris.  You're missing the point.  The intent of the initial discussion wasn't to prove I was right.  It was to start a discussion.  As I said before, I'm happy to hear more from you on this, but at this point, your posts can be boiled down to, "You're wrong, Steve."  That's it.  Not much there.  In order for your posts to further the conversation, you're going to have to back that up with some meat.  I've gone out of my way to provide examples and to explain the rationale behind my assertions, and you're doing little more than saying, "Nope.  You're wrong."  Of course, you say it very articulately, but your responses have no meat.



Bluntly, Steve, your posts have boiled down to "no I'm not". Not much there, either. You tend to couch it in questioning, but your view is still there. And, I gotta say, I just reread this entire thread (again), and there is no example that you've provided at all. What you have done is put up hypothetical constructs and metaphors that deny the very subject you're trying to address... but no examples. You have neither demonstrated any accuracy in your ideas, nor countered any of mine (or Frank Raud's, or JKS's, or Sukerkin's, or Tgace's, or anyone else who has told you the same thing... namely, that you've gotten things a little wrong here). Just further questions along the same lines with different wording. Now, the way I read that is that you haven't understood the answers you've received... most likely as you can't relate it to your experience and understanding... so you're not accepting the answer. That leads you to ask for clarification, by asking in a different fashion. It hasn't bolstered your argument, nor has it denied any you've been presented with.



Steve said:


> So, your definition of expert is different from mine?  Fine, share your definition.  How would you define expertise in self defense?  More to the point, explain to me how a person acquires expertise in self defense differently than in every other knowledge, skill or ability in human existence.  What makes "self defencs" different from everything else?



No, Steve, nothing in the passage you quoted said that I had a different definition of "expert", it said that what is required to become one in different contexts is dependent on those different contexts... that to be an "expert" in sports methods is different to being an "expert" in self defence methods. And I've given my definition of "expert" a few times now... someone who has a deep knowledge/understanding/insight of a subject. That deep knowledge can be academic, physical, or any combination of the two (in martial arts and self defence, I'd say both are required, but that doesn't mean that real-life experience is required). Expertise in self defence is a deep knowledge/understanding of the subject... understanding of the legal, physical, mental, and social aspects, knowledge of realistic violence, knowledge of common attacks, awareness of what priorities should be, a lack of fantasy regarding the subject, and so on. How is that acquired? Through proper training that covers all these areas and more. There is no real difference in the way expertise is attained, but that doesn't mean that your assertion that real experience at defending yourself "on the streets" is required is correct. That's the real distinction between our positions, Steve.



Steve said:


> LOL.   Circling back, perhaps the message was lost on you.  My suggestion to you is to focus on your own thoughts.  I'm certainly not going to start fighting over what he really did or didn't mean.  He's a big boy and will explain his words, if he feels like it.



Are you sure you haven't decided that you know what he meant....? He presented both as experts, just as different ones in different areas, not that one was a "real" expert, and one wasn't.



Steve said:


> Jarret doesn't claim to have expertise in areas where he has none.  He does claim expertise in areas in which he is an expert.  You really don't get that?  Now you're just being coy.



Does Jarrett not present himself as a firearms expert? I know that Tgace was clear on his perception of where Jarrett's expertise was, and where it came from, but who says that Jarrett would present himself the same way? I wasn't being coy, I was genuinely asking... as you seem to be making assumptions that fit your beliefs, rather than seeing what's genuinely being presented... and you were addressing something that seemed unrelated. You had come up with the idea that the thread was about "self awareness"... the idea that, unless a "self defence instructor" has genuinely defended themselves, they aren't an expert, and shouldn't present themselves as such... they should be more "self aware" of that detail (which, bluntly, is wrong), and were then applying this concept to Jarrett without any real basis other than Tgace's description (from his perspective).

This is what I've meant when I've said you've been making false connections here.



Steve said:


> You spoke to this and presumed that it is based upon my martial arts training:
> 
> _Developing Expertise:_
> 
> 
> Knowing something,
> Understanding that thing,
> then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)
> 
> _Refining Expertise:_
> 
> 
> Evaluation (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
> then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
> and, finally, you can innovate
> 
> It is not.  It's actually based upon adult learning theory.  It, or versions of it, have been used in every field of training and instruction since the 1950s.  Just, FYI.  And it has been a foundational principle in instructional design in every field for decades.  Martial Arts instructors who are effective use this model, whether intentionally or intuitively.  Why?  Because it's how people learn things.  Kids, adults, old, young.



No, Steve, I've said that your outlook on the thread, your OP, many of your posts here, your contention, your arguments, your false connections, your not following when told by the majority that your contention isn't accurate comes from your martial background, not that this progression did. I'd agree with the progression (for the "developing expertise" section), and that's what I was referring to as "a deep knowledge of the subject". The second part ("refining expertise") is less applicable to a range of arts, for the record.



Steve said:


> Chris, I'm sorry buddy.  I don't have the time to be the only one trying here.  You're going to have to give me something back to make this interesting.  So, stop being defensive.  Stop being coy.  Start giving something back.  Use the pronoun "you" a lot less and start writing sentences that begin with "I".  For example, "I think that..."  (and it doesn't count if you say, "I think that you're wrong."  That's cheating).



Are you trying to see what you're being told, though, Steve? I'm not being defensive (don't really see the need for it), nor coy (hardly a common colour on me...), and have been giving you something. You've missed it each time. It started with my first response in this thread, mate, and has been consistent and constant since. The OP is limited, the contention is inaccurate, and there is a real lack of breadth of understanding shown. 



Steve said:


> Let's get a little less of Chris the defensive critic and more of Chris the actual, constructive participant in the thread, sharing his own ideas.  Because frankly, I haven't seen anything from you at all, much less that would indicate to me that I'm off base.



I'm going to break down the OP again, to see if we can get somewhere with this. I might add other comments of yours afterwards to show how you've missed what you've been shown:



Steve said:


> We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense." Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport. We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense."



Yep. Because they are different. They are different tactically, they are different contextually, they are different in terms of training requirements, they are different in scope, and more. And, pertinent to this thread, they are different in regards to testing methodology and application.



Steve said:


> The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent. Sport people train for sport. Other people train for other things.



Yeah, again, true. And, bluntly, what I have found is that it's always the sporting practitioners who can't get past this idea, or who think that what they do is more "real" due to sporting style testing and training methods. There seems to be a belief that, despite the situation, environment, context, application, ruleset, opponent, common tactics and strategies, technique etc all being very different, the randomness of sporting style testing and competition is closer to reality. That leads to what you've shown here, which is an insistence that things be done "for real" in order for it to be considered credible... sport arts are credible, as they test in sporting competition... so surely self defence arts, or teachers, in order to be credible, need to be tested in real self defence. No. What is required is a realistic training methodology, and an understanding of the context.



Steve said:


> My question is simply this. Can you train for something you never do? Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?



And here's where we started to get into issues. The question I asked in my first post in this thread was "what do you mean by 'actually done'?" You didn't answer any of those questions, by the way. Instead, we get a repeat in post 46 asking if any school is really teachings self defence if the students never get into a situation where they need to apply their skills. The answer is yes. It might not be an answer you can understand, but it's still the right one. JKS has given examples, Rich Parsons (quite experienced) backed it up as well, I've given examples, so has Tgace, same with Frank Raud... In post 69 you said that you wanted to make it clear that you were asking, not stating... while putting forth the contention that someone well trained in firearm use (a cop routinely on the range) wouldn't be expert compared to a soldier who dealt with live fire and returning it frequently... which implies the opposite. By the time we're at posts 79 and 82, you're bluntly stating your opinion (that training does not equal experience, and that real world experience is required to be considered a "credible expert"), even though it flatly denies the answers you've been given for (at that point) 6 pages.



Tgace said:


> True. But if both of them were to start a "Way of the Gun-Dojo" which would you say has more clout when it comes to being a gun*fighter*?



Is that what you'd be after, though? Does it really matter where the expertise comes from, if it's real expertise? Jarrett, from what I can see, has devoted himself to a superior understanding of and usage of a firearm, particularly from a mechanical and technical standpoint.... you even said yourself he probably "drives" the gun better than Lamb does.... but Lamb's focus is more on immediately practical skills in a slightly different context. Both are experts in what they do, and present. As to who you'd go with, well, that'd depend more on what was higher value for you.


----------



## Tgace

Chris Parker said:


> Is that what you'd be after, though? Does it really matter where the expertise comes from, if it's real expertise? Jarrett, from what I can see, has devoted himself to a superior understanding of and usage of a firearm, particularly from a mechanical and technical standpoint.... you even said yourself he probably "drives" the gun better than Lamb does.... but Lamb's focus is more on immediately practical skills in a slightly different context. Both are experts in what they do, and present. As to who you'd go with, well, that'd depend more on what was higher value for you.



"Is that what you are after?" Well that's the question isn't it? As is "is that what he's selling?"

If Jarrett was touting that he was teaching "the way of firearm combat", I'd be raising an eyebrow. As I would if Lamb was trying to sell seminars on how to improve ones IPSC competition ability.

If I were a SEAL Team 6 member with my own base of combat experience and training I may want a Jarrett to improve my technical skills. I wouldn't expect him to be schooling me on "what combat is like" or "what people do under fire". Which he doesn't by the way, Jarrett is "self aware" of what is expertise is (to steal a term from Steve).

If I were a municipal SWAT team member looking for tactical training (room clearing, negotiating Terrain under fire, etc)  I would lean towards Lamb.

My question was which instructor has clout if it came to claims of ability to teach gun FIGHTING. I think they themselves would be very clear about what it is they provide.

IMO. What firearms schools....to somewhat of an extent...have going for them is that they "stay in their lane". You don't see Jarrett teaching H2H. Lamb isn't out teaching knife defence. Neither of them...even the Delta Operator...claims to be training the "True way of the Warrior". 

If I were in a MA school where my non mil, non gun competing, non certified instructor started teaching gun techniques of questionable value I'd be in a conundrum. What does a student do when he has more expertise than his teacher on a subject and sees what's being taught is dangerously wrong?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chris Parker

Tgace said:


> "Is that what you are after?" Well that's the question isn't it? As is "is that what he's selling?"
> 
> If Jarrett was touting that he was teaching "the way of firearm combat", I'd be raising an eyebrow. As I would if Lamb was trying to sell seminars on how to improve ones IPSC competition ability.
> 
> If I were a SEAL Team 6 member with my own base of combat experience and training I may want a Jarrett to improve my technical skills. I wouldn't expect him to be schooling me on "what combat is like" or "what people do under fire". Which he doesn't by the way, Jarrett is "self aware" of what is expertise is (to steal a term from Steve).
> 
> If I were a municipal SWAT team member looking for tactical training (room clearing, negotiating Terrain under fire, etc)  I would lean towards Lamb.



All of which goes back to my point about the many different contexts that different martial art instructors and systems can have... it's not just split into "self defence" and "sport"... there's a lot more out there.... and they don't have the same requirements as each other to determine what makes one an "expert" in one or another context.



Tgace said:


> My question was which instructor has clout if it came to claims of ability to teach gun FIGHTING. I think they themselves would be very clear about what it is they provide.



And, honestly, it's a false analogy to the thread, and completely inconclusive to the point of being totally besides the point. There are plenty of soldiers that have a lot of experience but aren't at the level of Lamb, and there are plenty of sports marksmen who aren't at the level of Jarrett... both of whom excel at what they offer. If you're going to present two individuals and only ask who you would choose out of one who is recognized as a specialist in that area, and another who isn't, but is recognized as a specialist in another, related one, it's a false option. I'll put it this way... who would you have teach you gun safety? Are either more expert than the other in that regard? How about putting Jarrett up against a different "experienced" soldier, but not anywhere near as skilled... do you still go for the guy with experience over the one with the skillset? Lamb's experience has helped shape his approach, certainly... but there's nothing indicating that it was required for a level of expertise with a firearm.



Tgace said:


> IMO. What firearms schools....to somewhat of an extent...have going for them is that they "stay in their lane". You don't see Jarrett teaching H2H. Lamb isn't out teaching knife defence. Neither of them...even the Delta Operator...claims to be training the "True way of the Warrior".








http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103856



Tgace said:


> If I were in a MA school where my non mil, non gun competing, non certified instructor started teaching gun techniques of questionable value I'd be in a conundrum. What does a student do when he has more expertise than his teacher on a subject and sees what's being taught is dangerously wrong?



I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything here... we're looking at what is required for expertise to exist, and the example you give is clearly not an expert. So... maybe just listen what they are expert in, and, if you have a good enough relationship with them, talk to them about where they're lacking? Perhaps you could offer the benefit of your superior expertise? What is this to do with the topic?


----------



## MJS

Personally, I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's walked the walk, rather than someone who's just talking about it.  Ex: An inst. who's actually had experience in a given area, rather than someone who says, "Well, I learned these 5 techs from my teacher, and he said they'd work, so even though he's never done them for real, they must work...because he said so!"


----------



## Tgace

Chris Parker said:


> And, honestly, it's a false analogy to the thread, and completely inconclusive to the point of being totally besides the point. There are plenty of soldiers that have a lot of experience but aren't at the level of Lamb, and there are plenty of sports marksmen who aren't at the level of Jarrett... both of whom excel at what they offer. If you're going to present two individuals and only ask who you would choose out of one who is recognized as a specialist in that area, and another who isn't, but is recognized as a specialist in another, related one, it's a false option. I'll put it this way... who would you have teach you gun safety? Are either more expert than the other in that regard? How about putting Jarrett up against a different "experienced" soldier, but not anywhere near as skilled... do you still go for the guy with experience over the one with the skillset? Lamb's experience has helped shape his approach, certainly... but there's nothing indicating that it was required for a level of expertise with a firearm.



Gun Safety? I wouldnt pay the cash these guys demand for gun safety. I'd go to an NRA class. 

What experience does Jarrett have in regards to actual military/LE operations? If I wanted to improve my draw/split times and my multiple target engagement times sure I may go to Jarrett. What if I was looking for training on how to engage a gunman during a building assault? Are you suggesting Jarrett's "expertise" would still be sufficient? Damn skippy I may still go with the Soldier even though Jarrett is a better tecnician...

This is an interesting tangent into the original intent of the thread. Simply because a MA teacher may be a good technician doesn't mean that hes an "expert" in self-defense. The actual "fight" portion of a defensive engagement is but one aspect of self-defense. What about pre-fight indicators? What about self-defense law? What about post engagement?


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Personally, I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who's walked the walk, rather than someone who's just talking about it.  Ex: An inst. who's actually had experience in a given area, rather than someone who says, "Well, I learned these 5 techs from my teacher, and he said they'd work, so even though he's never done them for real, they must work...because he said so!"



But do you require an instructor to have successfully (and, presumably, repeatedly in order to ascertain consistent skill) defended against groups, knives, guns, bats, on the ground, ambush assaults, and more? As well as having a deep understanding of everything else they're teaching? I mean, I've dealt with a number of assaults, including one which was 5 on one (me)... so do I pass? Or not, because I haven't dealt with much in the way of weaponry in real encounters?

In other words, while you might prefer someone who has some real world experience, is it really essential?



Tgace said:


> Gun Safety? I wouldnt pay the cash these guys demand for gun safety. I'd go to an NRA class.



Kinda missing the point here... the question is about what experience is necessary, not about how much you'd pay for different aspects of their expertise. Does Lamb's combat experience make his gun safety knowledge more valuable? Does it make him more "expert" in this regard? 



Tgace said:


> What experience does Jarrett have in regards to actual military/LE operations? If I wanted to improve my draw/split times and my multiple target engagement times sure I may go to Jarrett. What if I was looking for training on how to engage a gunman during a building assault? Are you suggesting Jarrett's "expertise" would still be sufficient? Damn skippy I may still go with the Soldier even though Jarrett is a better tecnician...



And this is really my point... different contexts require different expertise... which have different requirements. There is no requirement for expertise that cuts across all fields, other than to have a deep knowledge of their subject... whatever that subject might be. Jarrett's not being schooled in military procedure or operations doesn't reduce his expertise in firearms, it just indicates the context within which he is an expert.



Tgace said:


> This is an interesting tangent into the original intent of the thread. Simply because a MA teacher may be a good technician doesn't mean that hes an "expert" in self-defense. The actual "fight" portion of a defensive engagement is but one aspect of self-defense. What about pre-fight indicators? What about self-defense law? What about post engagement?



Agreed. But none of that requires anything beyond being well educated and trained in it. Which has been what I've said all along.


----------



## Tgace

So an art being "combat proven" has intrinsic value but an instructors experience has no intrinsic value? At some point this becomes a chicken egg argument. If not for experienced instructors input what comabtive value would an art have?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Chris Parker

That gets into a whole 'nother can o'worms... 

To begin with, I'd say that most things claimed to be "combat proven" aren't in the way most think they are... secondly, I'd say that those that are closer to that idea have more to do with development off the field of combat than on. Thirdly, an art can be considered an amalgam of a number of person's experiences, codified and disseminated, not just one guy getting lucky (it should be noted that I do know of a few that are just one guy, but even there the benefit of the experience is not definitively apparent). But really, a lot of these "combat proven" arts weren't actually developed in combat... 

As far as "intrinsic value", where have I stated anything of the kind? And what intrinsic value do you think it has? Over what?

And, to the last question, it could have plenty... it would depend on the art, what it's meant to teach, how, and how (and by whom) it was developed in the first place.


----------



## Tgace

The "advantage" war brings to the firearms "arts" is that it results in a number of experienced instructors that inject the "art" with current and relevant experience.

http://www.kylelamb.com/

http://www.panteaoproductions.com/instructors/paul-howe

http://vickerstactical.com/

http://www.redbackone.com/

...and on and on. 

I'd wager that quite a few Samurai broke into the teaching biz when wars started to run short and their "experience" was part and parcel of what they codified. 

Im not trying to extend this into an argument that "if your instructor hasnt seen the elephant than his stuff sucks". All I'm trying to say is that combat/street (what have you) experience...current and relevant..should be influencing, updating and developing any modern combative system. Otherwize all you are doing is period reenactment.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Gun Safety? I wouldnt pay the cash these guys demand for gun safety. I'd go to an NRA class.
> 
> What experience does Jarrett have in regards to actual military/LE operations? If I wanted to improve my draw/split times and my multiple target engagement times sure I may go to Jarrett. What if I was looking for training on how to engage a gunman during a building assault? Are you suggesting Jarrett's "expertise" would still be sufficient? Damn skippy I may still go with the Soldier even though Jarrett is a better tecnician...
> *
> This is an interesting tangent into the original intent of the thread. Simply because a MA teacher may be a good technician doesn't mean that hes an "expert" in self-defense. The actual "fight" portion of a defensive engagement is but one aspect of self-defense. What about pre-fight indicators? What about self-defense law? What about post engagement?*


Tgace, this isn't a tangent.  This is exactly what I was hoping this thread would discuss.  Whether I could articulate it clearly or not, this is central to the questions I was hoping to talk about.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> The "advantage" war brings to the firearms "arts" is that it results in a number of experienced instructors that inject the "art" with current and relevant experience.
> 
> http://www.kylelamb.com/
> 
> http://www.panteaoproductions.com/instructors/paul-howe
> 
> http://vickerstactical.com/
> 
> http://www.redbackone.com/
> 
> ...and on and on.
> 
> I'd wager that quite a few Samurai broke into the teaching biz when wars started to run short and their "experience" was part and parcel of what they codified.
> 
> Im not trying to extend this into an argument that "if your instructor hasnt seen the elephant than his stuff sucks". All I'm trying to say is that combat/street (what have you) experience...current and relevant..should be influencing, updating and developing any modern combative system. Otherwise all you are doing is period reenactment.


For my part, I was just trying to get the topic to the point that we could all agree that there is a distinction.  Technical, clinical expertise can be extremely valuable.   It's the difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise.  It's the bridge that must be made between classroom expertise and real world application, understanding where that gap is.   

I love the "staying in your lane" concept.  It encapsulates exactly what I was thinking, that you have to correctly identify what you're doing, what skills you're developing, and where your area of expertise really lies.  And, for the purposes of this thread, I see this lack of awareness in martial arts more often than in any other area where people train and seek to acquire skills.  People in martial arts can be alarming ignorant of what they are learning and what they AREN'T learning.

And to the points made earlier, the term self defense is so generic as to be, IMO, almost completely unhelpful.  Yet, it's used all the time in martial arts schools flyers, on their doors and in their sales pitches.  Over the last few posts, I've been exposed to eight or 10 different subsets of gun training, each with its own set of skills, and in which people are instructing others in their own area of expertise.  The key distinction, as I see it, is that everyone involved in the training courses knows all of this.  It's overt.  I am the instructor of this course.  My expertise is this.  This is what I will teach you.  This is what you will NOT learn in this course.  

You get that in just about every other activity/endeavor a human can be involved with, except martial arts.  Some martial arts...


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> This probably won't be short...


Chris, could you tell me what your areas of expertise are?  Specifically?  You don't have to list them.  Again, to be clear, I don't really want you to list them.  I'm wondering if you've ever thought about it to the level of specificity that the instructors Tgace listed have.  What I mean is, within the broad category of "self defense", for example, could you tell a prospective student, "This is what I can teach you and this is what I cannot teach you."  

Then, if the answer to the above is yes, you could do this, do you?  And finally, at some point, if you have never bridged the gap between training and practice, can you claim to have that expertise?  Kind of like the distinction between tactics and strategy.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> Over the last few posts, I've been exposed to eight or 10 different subsets of gun training, each with its own set of skills, and in which people are instructing others in their own area of expertise.  The key distinction, as I see it, is that everyone involved in the training courses knows all of this.  It's overt.  I am the instructor of this course.  My expertise is this.  This is what I will teach you.  This is what you will NOT learn in this course.



Not to take the topic off track, but IMO firearms use is as much a "martial art" as any other ancient weapon art:

http://tgace.com/2012/11/26/the-mystical-and-the-mundane/



> I've often wondred how people (especially martial artists) can consider this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an Art with all the benefits we ascribe to martial arts (discipline, mental clairty, improved concentration, moving meditation...etc.).
> 
> 
> While they dismiss this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As simply "shooting"...a hobby enjoyed by "gun nuts", right wing extremists, rednecks and "preppers".
> 
> 
> Not that Iaido is NOT an "Art" or that it doesn't have those benefits mind you, but the physical mechanics of drawing a sword are not "mystical". The discipline of a trained firearms user is little different IMO. I laugh at the idea that a sub 2 second failure drill is somehow "less" than a clean sword cut.
> 
> 
> Don't confuse people out shooting at tin cans with skilled shooters. There are plenty of people out swinging martial arts weapons in their back yards with no training (as we all know)...they do not seem to taint the entire pool of martial artists though.



So...If I wanted to make "Pistolcraft" Koryu-like, what would that mean? Would I have to codify what "pistolcraft" is today and pass it through the centuries unchanged? At what point do you "preserve" an art?


----------



## Steve

Cheesy as this might sound, I agree but still think of the Christian bale movie.

The next question would be  which koryu.  Would the combat koryu argue that the leo oriented arts are less effective, and then the sport arts have too many rules.  Which arts would prohibit actual firing of rounds because they're too deadly?   Which arts would focus on muskets?

sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Tgace said:


> Not to take the topic off track, but IMO firearms use is as much a "martial art" as any other ancient weapon art:
> 
> http://tgace.com/2012/11/26/the-mystical-and-the-mundane/
> 
> 
> 
> So...If I wanted to make "Pistolcraft" Koryu-like, what would that mean? Would I have to codify what "pistolcraft" is today and pass it through the centuries unchanged? At what point do you "preserve" an art?



Absolutely Tgace firearms are a martial science!  A very important one if you want to stay relevant in this world!


----------



## Tgace

Relevant article:

http://stevereichert.com/differences-and-similarities-of-civilian-competition-and-combat-shooting/



> I thought I would share a good article my friend Craig &#8220;Sawman&#8221; Sawyer wrote on the differences and similarities of civilian competition and combat shooting. Sawman is a Former Marine, Navy SEAL (DEV) & now a TV Personality on numerous TV shows and documentaries.  Here you go&#8230;



Read it and see if you can't draw parallels to our discussion here.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Nice link Tgace!!!


----------



## Tgace

Now let me throw this old writing of mine into the mix!

http://tgace.com/2013/04/05/martial-art-or-art-form/



> I find Kyudo an interesting art and an interesting subject for discussion of the term "martial art". While Kyudo has its roots in combat archery and does use a weapon, it is obviously a spiritual and meditative pursuit rather than a combative skill. While Kyudo is called a "martial art", I doubt that any Kyudo practitioner has delusions of being "combat effective" or believe that they are training in an art that will provide them with "street survival" skills. However I do believe that there are practitioners of various stylistic, meditative and "traditional" arts that DO believe such things. These are the people who believe that working on their "Chi" rather than their punching skills or physical conditioning will help them survive a confrontation. They are the people who think that a fight will somehow adhere to the protocols they follow at the dojo. These are the people who equate "martial art" with "combatives".  A Kyudo practitioner is not the same as a historic Japanese combat archer. A sport fencing master is not automatically someone who could survive a real sword fight and a master in a "martial art" who has never faced a resisting opponent should not be presumed to be more likely to prevail against someone who has.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Relevant article:
> 
> http://stevereichert.com/differences-and-similarities-of-civilian-competition-and-combat-shooting/
> 
> 
> 
> Read it and see if you can't draw parallels to our discussion here.


it seems to me that this the author has experience that gives him a credibility that is obvious.  The swat team members who lack this experience whom he mentions in the article make mistakes that are clear and obvious to the author.  And to a complete layman, like me, it's all foreign.    The comments were interesting, too.

I would certainly defer to a Leo on issues like this, but it sounds like Leo would be foolish not to defer to the author of the article.  As Tgace said earlier, there are experts and EXPERTS.

I still think that experience is an integral part of developing expertise.  And on the other hand,  A SWAT team member has specialized expertise that the author of this article does not, I'm sure, based upon the specific experience of that person.  It's about knowing what you know, and also knowing what you don't know.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> it seems to me that this the author has experience that gives him a credibility that is obvious.  The swat team members who lack this experience whom he mentions in the article make mistakes that are clear and obvious to the author.  And to a complete layman, like me, it's all foreign.    The comments were interesting, too.
> 
> I would certainly defer to a Leo on issues like this, but it sounds like Leo would be foolish not to defer to the author of the article.  As Tgace said earlier, there are experts and EXPERTS.
> 
> I still think that experience is an integral part of developing expertise.  And on the other hand,  A SWAT team member has specialized expertise that the author of this article does not, I'm sure, based upon the specific experience of that person.  It's about knowing what you know, and also knowing what you don't know.



Good point. SWAT operations are not analogous to military operations. SWAT operators can maintain those "princess guns" and not be crawling through mud flats (for the most part). They also wont typically be firing as many rounds as a SEAL may. That being said I agree with the authors premise and prefer a GLOCK.

All that aside though...what I found most interesting was his discussion of the physical effects if combat and their impact on technique.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> But do you require an instructor to have successfully (and, presumably, repeatedly in order to ascertain consistent skill) defended against groups, knives, guns, bats, on the ground, ambush assaults, and more? As well as having a deep understanding of everything else they're teaching? I mean, I've dealt with a number of assaults, including one which was 5 on one (me)... so do I pass? Or not, because I haven't dealt with much in the way of weaponry in real encounters?
> 
> In other words, while you might prefer someone who has some real world experience, is it really essential?



Hi Chris,

In my very first post in this thread, I talked about CPR/First Aid.  I mentioned how someone with a simple 8hr course, may/may not be as reliable as compared to someone such as a Paramedic, Doctor, etc, who's odds of using their skills, are much higher.  My next post was in response to something TGace said, to which I commented that someone who trains in an art with more contact, would probably be better prepared for the stress, the contact, etc, than someone who never got hit hard before.  My next post was in response to Steve, in which I compared training with someone closer to the source of something, rather than someone 5 times removed, and how you may gain more out of the training.  

I've been training for 20+yrs, and during that time, I've seen a wide variety of teachers.  I've seen those that've taught those 'questionable' things, and used the excuse that they learned XYZ from instructor A and he said those things will work, so...blah, blah blah.  I've also seen those that've have and still do, work in fields in which they've had to use what they know, those that've seen and had to deal with knife attacks in a prison setting, etc.  For me, I'd tend to lean more towards the latter of the groups I mentioned.  

Now, you put yourself into the group as well, and asked if you fit the bill, after having dealt with numerous assaults.  Yes Chris, you'd pass.   I say that, because IMO, if someone has the experience, chances are, their entire training program will most likely consist of things that'll stand a high chance of working.  

Let me ask you this:  In your opinion, when do you feel that experience isn't necessary?


----------



## jks9199

Tgace said:


> Good point. SWAT operations are not analogous to military operations. SWAT operators can maintain those "princess guns" and not be crawling through mud flats (for the most part). They also wont typically be firing as many rounds as a SEAL may. That being said I agree with the authors premise and prefer a GLOCK.
> 
> All that aside though...what I found most interesting was his discussion of the physical effects if combat and their impact on technique.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



In theory, maybe a LE tactical unit can maintain a gun like that.  In reality -- they need a gun that's able to move through different environments every bit as much as that military special forces operator.  They may not be as likely to crawl through mud... but a lot of other stuff can happen.  However -- it's also dangerous drawing too much from military tactics for LE.  Once they engage, a SWAT unit almost always MUST finish the mission themselves.  I like what one of the SF operators said when he visited our shoothouse and watched some of our SWAT guys training:  "we get in a situation like that, we just lob a grenade, back out, and call for artillery or air support..."   Not exactly an option for LE, where we are responsible for each round we fire, and must always be concerned about innocent civilians in the area.

Training must be reasonable and appropriate to the desired and needed outcome.  A boxer would be foolish to spend their time worrying about takedowns and kicks as they prepare for a title match.  Cops can't use some military tactics and some LE tactics had to be adapted and modified for military urban ops -- both because of different threats and different rules of engagement.  Stuff that a police tac team does isn't going to work for corrections tac team... and vice versa.

But -- the original question here was whether it is possible to prepare for something without doing it directly.  YES - if you have proper guidance and do proper research.  I'll probably never know what it's like to deal with someone who outweighs me by half again, has a massive edge in upper body strength, etc. which are normal concerns for a woman.  That doesn't mean I can't gather appropriate information and knowledge, and offer meaningful training.  I don't train for MMA competitions, and haven't fought in one.  I still think I could prepare someone reasonably well for it -- though I'd probably pull in some folks with specific skills to help me.


----------



## Tgace

jks9199 said:


> But -- the original question here was whether it is possible to prepare for something without doing it directly.



Actually..and Steve can correct me if Im wrong. I think the question is if a "style/school" and possibly an instructor should have some experience actually doing something vs an instructor who is teaching something thats was based on the real world experience of a person 10 generations ago.

How many times removed from "doing it" can a teacher get before what he/she is teaching becomes questionable in regards to combat application?


----------



## Chris Parker

I'm going to come back to this tomorrow... there's a lot to deal with, and it's a bit after midnight here right now... tomorrow will be fun, though...


----------



## FullPotentialMA

The short answer: yes!
That is what pilots do to be prepared for (thankfully rare) emergencies.

The key, in my humble opinion, is to make the training as realistic and close to the "real thing" as possible. Pilots today have full motion simulators.
We must balance safety with efficacy. Suffering a life debilitating injury, while training for something that may never take place, is a bad tradeoff to make.


----------



## Blindside

Reminds me of Aliens:


> Dialog -
> Ripley: How many drops for you is this, lieutenant?
> Gorman: Thirty-eight. Simulated.
> Vasquez: How many combat drops?
> Gorman: Uh, two. Including this one.
> Hudson: Oh-ho, man...


----------



## Steve

FullPotentialMA said:


> The short answer: yes!
> That is what pilots do to be prepared for (thankfully rare) emergencies.
> 
> The key, in my humble opinion, is to make the training as realistic and close to the "real thing" as possible. Pilots today have full motion simulators.
> We must balance safety with efficacy. Suffering a life debilitating injury, while training for something that may never take place, is a bad tradeoff to make.


This is very interesting, as I have two close friends in flight school right now and they've been excitedly sharing with me their progress.  I learned today what a CFIT is (controlled flight into terrain).  But, they actually do a lot of flying.  They're logging many, many hours in a plane, in addition to the simulators and the classroom instruction.  

This brings up another aspect of learning...  how to teach beginners vs how to teach someone who has expertise.  

You're talking about emergencies, and what you're said is very reasonable.  Keep it as realistic as possible.  But, of course, you have to balance safety and no one wants to be an expert in recovering from dangerous situations.  Well, I guess unless you're a professional stunt pilot.  

To the point, though, the emergency skills learned in a simulator are only going to be effective for pilots who are experienced.  In other words, the pilots are building their expertise with certain classes of aircraft and in certain conditions.  And things are learned in a particular order.  You don't, if I understand things correctly, you don't become instrument rated until you've been visual rated.  You don't fly until you've got the classroom training.  The expertise is built in stages, and at each stage, you are required to apply the skills.  So, as you learn the emergency procedures, you are marrying them to the skill you already have.


----------



## Tgace

Steve said:


> This is very interesting, as I have two close friends in flight school right now and they've been excitedly sharing with me their progress.  I learned today what a CFIT is (controlled flight into terrain).  But, they actually do a lot of flying.  They're logging many, many hours in a plane, in addition to the simulators and the classroom instruction.
> 
> This brings up another aspect of learning...  how to teach beginners vs how to teach someone who has expertise.
> 
> You're talking about emergencies, and what you're said is very reasonable.  Keep it as realistic as possible.  But, of course, you have to balance safety and no one wants to be an expert in recovering from dangerous situations.  Well, I guess unless you're a professional stunt pilot.
> 
> To the point, though, the emergency skills learned in a simulator are only going to be effective for pilots who are experienced.  In other words, the pilots are building their expertise with certain classes of aircraft and in certain conditions.  And things are learned in a particular order.  You don't, if I understand things correctly, you don't become instrument rated until you've been visual rated.  You don't fly until you've got the classroom training.  The expertise is built in stages, and at each stage, you are required to apply the skills.  So, as you learn the emergency procedures, you are marrying them to the skill you already have.



Beat me to it. 

I question the use of simulators as "from scratch" trainers (learn it in simulation then DO it). They are GREAT for maintaining training or practicing skills..."learning" something? Perhaps to an extent but only in conjunction with physical experience (IMO).


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> But -- the original question here was whether it is possible to prepare for something without doing it directly.  YES - if you have proper guidance and do proper research.  I'll probably never know what it's like to deal with someone who outweighs me by half again, has a massive edge in upper body strength, etc. which are normal concerns for a woman.  That doesn't mean I can't gather appropriate information and knowledge, and offer meaningful training.  I don't train for MMA competitions, and haven't fought in one.  I still think I could prepare someone reasonably well for it -- though I'd probably pull in some folks with specific skills to help me.


I'll take full responsibility for being unclear.  The title of the thread wasn't well thought out, but in the first post, I said this:  "Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?"

The nature of expertise is really what I was interested in from the beginning, and I'm glad to see that the thread went that direction in spite of my original lack of clarity.  I think it's been very well established that someone can transition from understanding something to doing something.  We make that leap all the time, and in fact, it's an unavoidable step.  What I was thinking about from the beginning was this idea that a person is an expert on something he or she has never actually done.  

Hope this clears it up.


----------



## Chris Parker

Right. Uh, this will be a long one. Sorry 'bout that...



Tgace said:


> The "advantage" war brings to the firearms "arts" is that it results in a number of experienced instructors that inject the "art" with current and relevant experience.
> 
> http://www.kylelamb.com/
> 
> http://www.panteaoproductions.com/instructors/paul-howe
> 
> http://vickerstactical.com/
> 
> http://www.redbackone.com/
> 
> ...and on and on.



You missed the questions, as well as what I was saying. Additionally, all you've done is provide a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument (after it, therefore because of it). You haven't shown that such experience is required, you've really just shown a group that trade off it. And honestly, I feel this is all missing the argument here, as it's not really that close to what's being discussed. 



Tgace said:


> I'd wager that quite a few Samurai broke into the teaching biz when wars started to run short and their "experience" was part and parcel of what they codified.



Hmm. Not in the way you're thinking, no.  



Tgace said:


> Im not trying to extend this into an argument that "if your instructor hasnt seen the elephant than his stuff sucks". All I'm trying to say is that combat/street (what have you) experience...current and relevant..should be influencing, updating and developing any modern combative system. Otherwize all you are doing is period reenactment.



So... you're saying that you're not trying to imply that real world experience is a requirement for an instructor of such methods, but unless there is real world experience, it's "period re-enactment"? Isn't that a bit contradictory? You don't need it, but you really do?



Steve said:


> Tgace, this isn't a tangent.  This is exactly what I was hoping this thread would discuss.  Whether I could articulate it clearly or not, this is central to the questions I was hoping to talk about.



Except your OP wasn't asking about technical expertise, nor was it asking about a wider knowledge of the subject (what I described as a "deep knowledge", and what Tgace described), it was asking if real world experience was needed. Do you need to have had a number of real world knife defence encounters in order to be able to claim some expertise about self defence law, for example? Blunty, Steve, no, you don't. You just need to have learnt it to the point of expertise. And that's been something you've been told throughout the thread.



Steve said:


> For my part, I was just trying to get the topic to the point that we could all agree that there is a distinction.  Technical, clinical expertise can be extremely valuable.   It's the difference between theoretical expertise and practical expertise.  It's the bridge that must be made between classroom expertise and real world application, understanding where that gap is.


 
I don't think anyone has said that simple technical ability doesn't mean you're a self defence expert (for the record, even among many people who think they understand self defence, or train for self defence, I see a hell of a lot of lack of understanding of exactly what that entails... even amongst the membership of this forum), the question has been whether or not you need to have actually defended yourself in order to know what is needed, or to teach self defence. Can real world experience help? Certainly. I think I've said that a number of times. Is it essential? No. You've been told that a number of times as well, by the majority of posters in this thread.  



Steve said:


> I love the "staying in your lane" concept.  It encapsulates exactly what I was thinking, that you have to correctly identify what you're doing, what skills you're developing, and where your area of expertise really lies.  And, for the purposes of this thread, I see this lack of awareness in martial arts more often than in any other area where people train and seek to acquire skills.  People in martial arts can be alarming ignorant of what they are learning and what they AREN'T learning.



Oh, I see the same thing... possibly more than most do here, if I'm to be honest about it. But in regards to the "staying in your lane" idea... do you think that is only done by the firearms groups? And, really, the amount of ignorance doesn't mean that it's experience (real world encounters) that are lacking, it's that genuine knowledge and understanding is lacking. And I think there are a large number of reasons for that, and that it's more common in "modern" systems, bluntly, but that's another discussion. Could real world experience help? Maybe. But not certainly. And it's also not required, as such knowledge and understanding can be gained without it.



Steve said:


> And to the points made earlier, the term self defense is so generic as to be, IMO, almost completely unhelpful.  Yet, it's used all the time in martial arts schools flyers, on their doors and in their sales pitches.  Over the last few posts, I've been exposed to eight or 10 different subsets of gun training, each with its own set of skills, and in which people are instructing others in their own area of expertise.  The key distinction, as I see it, is that everyone involved in the training courses knows all of this.  It's overt.  I am the instructor of this course.  My expertise is this.  This is what I will teach you.  This is what you will NOT learn in this course.
> 
> You get that in just about every other activity/endeavor a human can be involved with, except martial arts.  Some martial arts...



Ha, yeah, some martial arts... Look, I've ranted a number of times before about the differences between martial arts and self defence, and that I personally am not a fan (at all!) of martial arts being promoted as "self defence", as I don't feel any of them are. In my classes, "self defence" and "martial arts" are separated... and the separation is explicitly stated, as well as markedly demonstrated. But none of that means that real world experience is required to teach, or understand self defence.



Steve said:


> Chris, could you tell me what your areas of expertise are?  Specifically?  You don't have to list them.  Again, to be clear, I don't really want you to list them.  I'm wondering if you've ever thought about it to the level of specificity that the instructors Tgace listed have.  What I mean is, within the broad category of "self defense", for example, could you tell a prospective student, "This is what I can teach you and this is what I cannot teach you."
> 
> Then, if the answer to the above is yes, you could do this, do you?  And finally, at some point, if you have never bridged the gap between training and practice, can you claim to have that expertise?  Kind of like the distinction between tactics and strategy.



Damn straight, I do. I know what I offer, I know where it comes from, I know how to test it (safely and realistically), I know how to assess other approaches, I know the contexts of everything I do, and I go to great pains to put all of this across to my students. One of my first questions to potential students is to ask what they are wanting out of a martial art experience, and what they are expecting... and, if their requests don't match what I teach, I suggest something else that does. If their expectations are unrealistic, I explain that.

That said, I'm not sure what you're meaning as the distinction between "training and practice" here... I'm very aware of the difference between strategy and tactics, but your usage of "training and practice" would both imply (to me) non-real world experience... so would both fall under the areas I'm saying are required for expertise, as opposed to the requirement you've been looking for.



Tgace said:


> Not to take the topic off track, but IMO firearms use is as much a "martial art" as any other ancient weapon art:
> 
> http://tgace.com/2012/11/26/the-mystical-and-the-mundane/
> 
> So...If I wanted to make "Pistolcraft" Koryu-like, what would that mean? Would I have to codify what "pistolcraft" is today and pass it through the centuries unchanged? At what point do you "preserve" an art?



You missed what makes Iai what it is by only looking at mechanical aspects, for the record. There are reasons the distinction is made. But to your questions at the end (not that I'm sure of any relevance), "pistolcraft" does exist as Koryu (the term for gunnery, commonly matchlock rifles, but also including pistols of various forms, is Hojutsu, or sometimes Hinawajutsu). In terms of what you would have to do, well, that'd be up to you. Same with "when do you 'preserve' an art?". But you're missing the development of Koryu there, so the entire line of questioning is rather pointless.





 Morishige Ryu Hojutsu





 Seki Ryu Hojutsu





 Yo Ryu Hojutsu



Steve said:


> Cheesy as this might sound, I agree but still think of the Christian bale movie.
> 
> The next question would be  which koryu.  Would the combat koryu argue that the leo oriented arts are less effective, and then the sport arts have too many rules.  Which arts would prohibit actual firing of rounds because they're too deadly?   Which arts would focus on muskets?
> 
> sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



Why would they argue anything like that (and what is a "combat Koryu"?)? As to the last two questions, you need to (one more time) know the context of the art in question. And each will have their own reasons. But none of this is anything to do with "requiring experience".



Tgace said:


> Relevant article:
> 
> http://stevereichert.com/differences-and-similarities-of-civilian-competition-and-combat-shooting/
> 
> Read it and see if you can't draw parallels to our discussion here.



He's talking about understanding contexts. His understanding comes from his experience, sure, but do I need to have the same experience in order to understand his discussion of the contexts? No.



Tgace said:


> Now let me throw this old writing of mine into the mix!
> 
> http://tgace.com/2013/04/05/martial-art-or-art-form/



And, again, all that shows is that not having a deep knowledge of the subject and context is a flawed approach... and that many don't get the context of what their talking about. There's a number of issues I could bring up with that little post, but they're besides the point here (just suffice to say that the point it's making, despite it's own lack of understanding of the subjects mentioned, is not actually relevant to the point being discussed).



Steve said:


> it seems to me that this the author has experience that gives him a credibility that is obvious.  The swat team members who lack this experience whom he mentions in the article make mistakes that are clear and obvious to the author.  And to a complete layman, like me, it's all foreign.    The comments were interesting, too.
> 
> I would certainly defer to a Leo on issues like this, but it sounds like Leo would be foolish not to defer to the author of the article.  As Tgace said earlier, there are experts and EXPERTS.
> 
> I still think that experience is an integral part of developing expertise.  And on the other hand,  A SWAT team member has specialized expertise that the author of this article does not, I'm sure, based upon the specific experience of that person.  It's about knowing what you know, and also knowing what you don't know.



Honestly, I'd say that it shows that there are experts in different contexts and subjects, rather than "there are experts, and EXPERTS", as that implies one is below the other. They might be in one area or context, but that doesn't make them less "expert" than the other. And, again, it might show that the author has his take based on his experience, as well as his training, but it doesn't indicate that such experience is required. Just that it has given him part of his understanding.



MJS said:


> Hi Chris,



Hey Mike,



MJS said:


> In my very first post in this thread, I talked about CPR/First Aid.  I mentioned how someone with a simple 8hr course, may/may not be as reliable as compared to someone such as a Paramedic, Doctor, etc, who's odds of using their skills, are much higher.  My next post was in response to something TGace said, to which I commented that someone who trains in an art with more contact, would probably be better prepared for the stress, the contact, etc, than someone who never got hit hard before.  My next post was in response to Steve, in which I compared training with someone closer to the source of something, rather than someone 5 times removed, and how you may gain more out of the training.


 
Yep, got all of that. 



MJS said:


> I've been training for 20+yrs, and during that time, I've seen a wide variety of teachers.  I've seen those that've taught those 'questionable' things, and used the excuse that they learned XYZ from instructor A and he said those things will work, so...blah, blah blah.  I've also seen those that've have and still do, work in fields in which they've had to use what they know, those that've seen and had to deal with knife attacks in a prison setting, etc.  For me, I'd tend to lean more towards the latter of the groups I mentioned.


 
Well, the first grouping of instructors don't really (to my mind) have what I would call expertise... they're showing gaps in understanding context, for one thing, as well as showing a lack of willingness to apply critical thinking or any form of real testing (which does not, let me be clear, mean going out and using what is being taught to defend yourself in a real encounter). And yeah, depending on what I was looking for, I'd probably go with the second group (as described) as well... but that doesn't mean that I'd make the correlation that such experiences are necessary (frequent experience can help, and I've said that from the beginning, but experience is not essential in the particular individual teaching). 



MJS said:


> Now, you put yourself into the group as well, and asked if you fit the bill, after having dealt with numerous assaults.  Yes Chris, you'd pass.   I say that, because IMO, if someone has the experience, chances are, their entire training program will most likely consist of things that'll stand a high chance of working.


 
Ah, but I teach a whole mess of things that I've never dealt with in "real life"... do I still pass there? If I do, then experience isn't necessary... and I'd suggest going through my old posts on knife defence here to see whether you think what I say holds up. You've been involved in a number of those... 



MJS said:


> Let me ask you this:  In your opinion, when do you feel that experience isn't necessary?



When the training methods are adequate. When is that? Well, what's the context? What's the skill set? What are the training methods?

Really, when it all comes down to it, I am saying that the experience gained in training, if the training is adequate and realistic, is enough to gain expertise. Real life experience might help, it might not... it really depends on what came before, in that case.



Tgace said:


> Actually..and Steve can correct me if Im wrong. I think the question is if a "style/school" and possibly an instructor should have some experience actually doing something vs an instructor who is teaching something thats was based on the real world experience of a person 10 generations ago.
> 
> How many times removed from "doing it" can a teacher get before what he/she is teaching becomes questionable in regards to combat application?



So what's the solution? No-one can teach self defence until they've been involved in at least 10 real life encounters, including at least 4 with weapons, and at least 2 against groups? It's impractical, really, as well as unnecessary. What keeps it from becoming "questionable" is the application of proper/realistic training methods, and a real understanding of the subject and context.



Steve said:


> This is very interesting, as I have two close friends in flight school right now and they've been excitedly sharing with me their progress.  I learned today what a CFIT is (controlled flight into terrain).  But, they actually do a lot of flying.  They're logging many, many hours in a plane, in addition to the simulators and the classroom instruction.
> 
> This brings up another aspect of learning...  how to teach beginners vs how to teach someone who has expertise.
> 
> You're talking about emergencies, and what you're said is very reasonable.  Keep it as realistic as possible.  But, of course, you have to balance safety and no one wants to be an expert in recovering from dangerous situations.  Well, I guess unless you're a professional stunt pilot.
> 
> To the point, though, the emergency skills learned in a simulator are only going to be effective for pilots who are experienced.  In other words, the pilots are building their expertise with certain classes of aircraft and in certain conditions.  And things are learned in a particular order.  You don't, if I understand things correctly, you don't become instrument rated until you've been visual rated.  You don't fly until you've got the classroom training.  The expertise is built in stages, and at each stage, you are required to apply the skills.  So, as you learn the emergency procedures, you are marrying them to the skill you already have.



Are you suggesting that, in order to develop a level of expertise, these trainee pilots should put a plane into a crash landing to see if they can land it safely? Or pull out of an out of control dive? No, it's not necessary. The experience in training, if it is realistic, is enough... after all, it's designed to be.



Steve said:


> I'll take full responsibility for being unclear.  The title of the thread wasn't well thought out, but in the first post, I said this:  "Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?"
> 
> The nature of expertise is really what I was interested in from the beginning, and I'm glad to see that the thread went that direction in spite of my original lack of clarity.  I think it's been very well established that someone can transition from understanding something to doing something.  We make that leap all the time, and in fact, it's an unavoidable step.  What I was thinking about from the beginning was this idea that a person is an expert on something he or she has never actually done.
> 
> Hope this clears it up.



Cool. Hopefully you can see now that expertise is context-dependent, and yes, you can get expertise in many things without "experience" in the real world. In fact, it's advisable.


----------



## Tgace

If anybody is not "getting it" here brother it appears to be you. The question from the beginning is simple. How many generations removed from "experience" can you get before the art is no longer "combat relavent" (or more aptly is it stuff you would trust to work in a real fight?)? 

I think it's a fair question...at some point SOMEONE had to have had "experience" (I would hope) or these Martial arts wouldn't be very Martial. The RBSD guys tend to parade around the fact that their teacher was a cop/commando/SEAL/Outlaw Biker...whatever, while some arts like the Bujinkan like to use a dudes experience from generations ago to tout their arts "street cred". 

Sure a Criminologist who never left acedemia is an "expert" at crime and has more "expertise" on the subject than a cop like me. But without the experience of people like me to influence, update and provide data for the Criminologist his "expertise" becomes dated. If you want to know how to police in the 1970's thats your affair....much like learning the combat skills of the 16th Century. Sure there can be some crossover into the modern times but I'll take some more updated expertise influenced by experience thank you very much.

You keep on implying that we are saying a teacher needs to get into fights to have credibility, but this is a conceptual discussion (at least to me) vs a "your art sucks because your teacher hasnt killed someone" discussion.

And to throw a different curve on things. We have been discussing the difference between "expertise" and "experience". What about the difference between "training" and "experience"? Is that a different discussion?

A quick google of "experience vs expertise" and "training vs experience" reveals that this is a debate not limited to martial arts.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tgace said:


> If anybody is not "getting it" here brother it appears to be you. The question from the beginning is simple. How many generations removed from "experience" can you get before the art is no longer "combat relavent" (or more aptly is it stuff you would trust to work in a real fight?)?



So... when most of the thread's participants are saying the same thing as myself (perchance not as vocally, admittedly...), I'm the one "not getting it"? Okay.... but for the record, that's not the question from the beginning... let's take (another) look at it (bolding mine):



Steve said:


> We still have threads that distinguish between "sports" and "self defense." Whether the sub-topic is TKD or MMA or whatever, it's common to hear something along the lines of this: "Why don't you/they understand that we don't train for sport. We train to deal with multiple attackers with weapons for self defense."
> 
> The specific verbiage changes, but the message is consistent. Sport people train for sport. Other people train for other things.
> 
> *My question is simply this. Can you train for something you never do? Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?*



That is not asking how many generations removed you can get, it's asking whether or not direct personal (real world) experience is required to become an "expert". 



Tgace said:


> I think it's a fair question...at some point SOMEONE had to have had "experience" (I would hope) or these Martial arts wouldn't be very Martial. The RBSD guys tend to parade around the fact that their teacher was a cop/commando/SEAL/Outlaw Biker...whatever, while some arts like the Bujinkan like to use a dudes experience from generations ago to tout their arts "street cred".



Yeah... using Bujinkan articles isn't really something that's going to sway me... I tend to come down on the opposite side to them, you realize. With Dougs article there, well, it comes across to me as attempting to logically refute criticism without needing to actually change or investigate what they're doing in the first place. And I know a fair amount of RBSD guys who don't make any such claims...  But if you're going to ask "how far removed", as I said in the last post, that comes down to how realistic and accurate the training remains. In one of my systems, for instance, I'd still back it completely... and we're some 11 generations, or 350 years past it's usage and development.... 



Tgace said:


> Sure a Criminologist who never left acedemia is an "expert" at crime and has more "expertise" on the subject than a cop like me. But without the experience of people like me to influence, update and provide data for the Criminologist his "expertise" becomes dated. If you want to know how to police in the 1970's thats your affair....much like learning the combat skills of the 16th Century. Sure there can be some crossover into the modern times but I'll take some more updated expertise influenced by experience thank you very much.



Tgace, I haven't argued that. But the thread topic is about the instructor themselves having the personal experience... and, provided the training comes from a realistic place, the instructor themselves doesn't need to have had the experience themself... okay? That's been my point from the get-go.



Tgace said:


> You keep on implying that we are saying a teacher needs to get into fights to have credibility, but this is a conceptual discussion (at least to me) vs a "your art sucks because your teacher hasnt killed someone".



Once again, the OP:



Steve said:


> My question is simply this. Can you train for something you never do? Or more accurately, can one actually become expert in something he or she has never actually done?



If that isn't talking about saying the teacher (of self defence) needs to have defended themselves in a real altercation (or preferably a number), we're probably reading different words... Steve has then asked the exact same question a number of times. When presented with examples, he continued to ask. 



Tgace said:


> And to throw a different curve on things. We have been discussing the difference between "expertise" and "experience". What about the difference between "training" and "experience"? Is that a different discussion?



Sigh... that's been part of it as well. In fact, I brought up "is training sufficient experience" early on, and Steve basically said "no, training is not experience". So, no, not a different curve, one already done.



Tgace said:


> A quick google of "experience vs expertise" and "training ve experience" reveals that this is a debate not limited to martial arts.



And I don't think anyone has said it is... hell, from the first page we were discussing non-martial art examples....


----------



## Tgace

Chris Parker said:


> Sigh... that's been part of it as well. In fact, I brought up "is training sufficient experience" early on, and Steve basically said "no, training is not experience". So, no, not a different curve, one already done.



I'd have to backtrack to find it, but I think what he said was that "Training is experience in TRAINING". I could attend police academies all around the world and become experienced in being TRAINED as a Cop...hell I guess I could become an "Expert" at police training by doing that. But until I hit the street and apply that training I would still be a "rookie" even if I had 20 years of training.


----------



## Chris Parker

Does being experienced make you "expert", though? Or just "experienced"? And can an expert be less experienced than the 20 year vet? If not, why not? If so, where's your limit of necessary experience? 

And, as the context was self defence, is there really the opportunity, or requirement, for a teacher to have 20 years experience on the streets as well? The context is very different between a cop (who's job is to be on the streets) and a self defence teacher (who's job is to know what is the best way to prepare students for the possibility of needing to defend themselves)... and, as a result, the requirements are very different as well.


----------



## Tgace

Chris Parker said:


> Does being experienced make you "expert", though? Or just "experienced"? And can an expert be less experienced than the 20 year vet? If not, why not? If so, where's your limit of necessary experience?
> 
> And, as the context was self defence, is there really the opportunity, or requirement, for a teacher to have 20 years experience on the streets as well? The context is very different between a cop (who's job is to be on the streets) and a self defence teacher (who's job is to know what is the best way to prepare students for the possibility of needing to defend themselves)... and, as a result, the requirements are very different as well.



True. 

In the end is there really a way to provide "experienced" martial arts instructors wholesale as part of a systematic art? Most likely not. 

When it comes to the tactical/firearms world this is easier to do because there have been enough wars and operational engagements through the years to provide "experienced" people who then went on to become "experts" through their own training. As I attempted to illustrate in an earlier post. And a percentage of their students are military/LE who are more likely to apply this training as well.

I'd say that experience adds more value to expertise than expertise will have without it....


----------



## Chris Parker

And that I agree with. The question was not "can experience help", because I don't think there's anyone who'd disagree with the idea that it can.... and when coupled with established expertise, it's even more likely to.... the question was "is it possible to gain expertise without experience" (paraphrasing here)... and that's what I've been arguing against (the idea that it's a necessary requirement).


----------



## Tgace

Well I would posit that experience IS a "necessary requirement"....the isssue is who's experience, how far back in time, and is it still relavent to today? I would hope that someone, somewhere had actually used what I was learning.


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> Well I would posit that experience IS a "necessary requirement"....the isssue is who's experience, how far back in time, and is it still relavent to today? I would hope that someone, somewhere had actually used what I was learning.


Agreed.  And to take it one step further, I don't believe that an instructor's expertise can be shared in its entirety with the student.  What I mean is, a teacher who is an expert in something can only take a student so far.  It is up to the student to take the skills they've learned and through experience take those skill from theory to application to competency.  

There's another model for learning.  I mentioned Bloom's Taxonomy earlier, and shared a version of it which I use and like.  Another one that is often used is often called simply a competence matrix, and it looks like this:

View attachment 17839

While Bloom's taxonomy deals primarily with the acquisition and development of expertise, this simple model is a good way to understand the stages of competence, so that you can better assess skills development.  Essentially, when you start training, you don't know what you don't know.  You are not aware of your incompetence.  We see this all the time when people learn a few things and hit the forums, presuming to educate people who have trained for decades on their craft.  The key here is that a person at stage 1 is untrainable, because they think they already know everything.  

The second stage is conscious incompetence.  In order to learn, you have to get here first, where you understand the subject well enough to know that you don't know anything.  Some people NEVER GET HERE.  Whether it's denial or ego, maybe no one's been honest with them or they are just flat out stupid, they cannot acknowledge their incompetence.  It's invisible to them, and so they never improve.  

The third step is conscious competence.  The difference between Conscious Competence and Unconscious Competence is experience.  I don't believe you can train someone beyond Conscious Competence.  The move from one stage to the next is personal and experiential.

And, as Tgace pointed out, the extended question we've been discussing is how far removed from this direct, personal experience one can be and still gain practical, useful, credible instruction.  In other words, is someone who is Consciously Competent effectively communicate those skills?


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> Does being experienced make you "expert", though?


Not necessarily.  But does being inexperienced preclude you from being an expert?  I'd say yes.


----------



## Chris Parker

Tgace said:


> Well I would posit that experience IS a "necessary requirement"....the isssue is who's experience, how far back in time, and is it still relavent to today? I would hope that someone, somewhere had actually used what I was learning.



Then you might not want to look into the origins of most martial arts, cause the idea of the techniques coming from actual use is very much a rarity, especially for older "battlefield" arts. The main exceptions are sporting systems, of course.



Steve said:


> Agreed.  And to take it one step further, I don't believe that an instructor's expertise can be shared in its entirety with the student.  What I mean is, a teacher who is an expert in something can only take a student so far.  It is up to the student to take the skills they've learned and through experience take those skill from theory to application to competency.
> 
> There's another model for learning.  I mentioned Bloom's Taxonomy earlier, and shared a version of it which I use and like.  Another one that is often used is often called simply a competence matrix, and it looks like this:
> 
> View attachment 17839
> 
> While Bloom's taxonomy deals primarily with the acquisition and development of expertise, this simple model is a good way to understand the stages of competence, so that you can better assess skills development.  Essentially, when you start training, you don't know what you don't know.  You are not aware of your incompetence.  We see this all the time when people learn a few things and hit the forums, presuming to educate people who have trained for decades on their craft.  The key here is that a person at stage 1 is untrainable, because they think they already know everything.
> 
> The second stage is conscious incompetence.  In order to learn, you have to get here first, where you understand the subject well enough to know that you don't know anything.  Some people NEVER GET HERE.  Whether it's denial or ego, maybe no one's been honest with them or they are just flat out stupid, they cannot acknowledge their incompetence.  It's invisible to them, and so they never improve.
> 
> The third step is conscious competence.  The difference between Conscious Competence and Unconscious Competence is experience.  I don't believe you can train someone beyond Conscious Competence.  The move from one stage to the next is personal and experiential.
> 
> And, as Tgace pointed out, the extended question we've been discussing is how far removed from this direct, personal experience one can be and still gain practical, useful, credible instruction.  In other words, is someone who is Consciously Competent effectively communicate those skills?



The biggest problem with this idea, Steve, is that you're discounting realistic serious training as being "experience" used to gain such expertise. If you were including that, I'd be agreeing with you throughout the thread... but you aren't. My first post in this thread addressed this idea, and I've brought it up a number of times since... in this area (self defence), as well as in other areas (crash-training for pilots, nuclear plant meltdowns, and more) all operate from the idea of expertise (unconscious competence) being developed as a result of proper training.

Additionally, I can think of many different training forms that are geared up specifically to take a student from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence, to conscious competence, through to unconscious competence. How do I know? I use them. Constantly. So I'd be disagreeing with your basic premise when it comes to the competency matrix there.



Steve said:


> Not necessarily.  But does being inexperienced preclude you from being an expert?  I'd say yes.



So, to get this straight, after 10 pages of people saying that yes, it is possible, giving multiple examples of such occasions and situations, examples of training actually supplying the "experience" you are saying is required (in place of "real world" experiences), you're still unconvinced, and are still holding to the same idea? Now, you're more than allowed to have your opinion... but you asked for opinions and an answer to your question. You've been given it. Perhaps it's time to listen to it?


----------



## Steve

Chris Parker said:


> The biggest problem with this idea, Steve, is that you're discounting realistic serious training as being "experience" used to gain such expertise. If you were including that, I'd be agreeing with you throughout the thread... but you aren't. My first post in this thread addressed this idea, and I've brought it up a number of times since... in this area (self defence), as well as in other areas (crash-training for pilots, nuclear plant meltdowns, and more) all operate from the idea of expertise (unconscious competence) being developed as a result of proper training.


not exactly.  I think training is valuable and necessary.  You can call it experience if you choose.  I just think that it should not be confused with application.  With regards to the pilot, for example, as I said before, a pilot must be a competent pilot.  There are, in my opinion, no experts at crashing.  There are, however, pilots who range from novice to expert, all of whom train and log hours flying.  There is a reason pilots track their hours.   Further, experienced pilots are more likely to recall their training in crisis situations.  





> Additionally, I can think of many different training forms that are geared up specifically to take a student from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence, to conscious competence, through to unconscious competence. How do I know? I use them. Constantly. So I'd be disagreeing with your basic premise when it comes to the competency matrix there.


okay,  we disagree.  My belief is that the leap from conscious competence to unconscious competence is experiential and personal.  Related to the pilot training, I am training to,of my kids now to drive.  I'm teaching them in a manual transmission.  We are just starting, so we are in the parking lot.  I can teach them a lot, but at some point, we will have to enter traffic.  And even when they get their licenses, they will be consciously competent.  It takes months, years even, to become an unconsciously competent driver, and only after logging the hours.   

And within that skillset, if they don't drive stick shifts for five years, they may be experienced drivers, but the introduction of a neglected, underutilized skill may take them back to conscious competence.  Similarly, an experienced pilot in a crisis is actively, consciously recalling skills that were trained and drilled.  





> So, to get this straight, after 10 pages of people saying that yes, it is possible, giving multiple examples of such occasions and situations, examples of training actually supplying the "experience" you are saying is required (in place of "real world" experiences), you're still unconvinced, and are still holding to the same idea? Now, you're more than allowed to have your opinion... but you asked for opinions and an answer to your question. You've been given it. Perhaps it's time to listen to it?


irony, from the guy who cannot write a post that doesn't accuse someone else of failing to understand, while never, ever considering that the one constant is you.  Frankly, if you don't get that what you are saying and what most others in the thread have said are not the same, I can't fix that.

As I said earlier, your cup is full. No discussion is possible if you insist on relating to everyone as the teacher.  While you are lecturing, the conversation remains one sided and no one gets it until they acknowledge that you are right.  Until then, you will get the last word and insist that it's the other person who doesn't understand.  Because, surely, if they did understand, they would agree with you completely.  It's arrogant, Chris. 




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## chinto

celtic_crippler said:


> Excellent question!
> 
> I have to agree with Frank. Being a nurse, I'm trained in many things I don't actually do on a daily basis (and some I hopefully never will!) But I can tell you from experience, when the time comes... it just kind of "switches" itself on and you go into a kind of... robo-mode... where your training takes over. It's hard to explain... but, you just do it.
> 
> Repetition in training is the key to being able to apply learned skills if needed. That is why one's training must adhere to some basic principles. In regards to martial arts, knowing one's lineage, and where their particular principles came from is an important part of understanding the answer to your question.
> 
> Do some practicioners know the "need" for a high, jumping, flying side kick? Or have you simply been repeating what's been passed down for generations? Could it be possible, that initially, that manuever was involved in the system because it was once necessary to be able to take someone off a horse? How likely is that skill-set needed today? Knowing and understanding the principles behind what it is you're doing sheds light on the practicality of one's training.
> 
> In the root system in which I train, it is believed one should constantly be evaluating their training and adapting it to today's environment. That requires actually being aware of what's going on in one's environment, and applying the principles learned to dealing with various scenarios.
> 
> That's where the dojo becomes a lab to experiment, evaluate, and analyze. Keep in mind, there's no "super-system" of martial arts. We all train for different reasons, but in terms of self-defense we can only hope to tip the odds in our favor. After all, it only takes one good shot (intentional or not) to the right target to take someone down; regardless of rank.



Absolutely!!! having "Seen the Elephant " as an EMT you are absoulutly right! and having been in a real altercation I can tell you that it also kicks in and you will do what you trained to do!  if you train constantly to conform to a set of rules, you will more often then not even on the street revert to your training that way.  so if you are a sport fighter practice at times punching through the bag, and things so you have that training to kick in. Also practice your traditional kata as they are about self defense in most systems.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mike,



Hello. 





> Yep, got all of that.



Ok.





> Well, the first grouping of instructors don't really (to my mind) have what I would call expertise... they're showing gaps in understanding context, for one thing, as well as showing a lack of willingness to apply critical thinking or any form of real testing (which does not, let me be clear, mean going out and using what is being taught to defend yourself in a real encounter). And yeah, depending on what I was looking for, I'd probably go with the second group (as described) as well... but that doesn't mean that I'd make the correlation that such experiences are necessary (frequent experience can help, and I've said that from the beginning, but experience is not essential in the particular individual teaching).



Hmm...perhaps I'm not following, but your last post to me, you said that the experience is gained thru training.  But my point is, if the training sucks.....and of course, how many people are you going to find that are actually going to admit that they're teaching crap?  Probably not many...lol.  I mean, let's use youtube and the Bujinkan for example.  How many discussions have taken place (there's one at MAP, on good/bad Buj clips) on what is good and what is bad?  Numerous.  You've seen someone who posted a Buj clip, and well...it sucked..clearly, due to the comments that we see from others.  Yet the person who put that clip up, in their heart, really thinks they are teaching quality stuff and that they don't suck...when in reality, they do.  





> Ah, but I teach a whole mess of things that I've never dealt with in "real life"... do I still pass there? If I do, then experience isn't necessary... and I'd suggest going through my old posts on knife defence here to see whether you think what I say holds up. You've been involved in a number of those...



I can see how you could be setting me up, depending on what I say here Chris..lol.  Likewise, I too, teach things that I've never dealt with in real life.  Let me clarify.  When I was teaching on a regular basis in my Kenpo class, I was teaching at someone elses school.  I had to teach the curriculum.  Whether or not I thought something sucked, I still taught it.  Now, maybe it sucked because *I* didn't understand it or....maybe it just really sucked..lol.  In any case, there were times when I'd show something, have them drill it, and then say, "Ok, now I'm going to show you what *I* would do, to address this same situation."  The end result was the class liking and preferring what *I* taught, vs. what was required of the material.  Now, I'd assume that in your case, and in mine, we're teaching some common sense, high percentage things....things that we learned from someone else, who may've had success with them in real life.  If the stuff is making sense, and fits the bill of what I said, yeah, I could probably accept that, but of course, I'd probably lean more towards the SEAL sniper who's got numerous tours overseas, who's actually walked the walk, over the guy who's done nothing but shoot stationary targets. 





> When the training methods are adequate. When is that? Well, what's the context? What's the skill set? What are the training methods?
> 
> Really, when it all comes down to it, I am saying that the experience gained in training, if the training is adequate and realistic, is enough to gain expertise. Real life experience might help, it might not... it really depends on what came before, in that case.



See above.  But of course, as I said, I can go along with some of what you said, on the condition that the training is realistic.  And as I said, as we both know, what someone calls realistic and whether or not it really is, is up for serious debate.  



So what's the solution? No-one can teach self defence until they've been involved in at least 10 real life encounters, including at least 4 with weapons, and at least 2 against groups? It's impractical, really, as well as unnecessary. What keeps it from becoming "questionable" is the application of proper/realistic training methods, and a real understanding of the subject and context.



Are you suggesting that, in order to develop a level of expertise, these trainee pilots should put a plane into a crash landing to see if they can land it safely? Or pull out of an out of control dive? No, it's not necessary. The experience in training, if it is realistic, is enough... after all, it's designed to be.



Cool. Hopefully you can see now that expertise is context-dependent, and yes, you can get expertise in many things without "experience" in the real world. In fact, it's advisable.[/QUOTE]


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> I'd have to backtrack to find it, but I think what he said was that "Training is experience in TRAINING". I could attend police academies all around the world and become experienced in being TRAINED as a Cop...hell I guess I could become an "Expert" at police training by doing that. But until I hit the street and apply that training I would still be a "rookie" even if I had 20 years of training.



Interestingly enough, how many times have we seen, during discussions of scenario training, that its not the same, that the 'attacker' isn't going to attack like the bad guy on the street, etc, etc. etc.  COUNTLESS times! LOL!  So, yes, using your analogy, when I was in the DOC academy, we did numerous cuffing drills, cell extractions, etc, yet its a hell of alot different when you're rolling around trying to cuff the dirtbag who doesnt WANT to be cuffed or removed by force, from his cell.


----------



## GaryR

Wow, lots of debate.  The answer really isn't that complicated.  My answer will probably replicate that of many others, I didn't read the whole thread.  

There is no substitute for real experience.  Thus an instructor who has more real world hands-on will likely be more competent to teach such skills, and appreciate the mental / physiological aspects of dealing with the fight, adrenal dump, etc.  A teacher who has never used his skills in reality, cannot, and does not quite know what it takes to face a life or death situation and pull out the tools and mindset required.  

But regardless of how many fights you have been in, the more training the better.  Scenario training can get close, damn close.  With the right gear (red man suit, bullet man suit, et al), and with properly structured scenarios, the student can experience the adrenal dump and respond to full speed and full power attacks in kind.  This training allows you to practice, better set yourself up as far as when to adrenalize, (not too soon, not too late).  Also how to better control breathing, combat tunnel vision with scanning, auditory exclusion, and best utilize the tachy psyche effect.  So even an instructor who has been in some real world stuff, will certainly need to continue to hone these type of skills in their own training and harness the skills in the students.  It just gives the instructor a better point of reference to work from.   

This type of state induced learning is vital.  Point sparring and sport doesn't get that close, your fooling yourself if you think otherwise.  

Best,

G


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

GaryR said:


> This type of state induced learning is vital.  Point sparring and sport doesn't get that close, your fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
> 
> Best,
> 
> G



Hey Gary,

I thought your post was excellent except for this last line.  Scenario Based Training is an excellent training tool just like you described in your post.  However it shouldn't be taken as the only training tool.  Sparring, Rolling (ie. grappling), Kata, Technique Training, etc. all give you things that you need.  Sparring can be light and that may help someone gain confidence and timing.  When you up it to Full Contact particularly the first few times then watch that adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, etc. all kick in.  Over time it lessons of course with repetition and training.  Rolling can be light, playful and some times just used to get the practitioner to relax and move from position to position. (we call that positional rolling in IRT)  However, of course it can be full on resistance where the other practitioner is doing everything possible to submit you.  That can burn someones motor up real quick if they are not used to being relaxed.  You can also get an adrenaline surge as well.  Kata training in a two person format can be used very, very effectively to get precision, technique and yes it can even induce stress as well when trained correctly.  Technique training allows refinement under a controlled situation so that you can gain the necessary skills to evetually have the potential to utilize the skill.  Of course there is more but to each and more ways to train but these give us some ideas.  I look to an overall comprehensive appraoch.  If you have several methodologies then you are giving yourself a better opportunity to ingrain the necessary skill set so that you might be able to use it.  Just my 02. for what it is worth.


----------



## GaryR

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Hey Gary,
> 
> I thought your post was excellent except for this last line.  Scenario Based Training is an excellent training tool just like you described in your post.  However it shouldn't be taken as the only training tool.  Sparring, Rolling (ie. grappling), Kata, Technique Training, etc. all give you things that you need.  Sparring can be light and that may help someone gain confidence and timing.  When you up it to Full Contact particularly the first few times then watch that adrenaline dump, tunnel vision, etc. all kick in.  Over time it lessons of course with repetition and training.  Rolling can be light, playful and some times just used to get the practitioner to relax and move from position to position. (we call that positional rolling in IRT)  However, of course it can be full on resistance where the other practitioner is doing everything possible to submit you.  That can burn someones motor up real quick if they are not used to being relaxed.  You can also get an adrenaline surge as well.  Kata training in a two person format can be used very, very effectively to get precision, technique and yes it can even induce stress as well when trained correctly.  Technique training allows refinement under a controlled situation so that you can gain the necessary skills to evetually have the potential to utilize the skill.  Of course there is more but to each and more ways to train but these give us some ideas.  I look to an overall comprehensive appraoch.  If you have several methodologies then you are giving yourself a better opportunity to ingrain the necessary skill set so that you might be able to use it.  Just my 02. for what it is worth.



All excellent points Brian.  Perhaps I should have qualified my point with..doesn't get close to the "feeling" of a real encounter if that makes sense?  Being comprehensive is key. All of the things you listed build the skill sets that you ultimately can *use* during a fight, or during the closest you can get via Scenario / Adrenal stress training.  Two man drills, sparring,(light, heavy), solo work, tactile sensitivity work (push hands, etc.), all must haves. Point being, you can do kata or soft sport sparring until you are blue in the face, it won't get you to that adrenal stage where the rubber meets the road, and the best laid plans of mice and men can fly out the window.  I think once you get up to "full contact", your talking the realm of AST as well. If you don't have the technical skill to begin with it can never be used, but if you don't practice that technical skill as close to reality as possible it can all be for not.  I think we are on the same page here--all of the training modalities should be used, unfortunately many don't seem to get past the tag game of sparring. 

Best,

G


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> Hmm...perhaps I'm not following, but your last post to me, you said that the experience is gained thru training.  But my point is, if the training sucks.....and of course, how many people are you going to find that are actually going to admit that they're teaching crap?  Probably not many...lol.  I mean, let's use youtube and the Bujinkan for example.  How many discussions have taken place (there's one at MAP, on good/bad Buj clips) on what is good and what is bad?  Numerous.  You've seen someone who posted a Buj clip, and well...it sucked..clearly, due to the comments that we see from others.  Yet the person who put that clip up, in their heart, really thinks they are teaching quality stuff and that they don't suck...when in reality, they do.



Ha, yep, agreed! I never meant to imply that all training is equal... but that (proper, effective, serious) training is what is required to gain expertise in these areas. Yeah, a lot of training out there is far from optimal... but it should also be remembered that a common cry from such poor examples can be "but I've used it in real life!"... which doesn't seem to add to their expertise.... instead, it just reinforces their poor training habits even more.



MJS said:


> I can see how you could be setting me up, depending on what I say here Chris..lol.  Likewise, I too, teach things that I've never dealt with in real life.  Let me clarify.  When I was teaching on a regular basis in my Kenpo class, I was teaching at someone elses school.  I had to teach the curriculum.  Whether or not I thought something sucked, I still taught it.  Now, maybe it sucked because *I* didn't understand it or....maybe it just really sucked..lol.  In any case, there were times when I'd show something, have them drill it, and then say, "Ok, now I'm going to show you what *I* would do, to address this same situation."  The end result was the class liking and preferring what *I* taught, vs. what was required of the material.  Now, I'd assume that in your case, and in mine, we're teaching some common sense, high percentage things....things that we learned from someone else, who may've had success with them in real life.  If the stuff is making sense, and fits the bill of what I said, yeah, I could probably accept that, but of course, I'd probably lean more towards the SEAL sniper who's got numerous tours overseas, who's actually walked the walk, over the guy who's done nothing but shoot stationary targets.



Ha, me setting anyone up....? Never....

Of course, your comments have a few things that would need to be looked at... firstly, when you show what "you would do", is that based on genuine experience (real life experience), or is it based on your expertise/knowledge of your system and approach, gained through your years of training? It's great that the class preferred your methods, but if that's (as you implied) coming from "things (you've) never dealt with in real life", how is that saying that experience is required beyond training experience? And, really, when it comes to the SEAL sniper, are you learning to be a sniper from him, or to handle a handgun? If the former, then sure... if the latter, then I'd suggest that the guy who's well trained in using a handgun (even if "just against stationary targets") would be my choice.



MJS said:


> See above.  But of course, as I said, I can go along with some of what you said, on the condition that the training is realistic.  And as I said, as we both know, what someone calls realistic and whether or not it really is, is up for serious debate.



Which was essentially my next line in my post... it needs to be good, solid, realistic, effective training... but then again, "real experience" can be far from effective, good, solid, or anything else.... 

Now, Steve. Arrogant is hardly the worst thing I've been accused of... and it's not really something I'd argue against! But seriously, I have (in our PM conversation) detailed to you each case of other members telling you the same thing (that yes, you can train to expert level without real life experience), including pointing out their caveats and conditions, I've detailed how your contention has not changed from post 1 through to post 104, despite such consistent comments from myself and others, and you're telling me that my "cup is full"? Really? You've told me a few times that I don't consider the fact that I might be wrong... and I've told you that the opposite is the case. Frankly, mate, I speak so definitively precisely because I always consider that possibility before I post... I look at each situation/context from as wide an angle as I can, I take each opposing point of view, and assess my opinion against alternatives. At the end, my opinion is validated, or it's shown to be lacking... in which case I alter it. Nothing you have posted has even come close to challenging my take on things... and you've dismissed out of hand each comment made. You were told "yes, it's possible", to which you answered "is it really?". You were then told (again) "yes, it is", to which you responded "but can you really without real experience?", and so on. I don't need you to agree with me, but you've seriously missed the mark if you think I don't consider alternate opinions and possibilities. Remember, Steve, my background is everything you're talking about (in terms of training in self defence approaches, as well as sporting ones, and so on), and more, whereas yours isn't. Surely that might count for something?


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, yep, agreed! I never meant to imply that all training is equal... but that (proper, effective, serious) training is what is required to gain expertise in these areas. Yeah, a lot of training out there is far from optimal... but it should also be remembered that a common cry from such poor examples can be "but I've used it in real life!"... which doesn't seem to add to their expertise.... instead, it just reinforces their poor training habits even more.


True.  Of course, if that is the case, it may be reason to raise an eyebrow as to whether or not what they claim they did, actually worked in RL.   





> Ha, me setting anyone up....? Never....


Oh no...never! 


> Of course, your comments have a few things that would need to be looked at... firstly, when you show what "you would do", is that based on genuine experience (real life experience), or is it based on your expertise/knowledge of your system and approach, gained through your years of training? It's great that the class preferred your methods, but if that's (as you implied) coming from "things (you've) never dealt with in real life", how is that saying that experience is required beyond training experience?


I'd say a combo of all, in addition to training with those that have had RL success.  Yes, I know, just because it worked for them doesn't mean it will for me, but as I said, I'd tend to lean more towards someone who's actually done something outside of the training atmosphere.   





> And, really, when it comes to the SEAL sniper, are you learning to be a sniper from him, or to handle a handgun? If the former, then sure... if the latter, then I'd suggest that the guy who's well trained in using a handgun (even if "just against stationary targets") would be my choice.


The sniper should be just as capable using his handgun from an open position, as he would be using his gun from a concealed position.  





> Which was essentially my next line in my post... it needs to be good, solid, realistic, effective training... but then again, "real experience" can be far from effective, good, solid, or anything else....


So basically, if I'm following you correctly here, your feelings are that if the training is done in the dojo, and its as alive, real, etc, as possible, then the experience of having done it in RL, isn't that important.


----------



## Chris Parker

MJS said:


> True.  Of course, if that is the case, it may be reason to raise an eyebrow as to whether or not what they claim they did, actually worked in RL.



Possibly. But the reality is that just because someone has survived a real life encounter doesn't mean they have any real expertise in the area of self defence, nor does it mean that they even used what they've taught (or been taught) in the moment. Ideally you can hope that it would highlight some form of reality in their approach, but sadly, that's just not the case each time. If you're going to insist on some experience, then it needs to be qualified and clarified just as much as the training would need to be.



MJS said:


> I'd say a combo of all, in addition to training with those that have had RL success. Yes, I know, just because it worked for them doesn't mean it will for me, but as I said, I'd tend to lean more towards someone who's actually done something outside of the training atmosphere.



Leaning towards is fine... provided they can find a way to pass on any skills or insight gained... but, again, that's not the question here. It's not "what would you prefer", it's "is real life experience required to be considered an "expert" in self defence?"

So, leaving behind what you would prefer, do you consider it essential? Would you simply not learn from someone who hasn't had occasion to use their knowledge/skills, or would you assess on other qualities and criteria? I've said from the beginning that yes, experience can certainly help (although not definitely in all cases), but that it's just not essential the way it's been put forth.



MJS said:


> The sniper should be just as capable using his handgun from an open position, as he would be using his gun from a concealed position.



Really? The sniper, a specialist in using a long-range, high-powered rifle, from a concealed, stable platform, who has a very specific methodology (quite removed from a defensive application of a handgun), should be "just as capable" as someone who specializes in handguns, focused on target shooting (which, if it's competition, is often done in short time-frames), probably dealing with accessing the weapon, manipulating it, and so on. I'm not saying the SEAL hasn't got experience with handguns, but if the target shooter has specialized in it, I wouldn't necessarily be saying that the sniper should be "just as capable"....



MJS said:


> So basically, if I'm following you correctly here, your feelings are that if the training is done in the dojo, and its as alive, real, etc, as possible, then the experience of having done it in RL, isn't that important.



Well, I'm not fond of the term "alive", but that's an aside (I think it's an inaccurate distinction, borne of a lack of understanding of other training methodologies, but that's me)... other than that, yeah, that's essentially what I'm saying. The "real life" experience may help solidify the training, but it's not an essential to expertise in this sense.


----------



## Steve

I think that the mention of pilots was a very good analogy.  It illustrates the root of my questions very well.  It was suggested that pilots learn how to crash land a plane in simulators, and you asked how many times they should actually crash planes before being considered an expert.  I would say simply that there are only a few "experts" in crashing planes.  There are many people who study plane crashes, determining why and how they happen and developing processes and techniques that will surely save lives.  These people are clearly expert at this, because this is what they do.  

But, while there are many expert pilots and there are some experts on plane crashes, there are very few people who are expert "plane crashers."   But there are some.  The difference between a novice pilot and an expert pilot is experience.  And in an emergency, the expert pilot is the one most likely to recall his/her training and apply the skills learned correctly under extreme stress.  And how does one become an expert pilot? Playing Microsoft Flight Simulator on a very big screen in a dark room?   By using simulations?  By taking a lot of classes?  No, or at least not only.  They fly planes.  They train to fly planes and then they fly them.  And the more experience they have with a particular class of aircraft, the better they are at it, until at some point, they could be considered expert.  

This guy is an expert pilot: Chesley Sullenberger.  I would also consider him to be an expert plane crasher, because he has experience doing both successfully:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger

He was a military pilot, a flight instructor, an accident investigation board member, and had been learning and applying the craft of being a pilot since 1969.  He had been flying commercially for 30 years, since 1980.  The point is that he was not just an unconsciously competent pilot, he was a bona fide expert.  He not only KNEW a lot about flying planes.  He had done it, over and over.  He had logged many hours in many different kinds of planes, in all kinds of conditions and all over the world over the course of his 40+ year career of flying. 

So, in 2009, when things went awry, he was in a position to react in a way that saved many lives.  But, in that situation, do you think he was running on autopilot (no pun intended)?  I don't.  On the model I provided earlier, he went from unconscious competence to conscious competence.  He recalled his training and applied it consciously.  He assessed the situation quickly and made decisions that were sound.  

Why would I consider him an expert on plane crashing?  Because, in addition to his expertise as a pilot, and what was undoubtedly a strong foundation in the theory of successfully crashing planes including many hours in the simulator landing on freeways and handling all manner of potential catastrophe.  In addition to all of the training, he has actually been there.  He can speak to a class of expert pilots and relate to them the difference between a simulator and the real thing.  This is what happened.  This is what I did.  This is what I would do differently next time.  I wish I had known this.  And the expert pilots in that class would be foolish not to listen.  As Tgace said, there are experts and then there are EXPERTS.

Because, as we mentioned earlier, while there are many expert pilots, there are very few expert plane crashers.  In that same situation, I would suggest that most pilots, particularly those who are less experienced, would move to conscious incompetence.  

Ultimately, Chris, I agree with many of the other posters in this thread, and I'm willing to consider anyone's thoughts on the matter.  I have heard yours.  You have made your position very clear and we just simply don't agree.  I want to assure you, though, that I understand your position.  Let me say that again, so you don't feel like you must tell me that I don't understand.  I hear you.  I get it.   I just don't agree.


----------



## MJS

Chris Parker said:


> Possibly. But the reality is that just because someone has survived a real life encounter doesn't mean they have any real expertise in the area of self defence, nor does it mean that they even used what they've taught (or been taught) in the moment. Ideally you can hope that it would highlight some form of reality in their approach, but sadly, that's just not the case each time. If you're going to insist on some experience, then it needs to be qualified and clarified just as much as the training would need to be.



Ok, let's look outside the martial arts box for a moment.  Lets look at a plumber or doctor.  Would you want someone fixing the pipes in your house if all they did was read a do it yourself book?  How about a doc who never did an operation?  IMO, there comes a time, when hands-on, real world training, is necessary.





> Leaning towards is fine... provided they can find a way to pass on any skills or insight gained... but, again, that's not the question here. It's not "what would you prefer", it's "is real life experience required to be considered an "expert" in self defence?"
> 
> So, leaving behind what you would prefer, do you consider it essential? Would you simply not learn from someone who hasn't had occasion to use their knowledge/skills, or would you assess on other qualities and criteria? I've said from the beginning that yes, experience can certainly help (although not definitely in all cases), but that it's just not essential the way it's been put forth.



If I had no other option and as long as the training was conducted in the most realistic fashion possible, yes, I would.  





> Really? The sniper, a specialist in using a long-range, high-powered rifle, from a concealed, stable platform, who has a very specific methodology (quite removed from a defensive application of a handgun), should be "just as capable" as someone who specializes in handguns, focused on target shooting (which, if it's competition, is often done in short time-frames), probably dealing with accessing the weapon, manipulating it, and so on. I'm not saying the SEAL hasn't got experience with handguns, but if the target shooter has specialized in it, I wouldn't necessarily be saying that the sniper should be "just as capable"....



That is correct, they do specialize in a specific weapon.  However, prior to that, they are experienced in using the other weapons, ie: handgun. You just don't get hired by a PD and move right to SWAT, anymore than you'd join the Navy and move to ST6.  My point was simply this:  how often do we see the average Joe, who has a gun permit, shooting a moving target, shooting in low light, shooting under stress, etc?  Probably not very often, if ever at all.  Now sure, would the target shooter have more experience than the guy who's never shot a day in his life?  Of course.  But when it comes to actually applying what you've trained for.....





> Well, I'm not fond of the term "alive", but that's an aside (I think it's an inaccurate distinction, borne of a lack of understanding of other training methodologies, but that's me)... other than that, yeah, that's essentially what I'm saying. The "real life" experience may help solidify the training, but it's not an essential to expertise in this sense.



Out of curiosity, what term do you prefer?  Now, a few more questions for you.  1) Going on what you said earlier, that there're things that you teach that you've never done in RL, am I safe to assume that you feel comfortable teaching those things, and that those things will be effective? 2) Am I safe to assume that your students feel the same?


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Ok, let's look outside the martial arts box for a moment.  Lets look at a plumber or doctor.  Would you want someone fixing the pipes in your house if all they did was read a do it yourself book?  How about a doc who never did an operation?  IMO, there comes a time, when hands-on, real world training, is necessary.


Who do you want doing your double bypass surgery?  Do you want the guy who's doing it for the very first time or the guy who's done it hundreds of times?  They both know the same things.  What's the difference?


----------



## rframe

I am a commercial pilot and flight instructor.  We train constantly for things we hope never happens.  A large portion of instructor training is covering the psychology of learning and stress.  We know that a "normal" human being reacts automatically in times of stress.  This is why pilots train for emergency procedures constantly.  Relatively few pilots will experience a critical in-flight emergency, but human psychology and experience shows that when you train regularly your body will go into automatic response in a time of stress.  If you look at airline pilot recurrency training, very little of that time is spent in normal procedures, it is almost entirely reviews of emergency procedures.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> Who do you want doing your double bypass surgery?  Do you want the guy who's doing it for the very first time or the guy who's done it hundreds of times?  They both know the same things.  What's the difference?


Well, the guy who's doing it for the first time, of course! Seriously though...there're enough medical mishaps that happen. All kidding aside, I'd rather have the doc whos done it hundreds of times over the newb.  Up above, we apparently posted at the same times, but when I started reading your post, I'm going thru the first paragraph, and the first thing that came to my mind was Capt. Sully.  Sure enough, I continue on, and that's exactly who you mentioned!  Now, I don't know if or how many other pilots out there, are like that man, but IMO, had those people had any other pilot, there would've been many casualties.


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> I am a commercial pilot and flight instructor.  We train constantly for things we hope never happens.  A large portion of instructor training is covering the psychology of learning and stress.  We know that a "normal" human being reacts automatically in times of stress.  This is why pilots train for emergency procedures constantly.  Relatively few pilots will experience a critical in-flight emergency, but human psychology and experience shows that when you train regularly your body will go into automatic response in a time of stress.  If you look at airline pilot recurrency training, very little of that time is spent in normal procedures, it is almost entirely reviews of emergency procedures.


Awesome.  I'd welcome your thoughts on my previous post.  Do you disagree?  If so, with what?  Your thoughts on the pilot analogy would be very interesting.


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> Awesome.  I'd welcome your thoughts on my previous post.  Do you disagree?  If so, with what?  Your thoughts on the pilot analogy would be very interesting.



Sully is a hero.  He did the right things at the right time and based on what was happening he made decisions that worked out for him and was blessed to survive a crash that could've ended in complete disaster.  3 minutes later and his same responses could've killed everyone on board and he might not have had any other options.  I take nothing away from him. 

What I see as an instructor is that you can explain an emergency procedure to someone, have them intellectually comprehend it, and recite it back to you... then you go up and fly and kill and engine and they freeze.  Intellectual knowledge is not the same as building an automatic response.  So we go through the processes, I explain each step, we work the checklists.  Then we do it again, and again, and again.

Eventually we can be in the middle of a maneuver, talking with ATC, planning for some other phase of flight... and I kill an engine and the student automatically does everything right calmly and smoothly.  They've been drilled to do it and they just do it automatically.

Now that is not to say that a fresh First Officer (who's fully type qualified to fly the aircraft and has gone through all the emergency training procedures) will handle emergencies as well as an experienced captain.  They have the same automatic responses programmed, however they dont have all the experience to process situations the same... their perceptions are not as highly refined.  Yes they could respond to a fire bell automatically just fine, but can they make multiple decisions on the fly when none of those decisions are great... that's where they'll suffer simply because they dont have the experience to draw from to decisively choose a path and follow it.  They'll hesitate and get stuck in mental processing loops.

How does all this relate to martial arts?  If someone studies some defensive techniques, they might see them demonstrated and try them a few times...and be even be able to demonstrate them in a staged attack very nicely.  But under unexpected pressure, they will likely not be able to react.  You see this all the time when someone who studies martial arts gets into a street fight or even gets their first dose of non-cooperative partner training and the next thing you know it's nearly uncontrolled flailing and haymakers... you think "where did their training go??!?!".

But if they drill the same technique thousands of times under realistic scenarios it becomes an automatic response.  If someone with a threatening persona approaches rapidly and grabs their wrist and they've drilled escapes and countering combinations, that's exactly what you will do.

Now being able to react to specific situations might be automatic, but experience brings the ability to perceive a process the bigger picture.

In BJJ, a blue belt might be able to demonstrate a nice pallet of positional control and submissions, but in live rolling they often seem to be stuck in positions where they should have many options... they just dont have the experience to perceive the flows needed to quickly transition to superior positions and control.  Give them a loose arm from the side and boom they automatically slip into an armbar, but it's a much slower and cumbersome process to ever get to that position where automatic response can happen.

Now an experienced black belt has the perception to see a dozen paths from almost any position they are in, and whatever feels like the best route becomes and automatic response of transitions and posturing to submission... like an experience chess player, their automatic response is already looking 3-4 moves ahead and when the time and pressure is right, boom it just happens.


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> Sully is a hero.  He did the right things at the right time and based on what was happening he made decisions that worked out for him and was blessed to survive a crash that could've ended in complete disaster.  3 minutes later and his same responses could've killed everyone on board and he might not have had any other options.  I take nothing away from him.
> 
> What I see as an instructor is that you can explain an emergency procedure to someone, have them intellectually comprehend it, and recite it back to you... then you go up and fly and kill and engine and they freeze.  Intellectual knowledge is not the same as building an automatic response.  So we go through the processes, I explain each step, we work the checklists.  Then we do it again, and again, and again.
> 
> Eventually we can be in the middle of a maneuver, talking with ATC, planning for some other phase of flight... and I kill an engine and the student automatically does everything right calmly and smoothly.  They've been drilled to do it and they just do it automatically.
> 
> Now that is not to say that a fresh First Officer (who's fully type qualified to fly the aircraft and has gone through all the emergency training procedures) will handle emergencies as well as an experienced captain.  They have the same automatic responses programmed, however they dont have all the experience to process situations the same... their perceptions are not as highly refined.  Yes they could respond to a fire bell automatically just fine, but can they make multiple decisions on the fly when none of those decisions are great... that's where they'll suffer simply because they dont have the experience to draw from to decisively choose a path and follow it.  They'll hesitate and get stuck in mental processing loops.


Thanks for the insight.  But... did you say you actually kill the engine in a real flight?  To my lay ears, that sounds really crazy!!!!  I'm sure it's effective, though, as the stakes are pretty high.  You're actually in the air and the plane is really not running.

Do you think it's possible in MA to replicate that sort of drill?

I also appreciate your comments on BJJ.  It's often said that the difference between a white belt and a blue belt is knowing technique. The difference between a blue belt and a black belt is experience.


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> Thanks for the insight.  But... did you say you actually kill the engine in a real flight?  To my lay ears, that sounds really crazy!!!!  I'm sure it's effective, though, as the stakes are pretty high.  You're actually in the air and the plane is really not running.
> 
> Do you think it's possible in MA to replicate that sort of drill?
> 
> I also appreciate your comments on BJJ.  It's often said that the difference between a white belt and a blue belt is knowing technique. The difference between a blue belt and a black belt is experience.




When we first start training I will usually retard the throttle to idle.  Once they know the processes I get sneaky and turn off mixture of fuel valves to actually kill the engine when they are not expecting it.  Hearing the engine sputter and stop creates an intensity that is a whole new experience for the student to process.  The "experience of the unexpected" enhances their learning greatly.  As an instructor its my job to keep us all safe, so if I kill an engine I already know we are within gliding distance of a safe landing area and I know there is plenty of time for a restart.  I've had many flights where we've glided to a landing without restarting, which is also a good experience as it reinforces the understanding that the airplane doesn't just fall out of the air but is gliding nicely with full directional control.  This helps a student keep their head when under pressure.

In martial arts, I think many instructors would do well to learn a lot more about the psychology of learning or "fundamentals of instruction" as we call them.

Some examples of replicating this type of learning.  I've seen in our school the instructor has had a student pad up and "attack" some of the advanced students with little to no warning.  This is an educational and humbling experience to people the first time it happens.

I also think a lot of this experience is gained in live drilling and higher intensity sparring.  Getting hit in the face is a sobering experience the first few times it happens.  Of course that's not for everyone.  If a school is focused on sport, then it might be totally inappropriate.  If a school positions their training as even partially "self defense" related, then I think fight simulation and drilling realistic situations with at least mildly uncooperative training partners is essential.  However, that has to come after students have the intellectual understanding of the basics first.


----------



## rframe

The attached video is a great example that highlights the difference between a lot of training we see in martial arts and the reality of a self defense situation and how an instructor can use intensity and drilling to help people prepare for reality vs fantasy.


----------



## Steve

rframe, that video was pretty cool. The instructor is a real character.  Thanks for sharing it.  I agree with pretty much everything you've written so far, so I don't have a lot to say about the content of your posts. 

I do have another question.  In this thread, one of the the other issues that has come up has to do with instructor credentials.  It's related to the definition of expert and that line of discussion.  What do you think?  You mention martial arts in particular.  I'm interested to hear your opinion about what distinguishes you and the instructor in the video?  You've been clear about the differences in the actual training.  I'm thinking specifically of the differences in the instructors?  Also, if you have any other thoughts on the relationship between experience and expertise, I'm interested in that, as well.

Edit:  Just to be clear, I'm thinking about this comment from you:  





> I also think a lot of this experience is gained in live drilling and higher intensity sparring. Getting hit in the face is a sobering experience the first few times it happens. Of course that's not for everyone. If a school is focused on sport, then it might be totally inappropriate. If a school positions their training as even partially "self defense" related, then I think fight simulation and drilling realistic situations with at least mildly uncooperative training partners is essential. However, that has to come after students have the intellectual understanding of the basics first.


I agree with this from the perspective of the student.  But what about the instructor?  What sort of credentials would you expect from the instructor?  Once again, this is central to the original questions I was thinking about.  How does an instructor claim expertise in a _skillset _he has never applied outside of a training environment?  Do you think it's possible?


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> Edit:  Just to be clear, I'm thinking about this comment from you:  I agree with this from the perspective of the student.  But what about the instructor?  What sort of credentials would you expect from the instructor?  Once again, this is central to the original questions I was thinking about.  How does an instructor claim expertise in a _skillset _he has never applied outside of a training environment?  Do you think it's possible?



That's a great set of questions that I dont have an answer to.  I am admittedly fairly cynical of a lot of martial arts, I see a lot of BS, self-certification, and blatant lies.

I'm not aware of any good credentialing system to show how an instructor or system has been pressure tested or uses reality based training to test their systems regularly. I see organizations like the World Combat Association forming, and they give me hope.  Grounded people bringing reality back into martial arts is a good thing.  Will credentialing flow out of these groups?  Maybe.  Or maybe it will just help reset the standards that the martial arts community has and it will be a more organic change from within?  Maybe even better.

For now, one just seems to need to wander the world of martial arts with their BS meter fully active.


----------



## MJS

Chris....earlier you said that as long as the training was realistic, that that would be good enough to suffice the 'real world' training.  Now, as I said earlier, when we were talking about youtube clips, and how many times, people put up clips that aren't very real at all, yet in that persons mind, they are.  So, the same can apply to the training.  You can have someone who isn't really training realistic at all, but in their mind, they are.  How does that solve the problem?

This next question is for Steve and TGace, if he's still floating around this thread.  During a discussion with Chris, I had mentioned that I'd prefer to train with people with RW experience.  Chris and I agreed that in many cases, we're teaching things that we haven't done in the RW.  So the question is:  Since its probably not possible to have experienced every single little thing, as long as you're training with someone with some RW experience, someone who's seen a lot and does have a lot of experience, would you still get something out of the training, even if the teacher himself, hasn't experienced certain things?


----------



## Steve

> Since its probably not possible to have experienced every single little thing, as long as you're training with someone with some RW experience, someone who's seen a lot and does have a lot of experience, would you still get something out of the training, even if the teacher himself, hasn't experienced certain things?


Good questions, MJS.  I think that, as with most things, it depends.

There are generalists and specialists, and there's value in learning from each, depending upon what it is that you are learning.  

I want to distinguish something here.  There are two roles we're discussing, and while the emphasis so far has been on the expertise of the trainer, but I've also mentioned that there is a transition from theory to application to expertise that happens in the student.  

To answer your question, it is, IMO, very unlikely that one person will have experienced every possible situation in a complex skillset.  There's a difference between teaching someone to make a cheeseburger and teaching someone to be a surgeon.  You can learn from an academic.  You can acquire skills and practice them.  But, IMO, the thing that an expert has that you don't (as a student) is experience.  Whether it's hours logged in the cockpit or number of times performing a surgery, tours in a combat zone, years working as a first responder.  It's all experience.  And so, no matter how well trained you are, you are not an expert in something until you take the leap into actual, real world, unscripted experience.  And the higher the stakes, the more important that experience is.  

I referred to Bloom's taxonomy earlier.  Essentially boiled down to this:

Developing Expertise:


1:  Knowledge:  Knowing something,
2:  Comprehension:  Understanding that thing,
3:  Application:  then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)


Refining Expertise:


4:  Evaluation/Analysis (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
5:  Synthesis:  then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
6:  and, finally, you can innovate

Over the last 50 or so years, this model remains pretty consistent.  Couple of points about this.  First, application is about the furthest one can go in a training environment, and that's only if the training is REALLY GOOD.  Most training falls short of application.  But, given the right circumstances, a person at the application level can do the job, can perform the tasks or execute the technique.   He or she can fly a plane or perform CPR.  

What you're talking about, in an expert trainer, is someone who is at the the synthesis level.  While it's unlikely that a person will have done EVERYTHING, a person at the synthesis level understands the skills to the point that he or she can apply them in any context.  What's the difference between someone at the application level and someone at the synthesis level?  Experience.  

So, is the question whether someone can learn sufficient self defense skills to protect him or herself?  We've already well established that it's very possible.  Done all the time.  

The question is whether a person who has never applied the skills or acquired practical, real life experience can be considered an expert?  And if this person chooses to teach these skills, should he or she be very careful to stay in his/her lane?  And further, if this person who has no experience teaches someone else who has no experience, who teaches someone else, can any of them be considered an expert, and at what point does the training lose efficacy?


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> [/COLOR]Good questions, MJS.  I think that, as with most things, it depends.
> 
> There are generalists and specialists, and there's value in learning from each, depending upon what it is that you are learning.
> 
> I want to distinguish something here.  There are two roles we're discussing, and while the emphasis so far has been on the expertise of the trainer, but I've also mentioned that there is a transition from theory to application to expertise that happens in the student.
> 
> To answer your question, it is, IMO, very unlikely that one person will have experienced every possible situation in a complex skillset.  There's a difference between teaching someone to make a cheeseburger and teaching someone to be a surgeon.  You can learn from an academic.  You can acquire skills and practice them.  But, IMO, the thing that an expert has that you don't (as a student) is experience.  Whether it's hours logged in the cockpit or number of times performing a surgery, tours in a combat zone, years working as a first responder.  It's all experience.  And so, no matter how well trained you are, you are not an expert in something until you take the leap into actual, real world, unscripted experience.  And the higher the stakes, the more important that experience is.
> 
> I referred to Bloom's taxonomy earlier.  Essentially boiled down to this:
> 
> Developing Expertise:
> 
> 
> 1:  Knowledge:  Knowing something,
> 2:  Comprehension:  Understanding that thing,
> 3:  Application:  then you can do it (this stage, in martial arts, can take a while)
> 
> 
> Refining Expertise:
> 
> 
> 4:  Evaluation/Analysis (this is where you start to think about the skill in context)
> 5:  Synthesis:  then you can synthesize it (this is where you start to examine this skill in connection to other, skills)
> 6:  and, finally, you can innovate
> 
> Over the last 50 or so years, this model remains pretty consistent.  Couple of points about this.  First, application is about the furthest one can go in a training environment, and that's only if the training is REALLY GOOD.  Most training falls short of application.  But, given the right circumstances, a person at the application level can do the job, can perform the tasks or execute the technique.   He or she can fly a plane or perform CPR.
> 
> What you're talking about, in an expert trainer, is someone who is at the the synthesis level.  While it's unlikely that a person will have done EVERYTHING, a person at the synthesis level understands the skills to the point that he or she can apply them in any context.  What's the difference between someone at the application level and someone at the synthesis level?  Experience.
> 
> So, is the question whether someone can learn sufficient self defense skills to protect him or herself?  We've already well established that it's very possible.  Done all the time.
> 
> The question is whether a person who has never applied the skills or acquired practical, real life experience can be considered an expert?  And if this person chooses to teach these skills, should he or she be very careful to stay in his/her lane?  And further, if this person who has no experience teaches someone else who has no experience, who teaches someone else, can any of them be considered an expert, and at what point does the training lose efficacy?



Sorry for the delay in reply Steve.  So, basically, in a nutshell, it seems like we're on the same page.   I've trained in a realistic fashion, against multiple opponents, however, to date (Thank God..lol) I've never been attacked by more than 1 person, although the opportunity presented itself when I was working in Corrections.  I valued the training, but you're right...until you actually are hands on, its all speculation.  

So, another question to toss into the mix:  Going on what you said, on what we both are in agreement, would you say that this probably discredits a lot of instructors out there?  I mean, if they haven't actually done stuff that they've taught, how credible does that make them?


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Sorry for the delay in reply Steve.  So, basically, in a nutshell, it seems like we're on the same page.   I've trained in a realistic fashion, against multiple opponents, however, to date (Thank God..lol) I've never been attacked by more than 1 person, although the opportunity presented itself when I was working in Corrections.  I valued the training, but you're right...until you actually are hands on, its all speculation.
> 
> So, another question to toss into the mix:  Going on what you said, on what we both are in agreement, would you say that this probably discredits a lot of instructors out there?  I mean, if they haven't actually done stuff that they've taught, how credible does that make them?



Well, I don't know about discrediting anyone, but that's a big part of what I wanted to talk about.  If people who have no experience in real world self defense are considered experts, what makes this one area different from all others?  Or is there any other complex, physical skillset where the expertise is considered credible even though it remains theoretical?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Rich Parsons

MJS said:


> Sorry for the delay in reply Steve.  So, basically, in a nutshell, it seems like we're on the same page.   I've trained in a realistic fashion, against multiple opponents, however, to date (Thank God..lol) I've never been attacked by more than 1 person, although the opportunity presented itself when I was working in Corrections.  I valued the training, but you're right...until you actually are hands on, its all speculation.
> 
> So, another question to toss into the mix:  Going on what you said, on what we both are in agreement, would you say that this probably discredits a lot of instructors out there?  I mean, if they haven't actually done stuff that they've taught, how credible does that make them?





Steve said:


> Well, I don't know about discrediting anyone, but that's a big part of what I wanted to talk about.  If people who have no experience in real world self defense are considered experts, what makes this one area different from all others?  Or is there any other complex, physical skillset where the expertise is considered credible even though it remains theoretical?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD





And what about those who do have experience with multiple attackers and in various situations? Do their opinion weigh more for their experience? or Less as they "obviously" have done something wrong to have been in those situations?


----------



## Steve

Rich Parsons said:


> And what about those who do have experience with multiple attackers and in various situations? Do their opinion weigh more for their experience? or Less as they "obviously" have done something wrong to have been in those situations?



Great question.  My initial thought is that it really depends upon what is being taught.   What do you think?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Flying Crane

late to the discussion here, and maybe this has already been touched upon but I haven't gone back to read all 12 pages of the discussion.

In my experience, it's very easy for most people to get thru life without ever having to fight or defend themselves for real, or at least very seldom and probably not at all as an adult.  Most of us put the schoolyard scraps behind us when we get out of gradeschool.  It's been easy for me at least, and I spent a number of years living in a neighborhood that has it's own level of grit to it.  I just don't find it difficult to not get into fights or altercations.  But maybe that's just me.

So it's very possible that one might be teaching martial arts, and yet have no "real world" experience using it.  That's me, in fact.  I certainly don't encourage anyone to go out and deliberately seek out "real world" experience.  Certainly not for the purpose of simply adding credibility to themselves as a teacher.  It's dangerous for one thing and in my opinion, downright immoral to seek out and perhaps provoke a violent encounter.

If real world experience is seen as a mandate for teaching martial arts, then I suspect there would be far far fewer teachers out there.  That might not necessarily be a bad thing, I personally believe most of the "teachers" out there should not be teaching.  But I'm not sure real world experience in using it must be a qualification.  I think it's possible to have a reasonable and realistic approach to training, as well as a realistic recognition of one's skill and experience.  As long as that is honestly presented to the students, so the students know the honest experience and training level of the teacher, then it's possible to still train and teach quality martial arts without real world experience using it.

If real world experience were a mandate to teach, then I think a lot of the systems will simply go extinct, or become very rare, at least.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Steve said:


> Great question.  My initial thought is that it really depends upon what is being taught.   What do you think?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2



Steve,


My question was loaded. 

I have been told that my experience does not count because I have not served in the military nor as a LEO. (* Or a a LEO in the Military or as ex-military and now a LEO - You get the point though - Right? *)



So in essence, I have been told that one must listen to the those who know, like police officers and Military. Yet many of these who make these claims and statements to me and others have not seen any action. They use their training to exclude others and make themselves better. Then someone says Listen to them because they are ________. And then I ask for experience and it all of a sudden does not matter or is limited to generic job terms. 

In my opinion, if you find someone who has the experience listen to them. They will tell you not only what worked for them, but where they made mistakes. The mistakes are VERY important. This is how you learn. If they survived but were injured then you can learn from that. If they survived and admit it was luck or lack of experience on the bad guys side, or .... , . 


Now, I am not saying go listen to every crazed old man telling stories because there are lots of them out there. I am saying if you find one, and you realize they have some experience do not ignore it. Listen and if it helps great. If it does not then now you know.  And yes I am going to say it. "Knowing is half the battle".  


Now can a LEO or Spec OP or Grunt who has seen action offer up their training and comments as well? Yes definitely. If they have no action and want to share the training then listen as well. One never knows. 


The point as made by the previous post, if it is a requirement many people will not teach. And I also agree with not going and looking for the experience. I tell people all the time, they are lucky to have never seen any such violence in their life.


----------



## Tgace

There's also the issue that many people who have "done" rarely speak about it. Not so much those who like to inflate a scuffle over a parking spot into multiple attackers with machine guns. 

Again...the advantage the shooting "arts" have is that if the instructor was a verified member of a top tier special operations unit the odds that he has "seen the ****" are in the high 90% in these modern times. This injects some "real world" into the tactical firearms arts.

That's not to say that the students of these Top Tier instructors are lacking because THEY don't have combat experience. The whole question here (in my understanding) is what...besides possibly sport application...do trad martial arts use to inject "modern reality" into what they teach? 

Maybe it's not possible...it's a theoretical question.


----------



## Tgace

MJS said:


> This next question is for Steve and TGace, if he's still floating around this thread.  During a discussion with Chris, I had mentioned that I'd prefer to train with people with RW experience.  Chris and I agreed that in many cases, we're teaching things that we haven't done in the RW.  So the question is:  Since its probably not possible to have experienced every single little thing, as long as you're training with someone with some RW experience, someone who's seen a lot and does have a lot of experience, would you still get something out of the training, even if the teacher himself, hasn't experienced certain things?



My .02....the actual physical techniques of a Martial Art are not going to be taught any "better" by the RW user. Will a punch or kick be any different from one vs the other? It's the perspective the real world application brings them that's the benefit. 

Of course (as I see it) there are always shades of grey. A new student who uses his/her art in RW will bring a different level of understanding than a high level practicioner who gets into a RW confrontation. Each can bring important data to the table but in terms of the "Art" it would depend on the instructor taking his/her RW experience and determining if his/her Art needs adaptation in light of it.


----------



## Steve

Great posts.  I just want to point out that teaching BJJ,  Goju Ryu Karate or TKD are things that one can very easily practice and accumulate experience with.   Self defense, however, is a very slippery term to define, yet its use in selling martial arts is pervasive.

One can be an expert in karate and be a complete novice in self defense.  Yet many, I'd say even most, martial arts schools allege to teach self defense.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Great posts. I just want to point out that teaching BJJ, Goju Ryu Karate or TKD are things that one can very easily practice and accumulate experience with. Self defense, however, is a very slippery term to define, yet its use in selling martial arts is pervasive.
> 
> One can be an expert in karate and be a complete novice in self defense. Yet many, I'd say even most, martial arts schools allege to teach self defense.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



maybe there's the distinction in marketing.

I think it's unrealistic to claim to teach self defense.  that implies that it's a guaranteed outcome.  It's a distinction in language, but maybe a more honest presentation is, that one teaches skills that can be useful in self defense.

The understanding must be: nothing of this sort is guaranteed, it's up to the individual as to how well he can actually use those skills.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> maybe there's the distinction in marketing.
> 
> I think it's unrealistic to claim to teach self defense.  that implies that it's a guaranteed outcome.  It's a distinction in language, but maybe a more honest presentation is, that one teaches skills that can be useful in self defense.
> 
> The understanding must be: nothing of this sort is guaranteed, it's up to the individual as to how well he can actually use those skills.



I agree that this seems safer.  But how does one know if skills could be useful in a self defense situation if the instructor, who learned from a series of experienced martial artists who all had no experience applying the skills in actual defense situations, aldo has no practical experience?  What makes him or her competent to declare a technique useful or not?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I agree that this seems safer.  But how does one know if skills could be useful in a self defense situation if the instructor, who learned from a series of experienced martial artists who all had no experience applying the skills in actual defense situations, aldo has no practical experience?  What makes him or her competent to declare a technique useful or not?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



caveate emptor.

everyone needs to decide for themselves who they trust.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> caveate emptor.
> 
> everyone needs to decide for themselves who they trust.



Trust is about a relationship between two people.  Expertise and credentials should be a bit less subjective.  Don't you think?

If you needed heart surgery, the expert is easy to spot.  It's the surgeon who is well trained, experienced and well respected.  The novice may be well trained, and may be more knowledgeable than you or me.  He or she might also be perfectly capable of performing the surgery.  But an expert?

Who would you trust?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace

Which begs the question...where can a MA instructor gain this real world experience? How would you verify it?


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> Well, I don't know about discrediting anyone, but that's a big part of what I wanted to talk about.  If people who have no experience in real world self defense are considered experts, what makes this one area different from all others?  Or is there any other complex, physical skillset where the expertise is considered credible even though it remains theoretical?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Hmm...ok, perhaps 'discredit' was a poor choice of wording.  Maybe the practicality of what the inst is teaching, would come into question.  OTOH, let's look at this once again, from a non martial arts POV.  Pick up the paper and look at the job section.  How many times do we see ads for a LEO and it states "Certified Officers Only".  I've seen it many times.  I've seen other jobs where they require the perspective candidate to have at least 3yrs (just tossing out a number) of prior Accounting exp, for jobs that deal with numbers.  Restaurant is looking for a new chef...gotta have prior exp.  

Now, does this prior exp. mean that this person will be any good?  On the surface, yes, it would seem that hiring someone who graduated from culinary school and worked for 10yrs at a 5star restaurant, would be a good chef, perhaps better than the recent culinary school graduate.  Yet at my job, I've seen people with past exp. walk in, and I see how they work, and I think to myself, "Holy cow!  This person dispatched at such and such PD for the past 10yrs??  Wow, they're horrible!"  LOL!  

Saying what I just did, almost makes it sound like having exp. doesnt matter.  I've seen people with no exp. perform a job pretty damn good.  IMO, I still stand by the prior exp., but I suppose there can be some cases in which exp doesnt matter.


----------



## MJS

Rich Parsons said:


> And what about those who do have experience with multiple attackers and in various situations? Do their opinion weigh more for their experience? or Less as they "obviously" have done something wrong to have been in those situations?



I'd say that the past exp. would probably play a part as far as what they did working, but as for ending up in that situation in the first place...I'd say that would be more about a lack of awareness.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> late to the discussion here, and maybe this has already been touched upon but I haven't gone back to read all 12 pages of the discussion.



Welcome aboard Mike! Looking forward to your input! 



> In my experience, it's very easy for most people to get thru life without ever having to fight or defend themselves for real, or at least very seldom and probably not at all as an adult.  Most of us put the schoolyard scraps behind us when we get out of gradeschool.  It's been easy for me at least, and I spent a number of years living in a neighborhood that has it's own level of grit to it.  I just don't find it difficult to not get into fights or altercations.  But maybe that's just me.



Yup, thats me as well.  As I've said, I've probably talked my way out of more things than I've actually physically been involved in.  What sparked further debate in this thread, is the question I asked a page or so back:  does training with someone with the RW exp, still provide a better education, vs. training with someone who has no RW exp. in the first place.  



> So it's very possible that one might be teaching martial arts, and yet have no "real world" experience using it.  That's me, in fact.  I certainly don't encourage anyone to go out and deliberately seek out "real world" experience.  Certainly not for the purpose of simply adding credibility to themselves as a teacher.  It's dangerous for one thing and in my opinion, downright immoral to seek out and perhaps provoke a violent encounter.



Yup, that's me in the same boat with you again.   While I haven't had someone pull a knife on me, yes, I still teach knife defense.  I also do my best to make it a point (no pun intended ) to train with those who either have or who train much more realistic than others.  



> If real world experience is seen as a mandate for teaching martial arts, then I suspect there would be far far fewer teachers out there.  That might not necessarily be a bad thing, I personally believe most of the "teachers" out there should not be teaching.  But I'm not sure real world experience in using it must be a qualification.  I think it's possible to have a reasonable and realistic approach to training, as well as a realistic recognition of one's skill and experience.  As long as that is honestly presented to the students, so the students know the honest experience and training level of the teacher, then it's possible to still train and teach quality martial arts without real world experience using it.
> 
> If real world experience were a mandate to teach, then I think a lot of the systems will simply go extinct, or become very rare, at least.



Yes, you're most likely spot on with this!


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> There's also the issue that many people who have "done" rarely speak about it. Not so much those who like to inflate a scuffle over a parking spot into multiple attackers with machine guns.



Exactly! The 'quiet professionals' as they're called.  Many times, when I've spoken to people, some of whom I currently train with, or have trained with, the real world topic comes up, and the majority of the time, I have to drag things out of them...lol.  Nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, I'm just adding onto what you said.   Personally, I have more respect for those that have done but are quiet about it, compared to those that hype things up and brag about whooping the *** of 5 guys on the corner.  



> Again...the advantage the shooting "arts" have is that if the instructor was a verified member of a top tier special operations unit the odds that he has "seen the ****" are in the high 90% in these modern times. This injects some "real world" into the tactical firearms arts.
> 
> That's not to say that the students of these Top Tier instructors are lacking because THEY don't have combat experience. The whole question here (in my understanding) is what...besides possibly sport application...do trad martial arts use to inject "modern reality" into what they teach?
> 
> Maybe it's not possible...it's a theoretical question.



Chris Kyle (RIP) was a SEAL Sniper and highly regarded for what he's done.  He's been there, done that, many times.  In your honest opinion, would a civilian who wanted to learn some practical shooting, how to handle a gun, etc, etc, benefit from training with someone like Chris?  Keep in mind, this civilian has never been in the military, and probably never will be.  IMO, I'd say yes, he's benefit quite a bit.


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> My .02....the actual physical techniques of a Martial Art are not going to be taught any "better" by the RW user. Will a punch or kick be any different from one vs the other? It's the perspective the real world application brings them that's the benefit.
> 
> Of course (as I see it) there are always shades of grey. A new student who uses his/her art in RW will bring a different level of understanding than a high level practicioner who gets into a RW confrontation. Each can bring important data to the table but in terms of the "Art" it would depend on the instructor taking his/her RW experience and determining if his/her Art needs adaptation in light of it.



Thanks for your reply.  I guess you can disregard the question I asked you down-thread, as I saw that post before this one.


----------



## harlan

Actually, it's not. Not easy to spot, that is. 'Respected'...by who? 'Experienced and well-trained'...you spot that how? Paper on the wall? With the plethora of bad docs out there, 'credentials' for an excellent doctor are uncertain. Most folks go with a 'brand-name' hospital...assuming that the association with the institution at least 'vets' the doc.

I'm going to go back to the dojo as the lab. When it comes to TMA, pedal hits the metal there. Self-honesty, feedback from other advanced/experienced artists, and the art being worked on. One can get very close to 'real-world'...but at that point accidents happen. One must have controls...and I get the impression that it's the 'controls' in place within the dojo-specific environment that are really being questioned.



Steve said:


> If you needed heart surgery, the expert is easy to spot. It's the surgeon who is well trained, experienced and well respected. The novice may be well trained, and may be more knowledgeable than you or me. He or she might also be perfectly capable of performing the surgery. But an expert?
> 
> Who would you trust?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> maybe there's the distinction in marketing.
> 
> 1) I think it's unrealistic to claim to teach self defense.  that implies that it's a guaranteed outcome.  It's a distinction in language, but maybe a more honest presentation is, that one teaches skills that can be useful in self defense.
> 
> 2) The understanding must be: nothing of this sort is guaranteed, it's up to the individual as to how well he can actually use those skills.



Great post!!!!  To address each point: 

1) That is correct.  I mean, when I was learning, I was told, "I'm going to show you a *self defense technique*" which does just that...implies that its something that CAN be used for SD.  

2) Yet how many times do we hear the teacher say that?  I mean, can you imagine the raised eyebrows of the students, or the questions that'll follow, if the teacher actually said that what he/she is showing may NOT work!!  I think saying something like, "What I'm showing you is 1 possible option.  It may not go as planned, and you may have to adjust/adapt as needed." would be 10 times better than flat out saying, "Here's a knife tech....but it's probably not gonna work." LOL!  IMO, I think some teachers are afraid that if they say something, if they put the slightest amount of doubt in the students mind, they're going to see $$$ walking out the door.  Imagine if the student, who spent months/years training, gets into a fight, and actually gets their *** kicked....badly!  Now, the MA's do not turn you into Superman, and I've said that numerous times, but imagine those students who were under the impression that the SD techs would work....


----------



## MJS

Tgace said:


> Which begs the question...where can a MA instructor gain this real world experience? How would you verify it?



Some may say that a competition record would be proof, but IMO, while that does say something about the person, I dont feel it meets the requirements we're discussing here.  How would you verify it?  Pretty hard IMO.  Unless there was a reliable witness, video of the incident....

I'd say it'd be easier for someone in a LE/Military?Corrections line of work, to verify things, rather than the average Joe.


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Actually, it's not. Not easy to spot, that is. 'Respected'...by who? 'Experienced and well-trained'...you spot that how? Paper on the wall? With the plethora of bad docs out there, 'credentials' for an excellent doctor are uncertain. Most folks go with a 'brand-name' hospital...assuming that the association with the institution at least 'vets' the doc.


There are many easy ways to vet a surgeon.  First, if you aren't interviewing him or her, asking how many times they've performed the surgery, etc.  That's the bare minimum.  Asking other doctors.  Doing some research online.  Find out whether the surgeon is sought after as a resource to other surgeons.  It's pretty easy to vet a surgeon.  I've done it.  

Now, you might be right that many people don't do their homework.  But the information is fairly objective and it's fairly accessible.  


> I'm going to go back to the dojo as the lab. When it comes to TMA, pedal hits the metal there. Self-honesty, feedback from other advanced/experienced artists, and the art being worked on. One can get very close to 'real-world'...but at that point accidents happen. One must have controls...and I get the impression that it's the 'controls' in place within the dojo-specific environment that are really being questioned.


I'm with you up to the real world part.  An experienced Karateka can tell you with authority whether or not you are performing a technique correctly.  He or she can also critique your performance of a kata or any other aspect of your training within the specific form of Karate you train. 

However, where I think you and I diverge is that I don't believe that this specialized expertise qualifies the Expert Karateka to comment on the real world applicability of the techniques you are training.  That is, UNLESS this Expert Karateka also has some kind of relevant experience in the different area of expertise that we often simply label "Self Defense."  It's the very claim that training can "get very close to real world" that I am challenging.  Get close?  Says who?  

Now, I want to be careful here.  I'm not saying that the techniques aren't practical for self defense.  I'm suggesting that we presume that they are because we are told they are by people who might not be qualified to know one way or the other.  And they are simply telling you what they were told by someone who was told by someone who at some point had some actual expertise in the field.


----------



## harlan

You have to know the questions to ask. Using your own analogy, you are actually an expert (many times surgury). It's NOT easy to spot for the person dealing with a medical issue for the first time.



Steve said:


> There are many easy ways to vet a surgeon. First, if you aren't interviewing him or her, asking how many times they've performed the surgery, etc. That's the bare minimum. Asking other doctors. Doing some research online. Find out whether the surgeon is sought after as a resource to other surgeons. It's pretty easy to vet a surgeon. I've done it.



Actually, I agree/dont' diverge here.



Steve said:


> However, where I think you and I diverge is that I don't believe that this specialized expertise qualifies the Expert Karateka to comment on the real world applicability of the techniques you are training.




As Flying Crane intimated, one has to decide on who to trust. Frankly, my teacher has no 'real world' experience (by your definition), but will tell you that certain techniques are 'iffy', 'unworkable', etc. and that is from the lab.



Steve said:


> Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that the techniques aren't practical for self defense. I'm suggesting that we presume that they are because we are told they are by people who might not be qualified to know one way or the other. And they are simply telling you what they were told by someone who was told by someone who at some point had some actual expertise in the field.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Trust is about a relationship between two people. Expertise and credentials should be a bit less subjective. Don't you think?
> 
> If you needed heart surgery, the expert is easy to spot. It's the surgeon who is well trained, experienced and well respected. The novice may be well trained, and may be more knowledgeable than you or me. He or she might also be perfectly capable of performing the surgery. But an expert?
> 
> Who would you trust?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



who do you trust as a source for your training and martial information?  That's for you to decide.

Maybe real-world experience in using the material on genuine badguys is important to you and you will not consider training under someone who has none of that experience, or who doesn't have "enough" of that type of experience.  That's your choice.

Maybe you recognize that someone has some truly valuable information and training methods that they can teach you, even tho they have little or no real world experience using the material on a genuine badguy.  If you train under him, that's your choice.

There is no such thing as true credentials in the martial arts world.  Belts only mean something to the guy wearing it.  Nobody else in the world cares, there are no universal standards to support ranking.  You cannot mandate that one is disallowed from teaching martial arts unless he has XXX number of actual, successful encounters with real badguys in the world of a certain XX magnitude of severity and potential life-threatening-ness, and those encounters need to be verified by disinterested third parties of immaculate reputation and credibility, or some government oversight agency.  Better get it on video so it can be posted on Youtube, or nobody will believe it ;-))  It's impossible to establish a true credential for teaching martial arts, or to be a credible authority in martial arts.

So yes, it is about a relationship: that one between teacher and student.  And the student needs to make his own decision about who he trusts for that training and that information.  And the teacher needs to be honest with his students about where his own training came from, and what kinds of experiences he has had (or not had) with it.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> An experienced Karateka can tell you with authority whether or not you are performing a technique correctly. He or she can also critique your performance of a kata or any other aspect of your training within the specific form of Karate you train.



even there, I say it depends on who you trust for your information.  There are a lot of people out there, in any system you care to name, who are wearing high rank and claiming mastery, and may even have a high reputation in the general martial arts world, who know nothing and are in no position to actually critique or instruct.  Just the other day I was perusing Youtube and looking at videos of various people doing stuff from my system.  Some of these people are teachers, one was a "grandmaster".  What I saw horrified me, including what the "grandmaster" was doing.  It was pure crap, based on the standards of my sifu.  I wouldn't take any instruction from him, even if I was paid.

There simply are no objective standards that everyone recognizes.  Everyone has their own interpretation of this stuff, some better and some worse, and some people who don't really know much can still be fairly effective simply because they are athletic and big and strong and they can take crude technique and simply overpower people with their aggression.  But they are not actually all that skilled or knowledgeable about this stuff, but they believe they are and they can convince their students that they are.  Make your choices wisely about who you accept instruction from because a whole lot of "masters" out there suck, plain and simple.  And be careful about accepting critique from people who you don't yet know if you can trust their input or not.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Chris Kyle (RIP) was a SEAL Sniper and highly regarded for what he's done. He's been there, done that, many times. In your honest opinion, would a civilian who wanted to learn some practical shooting, how to handle a gun, etc, etc, benefit from training with someone like Chris? Keep in mind, this civilian has never been in the military, and probably never will be. IMO, I'd say yes, he's benefit quite a bit.



Context and goals are important too and this is an interesting example.  As a SEAL, I imagine he has a lot of experience and skill in handling firearms of all kinds, in many scenarios.  If one wants some kind of self-defense training for the home, with a firearm, I imagine a SEAL could provide that.  But if the SEAL's expertise is as a sniper, that particular body of experience has little real value for someone wanting to know how to use a firearm for home defense.  It's all gotta be relevant to the situation.


----------



## Tgace

Flying Crane said:


> Context and goals are important too and this is an interesting example.  As a SEAL, I imagine he has a lot of experience and skill in handling firearms of all kinds, in many scenarios.  If one wants some kind of self-defense training for the home, with a firearm, I imagine a SEAL could provide that.  But if the SEAL's expertise is as a sniper, that particular body of experience has little real value for someone wanting to know how to use a firearm for home defense.  It's all gotta be relevant to the situation.



Ehhh...a SEAL has many skills. Just because he was a sniper doesn't mean he wasn't highly skilled in CQB or other areas.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Flying Crane

Tgace said:


> Ehhh...a SEAL has many skills. Just because he was a sniper doesn't mean he wasn't highly skilled in CQB or other areas.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



as I said, he probably has a lot of experience handling firearms of many types, in many situations and would probably have something relevant to teach.  But the sniper skills in particular would be irrelevant.


----------



## Flying Crane

MJS said:


> Yet how many times do we hear the teacher say that? I mean, can you imagine the raised eyebrows of the students, or the questions that'll follow, if the teacher actually said that what he/she is showing may NOT work!! I think saying something like, "What I'm showing you is 1 possible option. It may not go as planned, and you may have to adjust/adapt as needed." would be 10 times better than flat out saying, "Here's a knife tech....but it's probably not gonna work." LOL! IMO, I think some teachers are afraid that if they say something, if they put the slightest amount of doubt in the students mind, they're going to see $$$ walking out the door. Imagine if the student, who spent months/years training, gets into a fight, and actually gets their *** kicked....badly! Now, the MA's do not turn you into Superman, and I've said that numerous times, but imagine those students who were under the impression that the SD techs would work....



I'm gonna get into something that might get a bit vague and fuzzy, it's how I view my training and I'm not exactly certain how to put it into writing and I hope in the end, it will be relevant to your comments here.

I view my training as a form of physical education.  The goal of the training is how to use the body efficiently and effectively.  How to connect all of the body parts to work together as a connected unit and harness the potential that the entire body has under these circumstances.  

The goal is not, in my opinion, how to defend myself against a punch.  How to defend myself against a kick.  How to defend myself against a grab.  Or a knife attack.  Or an attack with a pointed stick, or black cherries or a banana (extra points to anyone who gets that reference...).

The method we use in training our bodies for the goal of full-connection, happens to be techniques that can be used in fighting.  We use punches of various types, and kicks, and stepping and positioning moves, and long sequences of forms, etc. that put these techniques into various combinations. These training methods help us understand how to connect the body as one unit.  Oh, and happily, they can also be useful when confronted by a badguy who intends to do me harm.  That's a nice extra that's part of the package, a result of undergoing this training.

Ultimately, the techniques are not what we are after.  We are after that full body harness, and the techniques are a vehicle for getting us there.  Once we "get there", we can harness the full body for anything that we do, not just the techniques that we practiced.  Then, any movement we make can become a devastating technique.  Ideally, we no longer even need those formal techniques.

Then, it becomes easy to defend against a punch, or a kick, or a grab, or a banana.  We have gained a very high level of control over our bodies and we can respond and unleash devastation if needed.

However, ultimately my ability to do so depends on myself, how well I have trained and internalized the lessons and my vision of what is possible with what I've learned.  My sifu guides me in that, but in the end it comes down to me.

Sifu takes movements from our forms and uses them as examples: "here, throw a punch at me...OK now I can do THIS and it it destroys your punch and hurts you, and what I did is just like THIS movement from THIS form..."  These are examples of what is possible with the material, but you need to understand it on that level and you need to be able to couple that with the larger physical education, that of full-body harnessing.  Because you can also just practice the techniques and the forms with no mind for how to use any of it, and you just get a good workout and exercise in.  Good exercise is no guarantee of good fighting skills, tho if you train properly to understand how one might use the material to fight, then you will also, by default, be getting good exercise.  You need to ask yourself: what is my interest in doing this?  Do I just want exercise (that's OK if you do...) or do I want to understand what is possible in how I might use this stuff to fight or defend myself?  Those are questions to answer for yourself, and then pursue the training accordingly and be honest with yourself about whether or not you are on a road to meet that goal.

But, getting back to what I was saying earlier...our approach to training is not openly or specifically centered around the notion of "How do I defend myself against X or Y or Z attack?  How do I defend myself?"  

the answer to those questions become obvious after you have gained to larger physical education that our training offers, but it requires a different mindset than expecting specific answers to "how do I defend against...?"

Hope this makes some kind of sense, I've done my best to describe it.


----------



## Rich Parsons

MJS said:


> I'd say that the past exp. would probably play a part as far as what they did working, but as for ending up in that situation in the first place...I'd say that would be more about a lack of awareness.




Put an unarmed bouncer or guard into a violent city with gangs, and that person does what it takes to go home at night. Is that lack of awareness? 

Why are they in that job? (* Assume it paid the most, even more than a line cook or computer programming at the time *)


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane and Harlan, you've both brought up terrific points on this particular subject, and I don't disagree with you.  Trust certainly plays a role, Flying Crane.  Building trust is actually it's own skill set.   Harlan, I also agree with you that a person's own expertise will be a factor in how well that person can judge someone else's expertise.  

I want to shift the perspective here.  I'm trying to look at this through an outside lens.  In other words, whether you can accurately gauge a person's expertise, that person either is or isn't an expert in a particular field.  A martial arts instructor is either a bone fide expert in that style of MA, or he/she is not.  A surgeon either is or is not an expert in that field.  

A complete novice might not be able to tell which is which, but that does not affect the instructor's credentials.  

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that I see your points, and they're good ones.  But I'm still wondering what you think about the actual development of expertise as an individual.  You are trying to become an expert in something.  What are the ingredients?  What are you actually learning?  What does an expert of something look like to you?   What are the characteristics of an expert?


----------



## Flying Crane

gonna have to think about how to answer this...


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> What does an expert of something look like to you?   What are the characteristics of an expert?



An expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate material.

In the field of self defense, let me provide a case, that I think proves one can practice for something without ever using it in a live situation and still be an expert.

Rener and Ryron Gracie (sons of Rorion Gracie, founder of the UFC, and grandsons of grand master Helio Gracie), are two very well-known BJJ experts and teachers.

What is somewhat interesting in Rener and Ryron's approach is that while they are not anti-sport (they appreciate the enjoyment and unique challenges of sporting jiu-jitsu), they believe the that essence of BJJ is in combatives and self-defense and they continue to emphasize this heavily, clearly noting when certain moves and positions are not appropriate for the street.

They are actively and repeatedly engaged in the training of law enforcement officers and the military in grappling and weapons retention.

I believe that I've heard both Rener and Ryron state that they have never been in an actual street fight.


----------



## Steve

MJS said:


> Hmm...ok, perhaps 'discredit' was a poor choice of wording.  Maybe the practicality of what the inst is teaching, would come into question.  OTOH, let's look at this once again, from a non martial arts POV.  Pick up the paper and look at the job section.  How many times do we see ads for a LEO and it states "Certified Officers Only".  I've seen it many times.  I've seen other jobs where they require the perspective candidate to have at least 3yrs (just tossing out a number) of prior Accounting exp, for jobs that deal with numbers.  Restaurant is looking for a new chef...gotta have prior exp.
> 
> Now, does this prior exp. mean that this person will be any good?  On the surface, yes, it would seem that hiring someone who graduated from culinary school and worked for 10yrs at a 5star restaurant, would be a good chef, perhaps better than the recent culinary school graduate.  Yet at my job, I've seen people with past exp. walk in, and I see how they work, and I think to myself, "Holy cow!  This person dispatched at such and such PD for the past 10yrs??  Wow, they're horrible!"  LOL!
> 
> Saying what I just did, almost makes it sound like having exp. doesnt matter.  I've seen people with no exp. perform a job pretty damn good.  IMO, I still stand by the prior exp., but I suppose there can be some cases in which exp doesnt matter.


Interesting points.  I agree that the quality of experience will certainly be important.  But the conclusion, that it's almost like having experience doesn't matter... not sure I agree with that.  The way I see it, "expert" is the sum of several different, distinct pieces. 

A person with experience may or may not be an expert.  However, a person without experience is never an expert.

Now, a person without experience could have a lot of potential.  He or she could also have several of the other ingredients of expertise.  

I sort of asked this in my last post.  What do you guys think are the key traits of an expert?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Flying Crane and Harlan, you've both brought up terrific points on this particular subject, and I don't disagree with you. Trust certainly plays a role, Flying Crane. Building trust is actually it's own skill set. Harlan, I also agree with you that a person's own expertise will be a factor in how well that person can judge someone else's expertise.
> 
> I want to shift the perspective here. I'm trying to look at this through an outside lens. In other words, whether you can accurately gauge a person's expertise, that person either is or isn't an expert in a particular field. A martial arts instructor is either a bone fide expert in that style of MA, or he/she is not. A surgeon either is or is not an expert in that field.
> 
> A complete novice might not be able to tell which is which, but that does not affect the instructor's credentials.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that I see your points, and they're good ones. But I'm still wondering what you think about the actual development of expertise as an individual. You are trying to become an expert in something. What are the ingredients? What are you actually learning? What does an expert of something look like to you? What are the characteristics of an expert?



as I think about this, I'm not certain that there is a single, solid answer to this.  It might not be something that can be clearly and objectively measured up to "thus"...

As Rframe states, an expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate the material.  But how is that measured, and at what level of this ability is enough to be an expert, or a master, or whatever you want to call it?  Development of skill is a progression and it's difficult to measure and difficult to assign a solid value to.  It's very nebulous.  that's why I keep coming back to, everyone needs to decide who they trust to give them the info and the training.  'Cause I'm not sure how else to say it, I can't give definite parameters.  As soon as I try to nail it down, I suspect someone will point out an example that doesn't fit my definition.

And keep in mind, the "best" in the world (if that could even be measured) is still vulnerable to a suckerpunch or being blindsided, or bad luck, or a bad day where nothing goes right, and could still lose to a Nobody on the street.  It can happen at any time.  So what does it really mean to be an expert?  It does not mean invincibility.  The Best who loses to Nobody is still worth training under, because he's got something worth learning.  But the fact that he lost to Nobody, well now his reputation is tarnished and people suddenly doubt his ability, maybe he's really just a charlatan.

I'm kinda thinking out loud here, just rambling in my thoughts I guess.

I made the example earlier of someone with crude technique who can still be very effective with it because he's big and strong and athletic and aggressive.  OK, does that make him an expert, does it make him knowledgeable?  He's certainly effective, but can he actually teach what he does to someone else, and will that person be as effective as him if he lacks the same size, strength, athleticism and aggressiveness?  What does he really have to teach, in this example?  He may have found something that works for him, is good enough for him, but that he cannot pass along to anyone else if he were to try.  At least not to anyone who does not match his natural attributes.  This is someone who is not worth studying under because he has very little to actually teach, even tho he has the ability to clean out an alley full of ruffians.

What is perceived as important to gain a level of expertise is something that I think changes with one's experience.  A novice sees only the color of a belt, and thinks that is a measurement he can count on.  The higher the rank, the better the instructor.  We all know that's not a trustworthy measurement.

I've spent years training in several different martial systems, all with a very different approach to how the curriculum is organized and trained.  What I thought was a good system when I was younger and less experienced, is stuff that I now feel is not such a good system, or at least not a good match for me personally.  

I guess for me, it comes down to a couple of things.  First, you need to study and train a system that makes sense to you and is a good match for your personality and how you mentally order things in your cognition.  You need to train your techniques to be strong, you need to work them in a way that helps you be able to use them on an opponent, but how you go about doing that is subject to much debate.  Is competition necessary, or not?  What KIND of competition?  Are interactive drills enough?  How about drills that are scripted, vs. drills that are more spontaneous?  Perhaps they are all a part of the big picture, they all have a place in the progression of training and none of them alone are THE answer.

I know my sifu's training history, I know who his teachers were, I know that when he was young in Hong Kong in the 1950s that he got in fights and used his stuff for real.  I understand our system enough to know that it's a good match for me mentally and the system makes sense to me.  When my sifu teaches, what he says, what he shows us, makes sense to me.  And I've got enough years in (close to 30 now), with experience in enough variety, that in my opinion, I can distinguish nonsense from quality.  What I see in my sifu is quality.  not because he gets up and dazzles me with his mad skillz.  But rather because he can explain in a way that makes clear sense to me.  And when he demonstrates his point or examples he wants us to see, he gets huge results from very simple things.

But again, it's just my judgement, I've made a decision that I can trust his teaching.

So I dunno how else to answer your question.  It's a good question but perhaps not one with a clear answer.


----------



## rframe

Flying Crane said:


> As Rframe states, an expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate the material.  But how is that measured, and at what level of this ability is enough to be an expert, or a master, or whatever you want to call it?



This brings up another important point.  We often think the term "expert" is an absolute measure of ability, but it's not.
As a computer security guy, I'm an expert, but there are people who I get into a room with in my field who make me feel like a 2nd grader.
As a flight instructor, I'm an expert pilot, but there are a lot of people who are much better than I.
I've seen 2nd-3rd degree black belts (real black belts, not McDojo black belts) who get taught by someone with decades of experience and say they feel like they were learning things for the first time.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I sort of asked this in my last post. What do you guys think are the key traits of an expert?



Deep knowledge and understanding of the method, and the ability to use it to great effect.

How that is measured, and how one reaches that ability, is very difficult to define.


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> An expert is one who has knowledge and the ability to apply and correlate material.
> 
> In the field of self defense, let me provide a case, that I think proves one can practice for something without ever using it in a live situation and still be an expert.
> 
> Rener and Ryron Gracie (sons of Rorion Gracie, founder of the UFC, and grandsons of grand master Helio Gracie), are two very well-known BJJ experts and teachers.
> 
> What is somewhat interesting in Rener and Ryron's approach is that while they are not anti-sport (they appreciate the enjoyment and unique challenges of sporting jiu-jitsu), they believe the that essence of BJJ is in combatives and self-defense and they continue to emphasize this heavily, clearly noting when certain moves and positions are not appropriate for the street.
> 
> They are actively and repeatedly engaged in the training of law enforcement officers and the military in grappling and weapons retention.
> 
> I believe that I've heard both Rener and Ryron state that they have never been in an actual street fight.


I'm very familiar with Rener and Ryron.  I think Rener's youtube videos are terrific, in particular. 

So, here's my question to you.  What are Rener and Ryron experts at?  Where is there expertise?  I'd say, based upon your post (and my own independent knowledge of them), they're experts in Gracie Combatives and Gracie Jiu Jitsu.   

I'll try to work this through, and I welcome your feedback.  They're experts in these fields because they learned them from Rorion Gracie, who had lots of experience fighting with these techniques, both in rings and outside of them, in bad neighborhoods all over the world, including his home of Brazil and in the USA.  Rorion, based upon his knowledge of Gracie Jiu Jitsu and his experience, created Gracie Combatives.  He invented it, and he new it was effective because he had used the techniques himself.

He taught them to his sons, Rener and Ryron.  Rener and Ryron are experts in this style, and they learned it from their dad.  While they don't have practical experience, they learned these techniques from their dad, who was both an expert in Gracie Jiu Jitsu AND an expert in self defense.   Rorion knew that the techniques work because he had used them and they work.  Rener and Ryron don't KNOW that the technques work.  They believe that they do because Rorion told them so, and he's credible because he's an expert.  

So, in the end, what am I getting at?  Simply this.  The techniques are likely sound, because they have been tested and they're being taught close to the source.  Is Ryron Gracie a Self Defense expert?  I'd argue not.  He is, however, clearly, an expert in Gracie Combatives, because he has studied under his father, the founder of this program.  He is also obviously an expert in Gracie Jiu Jitsu because he learned from his father, who learned from Helio, the co-founder of the art.   

Rener teaches someone Gracie Combatives, who then teaches someone else Gracie Combatives and so on.  These people may be experts in Gracie Combatives, but can they be considered experts in self defense?


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Is Ryron Gracie a Self Defense expert? I'd argue not.



perhaps there is simply no such thing as a Self Defense expert.  Perhaps there are only experts in various methods, and those methods MAY be useful in self defense.  That might be as close as one can get.


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> They're experts in these fields because they learned them...while they don't have practical experience...but can they be considered experts in self defense?



I think so, but that's the essence of the discussion really...how do we define expert, which is semantics.

The US military has a whole bunch of fighter pilots, I'd argue they are all experts if they're qualified operators. How many have actively engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire?  Few.  I dont think that makes them non-experts, nor would I change the label I give them from "expert fighter pilot" to "expert fighter maneuvering pilot"...I'm sure some would.


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> This brings up another important point.  We often think the term "expert" is an absolute measure of ability, but it's not.
> As a computer security guy, I'm an expert, but there are people who I get into a room with in my field who make me feel like a 2nd grader.
> As a flight instructor, I'm an expert pilot, but there are a lot of people who are much better than I.
> I've seen 2nd-3rd degree black belts (real black belts, not McDojo black belts) who get taught by someone with decades of experience and say they feel like they were learning things for the first time.


Sure.  I see your point.  So, let's try it from the other side.  Would it be safe to say that a person who has never cooked is not an expert at cooking?  Is a person who has never flown a plane an expert pilot?   

In both cases, it's obviously possible for a novice to successfully fly a plane or cook a dish.  At some point, every expert pilot flew for the first time.  Every expert chef cooked their first dish.  But I don't think anyone would suggest that they are experts, regardless of how well trained they are.


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> I think so, but that's the essence of the discussion really...how do we define expert, which is semantics.
> 
> The US military has a whole bunch of fighter pilots, I'd argue they are all experts if they're qualified operators. How many have actively engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire?  Few.  I dont think that makes them non-experts, nor would I change the label I give them from "expert fighter pilot" to "expert fighter maneuvering pilot"...I'm sure some would.


So, you see no distinction between the fighter pilots who have engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire and ones who have not?  Wouldn't the fighter pilots who have those experiences have something of value to share with those who have not because they can speak from that experience?


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> So, you see no distinction between the fighter pilots who have engaged an enemy aircraft in live fire and ones who have not?  Wouldn't the fighter pilots who have those experiences have something of value to share with those who have not because they can speak from that experience?



Sure there's a distinction, that's why I mention above that I think it's wrong to even think of the term "expert" as an absolute... else the only expert would be the person with the most combined knowledge, skill, and experience and it would be a title we'd have to revoke and transfer around constantly.

Those who've been mugged, raped, or punched out in a street fight have real life street exposure but that doesn't make them an expert either.


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> Sure there's a distinction, that's why I mention above that I think it's wrong to even think of the term "expert" as an absolute... else the only expert would be the person with the most combined knowledge, skill, and experience and it would be a title we'd have to revoke and transfer around constantly.
> 
> Those who've been mugged, raped, or punched out in a street fight have real life street exposure but that doesn't make them an expert either.



I appreciate this, but it sounds like you believe I'm thinking of the term expert as an absolute.  I'm not, and have said so several times.  I also, in the previous post, suggested that while nailing down who is an expert can be difficult, it's pretty easy to point to who isn't an expert.  Do you agree?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace

"Stay in your lane!!!"


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> I appreciate this, but it sounds like you believe I'm thinking of the term expert as an absolute.  I'm not, and have said so several times.  I also, in the previous post, suggested that while nailing down who is an expert can be difficult, it's pretty easy to point to who isn't an expert.  Do you agree?



I'd say the most glaring cases are those who claim to be an expert but cannot demonstrate clear understanding and application, so the observer chooses not to recognize them as an "expert".  Since we're talking about things with no objective standards, it truly is a subjective matter and they eye of the beholder means quite a bit... which comes back to Flying Crane talking about trust and individual verification.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I also, in the previous post, suggested that while nailing down who is an expert can be difficult, it's pretty easy to point to who isn't an expert.  Do you agree?
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I think it is not so easy.  Lots of people seem to have plenty of students and even a good reputation, but I look at what they are doing and I see real problems.  Some people think the guy is an expert.  I, or someone else, might disagree.  So even identifying who is not the expert isn't obvious, nor standard.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> perhaps there is simply no such thing as a Self Defense expert.  Perhaps there are only experts in various methods, and those methods MAY be useful in self defense.  That might be as close as one can get.



Ding, ding, ding.  Yes!  It's too vague to be useful, and yet it's use is pervasive.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I think it is not so easy.  Lots of people seem to have plenty of students and even a good reputation, but I look at what they are doing and I see real problems.  Some people think the guy is an expert.  I, or someone else, might disagree.  So even identifying who is not the expert isn't obvious, nor standard.



Let me see if I understand what you're saying.  Are you suggesting that I am in fact an expert if I can convince people that it is true?   That's kind of a cynical perspective, if I'm understanding it right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Steve

Tgace said:


> "Stay in your lane!!!"



This is it.  I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion.  

But, If I'm advocating for anything, it is that we be more specific when articulating our areas of expertise.   That we stay in our lanes and encourage others to do the same.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that I am in fact an expert if I can convince people that it is true? That's kind of a cynical perspective, if I'm understanding it right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



HA!!

that's not what I intended to say, but at the same time it's not entirely inaccurate either.

I can only say that people have their own standards, based on their perceptions and experiences and their "knack" for this stuff.  Some people might be seen as an expert by one audience, and seen as pretty mediocre, even poor, by another audience.  It depends on the audience's experience and knowledge and whatnot.  

I'm not trying to be cynical and say that people are deliberately duping an uneducated audience.  Sure, that happens and there are downright frauds out there but I am not specifically talking about them here.  I am talking about the people who do believe that they really know their stuff, that they are at the top of what they do, and they've got plenty of students who believe in them.  But those same people are seen as not very good, by other people, for their own reasons.  Everyone honestly believes in their own position on this, yet their positions can be directly opposed to each other.  Case in point, I mentioned earlier that I was looking at Youtube videos of people doing my system, including a "grandmaster".  What I saw was, in my opinion, pretty bad stuff.  But I don't believe the guy is being deliberately deceitful.  I believe that he believes in his knowledge and ability and methods, and his students do too.  But I would never study under him, not for anything because my experience tells me what he's doing is pretty messed up.  He might look at what I am doing and what my Sifu is teaching me, and feel the same way.

So is the guy an expert, or not?  Ask him or ask his students, and they say "yes he is!!!!"  But ask someone else and they say "oh gawd no!!"

I'll give an example from my own experience.  Ed Parker is recognized as a pivotal figure in Kenpo here in the US, he passed away unexpectedly over 20 years ago.  Much, maybe even most, of the kenpo in the US is linked to him in some way and lots and lots of people believe he was exceptional, gifted, even genius level in the martial arts.  Lots and lots of students and schools are connected to his teaching and his methods.  

But I spoke with an old guy who knew him back in the day.  this guy is not a kenpo guy, he comes from an Okinawan background.  When I heard that he knew Ed Parker, I asked him what he thought of him as a martial artist, and what he said was not very flattering.  He just wasn't impressed with what Mr. Parker was doing and teaching.

So we've got a very famous individual with a very high reputation and a huge number of downstream students who believe Mr. Parker was great, and we've got some people who say, naw not so much.  

Who's opinion carries more weight?  I dunno.  I didn't know the man so I can't really make that judgement.

How do we spot who the expert is not?  Sometimes it's pretty clear to most people, but not always.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> This is it. I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion.
> 
> But, If I'm advocating for anything, it is that we be more specific when articulating our areas of expertise. That we stay in our lanes and encourage others to do the same.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



Good point, but I think the problem is that people tend to automatically associate the one with the other.  Oh, you train in martial arts?  Well then you MUST be able to fight with it, or you MUST be a wizard at self defense...  That's an assumption that people make, for right or for wrong.  I think those of us who have put in some significant time and effort into our training can recognize the distinction that you are making here, but others may not.  It might not be all that easy to explain to people either.  Imagine telling someone who lacks the experience, "oh yeah, I've been training in this stuff for about 30 years, I think I'm maybe getting to be pretty good now with it.  Can I defend myself with it?  Oh, I think probably, but I don't really know, to be honest..."

WHAT???  You DON'T KNOW???  Isn't that what all that training is all about?  Now ya gotta explain all that to him.


----------



## rframe

Flying Crane said:


> How do we spot who the expert is not?



Oh we could have fun with this, but I'd probably violate the forum policy on debunking rather quickly, LOL


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> I'll give an example from my own experience.  Ed Parker is recognized as a pivotal figure in Kenpo here in the US, he passed away unexpectedly over 20 years ago.  Much, maybe even most, of the kenpo in the US is linked to him in some way and lots and lots of people believe he was exceptional, gifted, even genius level in the martial arts.  Lots and lots of students and schools are connected to his teaching and his methods.
> 
> But I spoke with an old guy who knew him back in the day.  this guy is not a kenpo guy, he comes from an Okinawan background.  When I heard that he knew Ed Parker, I asked him what he thought of him as a martial artist, and what he said was not very flattering.  He just wasn't impressed with what Mr. Parker was doing and teaching.


Was Ed Parker an expert in Kenpo?  I think that, considering all of the absolute, concrete evidence you posted, no one would argue otherwise.  Not even the Okinawan martial artist, regardless of his opinion of Ed Parker.   He may question Ed Parker's ability.  He might question Ed Parker's expertise in some things.  But would he suggest to Ed Parker he was not an expert in the style of martial arts he developed?  

Let's try reversing this.  Let's say that I'm an 18 year old Ninja Grandmaster who invented a style of martial arts called SteveJitsu-Ryu.  I've been working on it all my life, putting together the whole thing, but have no formal martial arts training, have never been in a fight, and quite honestly, I don't even know what Ryu means, other than I think it's a character in a video game.  Now, let's say that it's complete crap.  

So, where is my expertise?  Am I an expert in self defense?  Probably not.  Am I an expert in martial arts?  No.  I've never taken a class in any style of martial art.  

Am I an expert in anything?  I would say that I am.  I am an expert in Stevejitsu-Ryu, for what that's worth.  My expertise is not subjective.  What IS subjective is the value of my expertise.  

I see a clear distinction between a subjective statement of opinion and an objective statement that is measurable.  


> How do we spot who the expert is not?  Sometimes it's pretty clear to most people, but not always.


This is a different question.  Harlan was touching on this in her posts.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> Good point, but I think the problem is that people tend to automatically associate the one with the other.  Oh, you train in martial arts?  Well then you MUST be able to fight with it, or you MUST be a wizard at self defense...  That's an assumption that people make, for right or for wrong.  I think those of us who have put in some significant time and effort into our training can recognize the distinction that you are making here, but others may not.  It might not be all that easy to explain to people either.  Imagine telling someone who lacks the experience, "oh yeah, I've been training in this stuff for about 30 years, I think I'm maybe getting to be pretty good now with it.  Can I defend myself with it?  Oh, I think probably, but I don't really know, to be honest..."
> 
> WHAT???  You DON'T KNOW???  Isn't that what all that training is all about?  Now ya gotta explain all that to him.


Personally, this is exactly what I think should happen.  I mean, if people ask me what I'm training, I say Brazilian Jiu Jitsu.  I don't say "Self Defense."  And if asked, I have said, 'I don't really know.  At least I'll be in good shape if I have to run away."    Can I choke you with your jacket?  Yeah.  Pretty confident I can do that.  Would it be a good idea to do that in a self defense situation?  I can guess, but I really don't know for sure.  Because I'm not an expert in self defense and wouldn't want to claim to be one.


----------



## Tgace

Flying Crane said:


> Good point, but I think the problem is that people tend to automatically associate the one with the other.  Oh, you train in martial arts?  Well then you MUST be able to fight with it, or you MUST be a wizard at self defense...  That's an assumption that people make, for right or for wrong.



I don't think thats the real problem..the real problem is when the instructor doesn't know the difference.


----------



## Flying Crane

Tgace said:


> I don't think thats the real problem..the real problem is when the instructor doesn't know the difference.



aye, true.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Personally, this is exactly what I think should happen. I mean, if people ask me what I'm training, I say Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. I don't say "Self Defense." And if asked, I have said, 'I don't really know. At least I'll be in good shape if I have to run away." Can I choke you with your jacket? Yeah. Pretty confident I can do that. Would it be a good idea to do that in a self defense situation? I can guess, but I really don't know for sure. Because I'm not an expert in self defense and wouldn't want to claim to be one.



actually I do the same thing.  I belong to a Crunch Gym near my office and I do my personal practice there over my lunch break.  Sometimes other members will ask what I'm doing and I just tell them that I train traditional kung fu.  If they ask more about specifically what, I tell them Tibetan White Crane.  But I don't tell them I practice self-defense or something like that.  I never really thought about it in these terms before this discussion, but I was just giving them the answer that seemed the most accurate and most honest.  I believe that my methods could be very effective for self defense, but self defense is not what is formost in my mind when I practice.  Yes it is there, but it's not my driving motivation for training.  Improving my white crane is.  If by default that improves my chances at self defense, well that's a bonus.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Was Ed Parker an expert in Kenpo? I think that, considering all of the absolute, concrete evidence you posted, no one would argue otherwise. Not even the Okinawan martial artist, regardless of his opinion of Ed Parker. He may question Ed Parker's ability. He might question Ed Parker's expertise in some things. But would he suggest to Ed Parker he was not an expert in the style of martial arts he developed?
> 
> Let's try reversing this. Let's say that I'm an 18 year old Ninja Grandmaster who invented a style of martial arts called SteveJitsu-Ryu. I've been working on it all my life, putting together the whole thing, but have no formal martial arts training, have never been in a fight, and quite honestly, I don't even know what Ryu means, other than I think it's a character in a video game. Now, let's say that it's complete crap.
> 
> So, where is my expertise? Am I an expert in self defense? Probably not. Am I an expert in martial arts? No. I've never taken a class in any style of martial art.
> 
> Am I an expert in anything? I would say that I am. I am an expert in Stevejitsu-Ryu, for what that's worth. My expertise is not subjective. What IS subjective is the value of my expertise.
> 
> I see a clear distinction between a subjective statement of opinion and an objective statement that is measurable.
> This is a different question. Harlan was touching on this in her posts.



well OK, someone by default is the expert at whatever it is that he/she founded.  However, what they founded could be utter nonsense and so that person is the expert on one form of nonsense.

I'm not trying to say that is what Mr. Parker was.  Rather, it's more appropriate to your example of Stevejitsu-Ryu.  

Being the expert on something, and being the expert on something of value are not the same thing.  But then again, the measure of value is subjective and subject to all kinds of personal biases, experiences, blinders, and delusions.

once again, make your own decisions about who you trust to give you training and information.


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> Let's say that I'm an 18 year old Ninja Grandmaster who invented a style of martial arts called SteveJitsu-Ryu.  I've been working on it all my life, putting together the whole thing, but have no formal martial arts training, have never been in a fight, and quite honestly, I don't even know what Ryu means, other than I think it's a character in a video game.  Now, let's say that it's complete crap. So, where is my expertise?  Am I an expert in self defense?  Probably not.  Am I an expert in martial arts? Am I an expert in anything?



Not enough information provided in your original post... please answer the following so we have more complete information on SteveJitsu-Ryu:
1. Do you have a youtube channel?
2. Do you have a tattoo of some poorly translated kanji anywhere on your body?
3. Is your dojo in either your mother's basement or a self storage unit?
4. Did your katana cost less than a good steak dinner?
5. Do any of your ninja clothes or tools contain velcro, in any form?


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> Context and goals are important too and this is an interesting example.  As a SEAL, I imagine he has a lot of experience and skill in handling firearms of all kinds, in many scenarios.  If one wants some kind of self-defense training for the home, with a firearm, I imagine a SEAL could provide that.  But if the SEAL's expertise is as a sniper, that particular body of experience has little real value for someone wanting to know how to use a firearm for home defense.  It's all gotta be relevant to the situation.





Flying Crane said:


> as I said, he probably has a lot of experience handling firearms of many types, in many situations and would probably have something relevant to teach.  But the sniper skills in particular would be irrelevant.



Sorry for the delayed reply.  Yes, you're right...the sniper skills most likely wouldn't apply to the average Joe.  We are in agreement on the other aspect though...the fact that he has exp. with numerous guns, so yes, some skills would most likely apply.


----------



## MJS

Flying Crane said:


> I'm gonna get into something that might get a bit vague and fuzzy, it's how I view my training and I'm not exactly certain how to put it into writing and I hope in the end, it will be relevant to your comments here.
> 
> I view my training as a form of physical education.  The goal of the training is how to use the body efficiently and effectively.  How to connect all of the body parts to work together as a connected unit and harness the potential that the entire body has under these circumstances.
> 
> The goal is not, in my opinion, how to defend myself against a punch.  How to defend myself against a kick.  How to defend myself against a grab.  Or a knife attack.  Or an attack with a pointed stick, or black cherries or a banana (extra points to anyone who gets that reference...).
> 
> The method we use in training our bodies for the goal of full-connection, happens to be techniques that can be used in fighting.  We use punches of various types, and kicks, and stepping and positioning moves, and long sequences of forms, etc. that put these techniques into various combinations. These training methods help us understand how to connect the body as one unit.  Oh, and happily, they can also be useful when confronted by a badguy who intends to do me harm.  That's a nice extra that's part of the package, a result of undergoing this training.
> 
> Ultimately, the techniques are not what we are after.  We are after that full body harness, and the techniques are a vehicle for getting us there.  Once we "get there", we can harness the full body for anything that we do, not just the techniques that we practiced.  Then, any movement we make can become a devastating technique.  Ideally, we no longer even need those formal techniques.
> 
> Then, it becomes easy to defend against a punch, or a kick, or a grab, or a banana.  We have gained a very high level of control over our bodies and we can respond and unleash devastation if needed.
> 
> However, ultimately my ability to do so depends on myself, how well I have trained and internalized the lessons and my vision of what is possible with what I've learned.  My sifu guides me in that, but in the end it comes down to me.
> 
> Sifu takes movements from our forms and uses them as examples: "here, throw a punch at me...OK now I can do THIS and it it destroys your punch and hurts you, and what I did is just like THIS movement from THIS form..."  These are examples of what is possible with the material, but you need to understand it on that level and you need to be able to couple that with the larger physical education, that of full-body harnessing.  Because you can also just practice the techniques and the forms with no mind for how to use any of it, and you just get a good workout and exercise in.  Good exercise is no guarantee of good fighting skills, tho if you train properly to understand how one might use the material to fight, then you will also, by default, be getting good exercise.  You need to ask yourself: what is my interest in doing this?  Do I just want exercise (that's OK if you do...) or do I want to understand what is possible in how I might use this stuff to fight or defend myself?  Those are questions to answer for yourself, and then pursue the training accordingly and be honest with yourself about whether or not you are on a road to meet that goal.
> 
> But, getting back to what I was saying earlier...our approach to training is not openly or specifically centered around the notion of "How do I defend myself against X or Y or Z attack?  How do I defend myself?"
> 
> the answer to those questions become obvious after you have gained to larger physical education that our training offers, but it requires a different mindset than expecting specific answers to "how do I defend against...?"
> 
> Hope this makes some kind of sense, I've done my best to describe it.



Hey Mike

Yes, what you said makes perfect sense.   Since you and I have both come from Kenpo backgrounds, and have had many discussions on the forum, I think it's safe to say that we've pretty much experienced the same or similar things with Kenpo training and we share alot of the same ideas.  

When I was coming up thru the ranks in Kenpo, to me, it seemed like it was merely a time to collect various techniques.  Rarely, at least for me, were things explained then, as I understand them now.  This is probably one of the main reasons why I hate the idea of hundreds of techs.  People think that if they don't have a set tech for every possible attack, then they dont know a defense, when in reality, if they just looked at things like you said above, well....

A few weeks ago, in my Kyokushin class, we were working techs from one of our katas.  My teacher did just what you said...showed something and then made the ref. to the kata.  Yet on the flip side, I could count, literally, on 1 hand, the number of times that this was done in any of the Kenpo schools I was a part of.  And then people wonder why they were clueless when it came to really understanding the kata, other than just going thru the motions.  

IMHO, I think that the main reason theres so much focus on the number of techs per belt, is because people like to see that.  instead of really understanding things, getting the true meaning behind things, they're more concerned with just getting another new tech.  Promotion time....first thing on their mind is what new techs am I gonna learn?  For the hobbyist or casual person, thats all that matters...for the more serious student, they're more concerned with what you describe above.  At least in my opinion anyways.  People get bored fast.  The average student will be happier if they're seeing the potential to learn 20 new techs, rather than looking at the kata, seeing 1 move in a kata, and wondering how the hell they're going to get multiple techs from 1 move.


----------



## MJS

Rich Parsons said:


> Put an unarmed bouncer or guard into a violent city with gangs, and that person does what it takes to go home at night. Is that lack of awareness?
> 
> Why are they in that job? (* Assume it paid the most, even more than a line cook or computer programming at the time *)



IMO, willingly putting yourself in a situation vs. unknowingly are 2 different things.  In your other post, it seemed as if you were saying that because the person was in a situation, was because they did something wrong to end up there in the first place.  For ex:  a LEO patrolling a high crime area.  His job is that of a cop.  He took that job knowing (at least I'd like to think he/she knew) that putting themselves in danger was part of the job.  Someone walking from the shopping mall, to their car in the parking garage, at 11pm, too busy to take time to check their surroundings, because they're too preoccupied with their cell phone chat, to pay attention and notice a suspicious person in the garage, something not quite right, etc.  

A bouncer IMO, needs to be aware.  A handful of them, in a setting with many more people...they need to be aware of potential bad situations.  So yes, I'd say if they applied those same skills they use in the bar/club, to the outside world, yes, chances are good that they'd go home safe.


----------



## MJS

Steve said:


> Interesting points.  I agree that the quality of experience will certainly be important.  But the conclusion, that it's almost like having experience doesn't matter... not sure I agree with that.  The way I see it, "expert" is the sum of several different, distinct pieces.
> 
> A person with experience may or may not be an expert.  However, a person without experience is never an expert.
> 
> Now, a person without experience could have a lot of potential.  He or she could also have several of the other ingredients of expertise.
> 
> I sort of asked this in my last post.  What do you guys think are the key traits of an expert?



Points taken Steve.   I'll use my wife as an example.  At her last job, as well as her current one, she works in the accounting dept.  She has exp. with accts payable and receiveable.  No college training.  She pretty much got all of her training on the job, being trained by the other people in the dept.  IMO, she has a good grasp on what shes doing.  Would she benefit from college experience?  Most likely.  Yes, even w/o that exp, she still does very well at her job.  Room to advance or get another job in the same field?  Probably not, w/o that extra training.  For now, she's content with the skills that she has.  

So, I think it'd be safe to say that it'll probably depend on the person.  

As for the last question, of what are key traits:  I'd say that the main thing, at least IMO, would be the depth of understanding.  Chances are, the BJJ brown belt would have a better understanding of a tech, than a white or blue belt would, yet someone such as Rickson would have even a better, deeper understanding.  I doubt I'd learn a new Kenpo tech from Larry Tatum, however, I'm sure that Larry Tatum could improve the way I perform and understand a given tech.


----------



## harlan

Ahem, ahem...bump. 

Nice post today by Rory Miller on 'qualifications' to teach self-defense.

http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/05/qualified.html


----------



## Steve

harlan said:


> Ahem, ahem...bump.
> 
> Nice post today by Rory Miller on 'qualifications' to teach self-defense.
> 
> http://chirontraining.blogspot.com/2013/05/qualified.html


Hey harlan.  First, just curious, but are you Narda?  If so, I'm sorry that this thread has gotten under your skin.  

Regarding the article, there are a few things that I think are great.  First, being aware of one's lack of expertise in an area is important.  Expertise is a as much a product of one's environment as it is one's training.  Were the USA a much more dangerous place, where random violence was a huge issue and likely to occur at any moment in any neighborhood, we would have many, many more "experts" in self defense.  But the reality is that most of us will live our lives largely free of violence.  That's just a statistical truth.  And so, as a result, we have few "experts".  

So, the distinction between being qualified to teach and being an expert is, in my opinion, a good one.  I am not suggesting that all Martial Arts schools shut down.  Only that they should be more clear about what they are actually teaching.  Which leads to the second thing in this article I liked:


> But one of the things Dave said, when I hit green belt and started questioning whether this stuff would really work: &#8220;I don&#8217;t know if jujutsu will work. But I know you. You&#8217;re a fighter and you&#8217;re adaptable. You&#8217;ll make it work.&#8221;



This quote hits the nail on the head.  Jujutsu is what he was learning.  Will it work for self defense?  Maybe.  If all martial instructors were so honest and self aware, we'd be in great shape, I think.


----------



## Steve

Harlan, thanks for introducing me to this blog.  I read the previous post, and unless I'm just not getting it, he reinforces exactly what I've been driving at:



> One of the big problems for potential students of self-defense and martial arts is that almost all are naïve consumers.  A naïve consumer is one who cant tell a good product from a bad product. Most people, when it comes to anything related to violence, cant distinguish knowledge from *********.  They simply dont have a frame of reference.And heres where it gets interesting, in martial arts:  The naivety often doesnt change.  When you get someone truly naïve, they have no truth to compare with what they learn and so whatever they learn becomes, to them, the truth.  And they can continue to learn and advance in rank and pass on knowledge and come to believe that they are very high-level practitioners with deep understanding and their most basic facts are wrong.  They have a deep understanding of myths and many are willing to share it (or sell it).
> In other endeavors, where success or failure are visible and undeniable, it is hard to stay this naive.  In other places stupidity hurts.  Not so in many martial arts (and one of the many places where sports arts have the edge).


This is exactly what I'm getting at when someone says, "This technique is good for self defense."  Or, "My style is not for sport.  It is effective for self defense."  How do you know that?  The answer, often, is that you don't.  Not really.  You don't know it.  You believe it.  And that is naivete.

He goes on to say, "To people who have _*experience*_, they sound like first graders trying to explain where babies come from."


----------



## Carol

Steve said:


> Harlan, thanks for introducing me to this blog.  I read the previous post, and unless I'm just not getting it, he reinforces exactly what I've been driving at:
> 
> This is exactly what I'm getting at when someone says, "This technique is good for self defense."  Or, "My style is not for sport.  It is effective for self defense."  How do you know that?  The answer, often, is that you don't.  Not really.  You don't know it.  You believe it.  And that is naivete.
> 
> He goes on to say, "To people who have _*experience*_, they sound like first graders trying to explain where babies come from."



So how does one go about breaking that naivete?  

Would I have to shoot someone before I would be considered a decent firearms instructor?  (Lets hope not!)  Would I have to get in a street fight or jump in the octagon to prove my empty-hand skill?  How much experience do I need before I can say with authority that a nukite to the eyes or a puter kepala (Silat neck crank) is not an appropriate move for a combative sport application? 

I don't necessarily think the number of fights or number of kills is the most important metric to have.  When I hear someone mention that, I don't immediately praise Cthulhu for the chance to train with someone so experienced.  I wonder if they are telling the truth.  I wonder how many of those incidents could have been avoided if the person had a little less to drink that night, or did a better job of avoiding the 3 stupids, or otherwise used a little more common sense.


----------



## Steve

experience is the difference between knowing something and believing something

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rframe

So, again, I'm not saying experience is bad but it's also not necessarily good either.

Would you recommend a student who's interested in self defense oriented martial arts learn from someone with years of Krav Maga and BJJ experience who's avoided any actual street fights, or from a yahoo who's been in several cowboy bar brawls where a couple people got shoved and a haymaker knocked someone out?

The second has more "real fight experience", but probably knows next to nothing about sound techniques and may recommend and teach some really foolish things.


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> So, again, I'm not saying experience is bad but it's also not necessarily good either.
> 
> Would you recommend a student who's interested in self defense oriented martial arts learn from someone with years of Krav Maga and BJJ experience who's avoided any actual street fights, or from a yahoo who's been in several cowboy bar brawls where a couple people got shoved and a haymaker knocked someone out?
> 
> The second has more "real fight experience", but probably knows next to nothing about sound techniques and may recommend and teach some really foolish things.



Of course the nature of the experience matters.  Experience as a chef won't make someone an expert pilot.  Right?  

Experience isn't bad or good.  It is, however, the difference between knowing something is true and believing something is true.  

Can anyone provide an example of when this isn't the case?

What do you guys think of the articles Harlan mentioned?  




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Flying Crane

rframe said:


> So, again, I'm not saying experience is bad but it's also not necessarily good either.
> 
> Would you recommend a student who's interested in self defense oriented martial arts learn from someone with years of Krav Maga and BJJ experience who's avoided any actual street fights, or from a yahoo who's been in several cowboy bar brawls where a couple people got shoved and a haymaker knocked someone out?
> 
> The second has more "real fight experience", but probably knows next to nothing about sound techniques and may recommend and teach some really foolish things.



not to mention he just might not be the sharpest knife in the block if he seems to get into fights everywhere he goes.  When people start going on about how many fights they've been in, unless they work in a field where that might legitimately happen (bouncer, security, LEO, etc.), I really start to wonder:  just what the hell is wrong with this guy, that he gets into fights all the time?  Is he simply stupid?  Is there a screw or two loose somewhere?  Is he a sociopath?  does he actually seek it out or even provoke it, and if so, what does that say about his sense of morality and ethics?


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> not to mention he just might not be the sharpest knife in the block if he seems to get into fights everywhere he goes.  When people start going on about how many fights they've been in, *unless they work in a field where that might legitimately happen (bouncer, security, LEO, etc.)*, I really start to wonder:  just what the hell is wrong with this guy, that he gets into fights all the time?  Is he simply stupid?  Is there a screw or two loose somewhere?  Is he a sociopath?  does he actually seek it out or even provoke it, and if so, what does that say about his sense of morality and ethics?


I think the bolded part is pretty much where I'd expect to see some relevant experience.

Am I giving you guys the impression that I think that idiots getting into bar fights is the best place to look for relevant experience with self defense?  If so, I'm sorry.  I don't believe I've ever said it, and if I even implied it, I apologize.


----------



## jks9199

What's an expert?  What's a student?  

I know a bit about the realities of violence.  I've seen and talked to victims.  I've used violence as a tool against other people.  But there are sides, angles, and things I don't know, as well.  I've never had to defend myself against a knife attack.  I've only had a couple people seriously try to hit me; I stop most before they even get that far because, professionally, I freakin' cheat.  I'll bring a gun to the knife fight -- and friends to any fight.  Never been in a gun fight -- and I'll be quite happy if it stays that way.

I hope nothing I've written here has suggested that I know everything.  But I have made it a significant element of my personal practice, training, research, and study to understand the use of force, from as many angles as I can.  And I question what I'm taught, what I experience, even what I've done successfully.

So... is it possible to learn something well enough to understand and prepare for it without direct experience?  Yes.  But it's not easy.


----------



## Carol

jks9199 said:


> What's an expert?  What's a student?
> 
> I know a bit about the realities of violence.  I've seen and talked to victims.  I've used violence as a tool against other people.  But there are sides, angles, and things I don't know, as well.  I've never had to defend myself against a knife attack.  I've only had a couple people seriously try to hit me; I stop most before they even get that far because, professionally, I freakin' cheat.  I'll bring a gun to the knife fight -- and friends to any fight.  Never been in a gun fight -- and I'll be quite happy if it stays that way.
> 
> I hope nothing I've written here has suggested that I know everything.  But I have made it a significant element of my personal practice, training, research, and study to understand the use of force, from as many angles as I can.  And I question what I'm taught, what I experience, even what I've done successfully.
> 
> So... is it possible to learn something well enough to understand and prepare for it without direct experience?  Yes.  But it's not easy.



Just curious, how do you address the matter of direct experience with your (non-LE) students?


----------



## jks9199

Carol said:


> Just curious, how do you address the matter of direct experience with your (non-LE) students?



Depends.  My martial arts students...  I teach the system, as it was taught to me.  I stress some of the aspects of real violence compared to sparring, as one example.  We do some exercises designed to be better representations or teach solid principles for real violence, also.

In a self defense class setting -- it's a completely different approach.  In fact, that approach is evolving.  Today, I'd probably use more operant conditioning principles in a dedicated self defense class, with the focus being really developing a few reliable responses to broad categories of attacks.


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> It is, however, the difference between knowing something is true and believing something is true. Can anyone provide an example of when this isn't the case?



I've never shot someone with a gun.  I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them.
I've never put someone to sleep with a rear naked choke.  I know for a fact that I can.
I've never broken someones arm with a lock.  I know for a fact that I can.
I've never kneed someone in the groin at full force.  I know for a fact that it hurts like crazy if I do.


----------



## Tgace

rframe said:


> I've never shot someone with a gun.  I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them.
> I've never put someone to sleep with a rear naked choke.  I know for a fact that I can.
> I've never broken someones arm with a lock.  I know for a fact that I can.
> I've never kneed someone in the groin at full force.  I know for a fact that it hurts like crazy if I do.



And people with a theoretical knowledge of gunfighting think that one shot kills are common.....and people with a TV grasp of Tasers think one shock will render a person senseless for an hour.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rframe

Tgace said:


> And people with a theoretical knowledge of gunfighting think that one shot kills are common.....and people with a TV grasp of Tasers think one shock will render a person senseless for an hour.



I had a friend in high school who shot himself in the head with a .22 once and died.
I have another friend who's a LEO who shot a guy who was high and on a rampage 3 times in the chest and he lived.

Hence, _I've never shot someone with a gun. I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them.  *(n**ot will)*_


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> I've never shot someone with a gun.  I know for a fact that if I do I can kill them.


Do you?  You know that a gun could be a lethal weapon, but there are many, many factors you are personally unfamiliar with because you have no practical experience.  From, whether or not you have it in you to pull the trigger and end someone's life, to whether you could maintain composure under duress.  You know that guns can be lethal, but you do NOT know for a fact that you could do it.



> I've never put someone to sleep with a rear naked choke.  I know for a fact that I can.


Same as above, particularly if you are speaking about a duress situation.  Does the technique work?  That can be practiced and tested in the laboratory of a martial arts school. . You may KNOW that the technique will restrict blood to the brain and put someone to sleep.  You KNOW that the technique works.  But if you're speaking about using an RNC in a self defense situation, if you haven't done it, you don't know for sure whether YOU will be able to do it.  You believe you can, based upon your training.  And if your training is solid, you probably can.  But you do not know for a fact.  You are guessing.


> I've never kneed someone in the groin at full force.  I know for a fact that it hurts like crazy if I do.


This one's a funny one, because it might hurt like crazy... or it might not.  I've never worn a cup in almost 8 years of training BJJ, and cups are actually against the rules in IBJJF tournaments.  

I have taken many knees to the groin.  I will tell you that most don't hurt at all.  But sometimes, the lightest, incidental contact comes back after a long moment and hurts like hell.  I KNOW this because I've experienced it.  I don't just believe it to be true.


----------



## Steve

A few posts back, Harlan posted a link to Rory Miller's blog.  Would anyone care to comment on the article?  Any reactions to my own questions and comments on those articles?


----------



## MJS

Carol said:


> So how does one go about breaking that naivete?
> 
> Would I have to shoot someone before I would be considered a decent firearms instructor?  (Lets hope not!)  Would I have to get in a street fight or jump in the octagon to prove my empty-hand skill?  How much experience do I need before I can say with authority that a nukite to the eyes or a puter kepala (Silat neck crank) is not an appropriate move for a combative sport application?



I recall reading about as well as hearing from someone, stories of the old Kajukenbo guys going out and getting into fights, to see if what they were creating, was actually going to work.  Of course, in todays world, going out and intentionally getting into a fight probably isn't the smartest thing to do..lol.  I'm sure everyone's mileage will vary, but I know that during my training time, I've seen more than my share of things that are billed as SD, billed as 'this will work', and needless to say, I was left thinking the complete opposite.  I still stand by what I said earlier....IMO, having the RW experience is certainly a huge plus.  However, as long as the training, drills, etc, were solid, as I said to Chris, I'd settle for someone who didn't have the background.  



> I don't necessarily think the number of fights or number of kills is the most important metric to have.  When I hear someone mention that, I don't immediately praise Cthulhu for the chance to train with someone so experienced.  I wonder if they are telling the truth.  I wonder how many of those incidents could have been avoided if the person had a little less to drink that night, or did a better job of avoiding the 3 stupids, or otherwise used a little more common sense.



LOL...you should pop over to KT sometime, and read some of the threads over there.  I'm amazed at some folks who seem to get into and have gotten into numerous fights.  Sorry, IMO, either these people are just magnets to trouble, they live in a **** area or they just go out looking for issues.


----------



## rframe

Steve said:


> Do you?  You know that a gun could be a lethal weapon, but there are many, many factors you are personally unfamiliar with because you have no practical experience.  From, whether or not you have it in you to pull the trigger and end someone's life, to whether you could maintain composure under duress.  You know that guns can be lethal, but you do NOT know for a fact that you could do it.



Yes, I do know they work.  I understand basic physics, basic anatomy, and my own capabilities such that I know they work.

I understand the logic you are trying to play out, but I disagree with its application to reality.

If we only know if something works after we have done it, then that means even if someone has shot a person, broken someones arm, put them to sleep in an RNC... they still cannot know if that will work next time, too many variables, maybe the next person will be wearing armor, maybe they'll be stronger, maybe the PTSD I experience from shooting and killing someone the last time will prevent me from pulling the trigger next time,  maybe they'll know a defense against the RNC I wasn't expecting.... so by that logic we cannot know if our techniques are effective even if we've used them a dozen times before... so we'll never know anything.

By that logic, Monday morning I cannot know the same route I drive every day will get me to work, until I have actually arrived at work.  After all there could be unknown hazards in the way.

By that logic, I cannot know that Interstate 90 will take me from Spokane to Seattle if I've never driven it, even though I know how driving a car works and I know how maps work, and other people have successfully done it many times...I've never done it, so I cannot know it works.

By that logic, I cannot know the light switch will work until I flip it, even though I've used it successfully 1,000 times previously.


----------



## Tgace

Someone...somewhere...within a reasonable timeframe should have "done" what is being taught as a self defense technique. The core of this discussion isnt so much about the individual practitioner having had "experience" as it is about a systems combative foundation.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Steve

rframe said:


> Yes, I do know they work.  I understand basic physics, basic anatomy, and my own capabilities such that I know they work.
> 
> I understand the logic you are trying to play out, but I disagree with its application to reality.
> 
> If we only know if something works after we have done it, then that means even if someone has shot a person, broken someones arm, put them to sleep in an RNC... they still cannot know if that will work next time, too many variables, maybe the next person will be wearing armor, maybe they'll be stronger, maybe the PTSD I experience from shooting and killing someone the last time will prevent me from pulling the trigger next time,  maybe they'll know a defense against the RNC I wasn't expecting.... so by that logic we cannot know if our techniques are effective even if we've used them a dozen times before... so we'll never know anything.
> 
> By that logic, Monday morning I cannot know the same route I drive every day will get me to work, until I have actually arrived at work.  After all there could be unknown hazards in the way.
> 
> By that logic, I cannot know that Interstate 90 will take me from Spokane to Seattle if I've never driven it, even though I know how driving a car works and I know how maps work, and other people have successfully done it many times...I've never done it, so I cannot know it works.
> 
> By that logic, I cannot know the light switch will work until I flip it, even though I've used it successfully 1,000 times previously.



I don't think I'm being clear.  I'm not saying that we can't know if something works.   That's not it at all.  I'm saying we don't know if it works for us.  I can learn all kinds of things in theory, but until I use them, they remain theory.  Certainly, they could work.  But expert?

Go back to flying.  I know that planes work.  I've seen them.  That's what you're talking about.  I understand the physics and have been in them in the air.  But I can't fly one, even though I know that they can fly. 

And remember, I'm only saying that this distinction matters where people take their theories and pass them on sans experience.  

Your own statement regarding groin shots is a good example of where real experience belies popular and widely believed myth.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Tgace

While it's a bit of a sales pitch, here's some interesting stuff on this topic by Peyton Quinn.

http://www.rmcat.com/node/25


----------



## rframe

Tgace said:


> While it's a bit of a sales pitch, here's some interesting stuff on this topic by Peyton Quinn.
> 
> http://www.rmcat.com/node/25



I agree with pretty much everything he says.


----------



## chinto

Steve said:


> Do you?  You know that a gun could be a lethal weapon, but there are many, many factors you are personally unfamiliar with because you have no practical experience.  From, whether or not you have it in you to pull the trigger and end someone's life, to whether you could maintain composure under duress.  You know that guns can be lethal, but you do NOT know for a fact that you could do it.
> 
> Same as above, particularly if you are speaking about a duress situation.  Does the technique work?  That can be practiced and tested in the laboratory of a martial arts school. . You may KNOW that the technique will restrict blood to the brain and put someone to sleep.  You KNOW that the technique works.  But if you're speaking about using an RNC in a self defense situation, if you haven't done it, you don't know for sure whether YOU will be able to do it.  You believe you can, based upon your training.  And if your training is solid, you probably can.  But you do not know for a fact.  You are guessing.
> This one's a funny one, because it might hurt like crazy... or it might not.  I've never worn a cup in almost 8 years of training BJJ, and cups are actually against the rules in IBJJF tournaments.
> 
> I have taken many knees to the groin.  I will tell you that most don't hurt at all.  But sometimes, the lightest, incidental contact comes back after a long moment and hurts like hell.  I KNOW this because I've experienced it.  I don't just believe it to be true.




If you have been trained with said gun, you can and will kill efficiently and effectively in a self defense situation. you do NOT have to have shot some one before to do it!  so that is not a true argument. 

The same is true of unarmed combat, if you are trained proplerly and feel threatened enough you will effectively use the deadly techniques you know.  and before you claim I would not know, Guess again my friend. Yes I found out the hard way that when it is needed it is there.


----------



## Tgace

chinto said:


> If you have been trained with said gun, you can and will kill efficiently and effectively in a self defense situation. you do NOT have to have shot some one before to do it!  so that is not a true argument.
> 
> The same is true of unarmed combat, if you are trained proplerly and feel threatened enough you will effectively use the deadly techniques you know.  and before you claim I would not know, Guess again my friend. Yes I found out the hard way that when it is needed it is there.



Don't confuse capability with expertise. The discussion here really isn't about capability.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

*Really this has been a great thread with very interesting insight by everyone involved**!*  For whatever reason I can no longer hit enter and break up a paragraph on MartialTalk or spaces between sentences. :idunno:  However that is unimportant to the topic but some glitch in MartialTalk.  Overall as a martial practitioner if our goal is for personal protection skill sets then we need to make sure that we are well rounded.  Meaning have some Scenario Based Training, Full Contact Sparring, Grappling with submission, for position and just relaxed positional movement.  We also of course need technique training, form training, two man drills and technique training, most importantly we need to understand weapons particularly firearms, blades and blunt one to be exact, etc, etc.  A practitioner also needs to be in contact with people who have been involved in violent encounters especially if they themselves have not had violent encounters.  There is a lot to be learned from your own personal experience in this manner as well as what other people have done or did or did not do and what result happened.  *Experience is really important*.  However you will not have experience in all areas unless you have some serious mental issues or your work puts you in situations that involve violence. (ie. military, police, corrections, security, bouncer, etc.)  Direct experience or evidence based on the result of violence and understanding of what happens is *very, very important*.  There is a lot of evidence out there to learn from now a days.  Police, military, corrections and civilian confrontations are available for us to study whether in video or in study findings.  What is scary though is that there are people teaching who have no direct experience with violence and or maybe the system they are also teaching has not been involved much with violence in a long, long time. (which is an issue but may not invalidate the training for personal protection)  Yet they are portraying themselves as experts in regards to violence.  Certainly they have an expertise in their system but should they portray themselves as an expert in handling violence?  Some times they even portray themselves as experts with all violence.  Teach this way and pass along misconceptions to their students who in turn teach the same thing and so on and so on.  It is hard to say to someone that this will work unless you have experience that it will work or that in the system it has been tested functionally and shown to work by someone from the system or another system with similarities.  *All of this should not be confused with someone who has experienced violence and figured out how to deal with "fight or flight response" and the resulting adrenaline that comes from it*.  (managing this is very important)  They more than likely can make things work based off their previous experience.  Personally based on past performance in the moment I know that I can handle things correctly if needed.  I know I can utilize firearms effectively as I have been taught to do so. (ie. in the police academy, training by firearms experts including military, police and civilian)   I know I can snap an arm if needed in an armbar even though the last time I applied one I only used it as leverage to gain control and then handcuffed the person.  I also know that almost everything I do has a basis where someone else has used it in some time and place and more recent than way, way back in time.  I have also had people I have trained utilize their training to good effect.  Particularly with breakfalls or rolls saving their back on a wet, snowly, slick day or nighi and also in violent encounters. (one guy fell from a ladder rolled without a scratch)  I know that having a well rounded approach including Scenario Based Training, Full Contact Sparring, Submission Grappling, Positional Rolling, Two Man Drills, Two Man Technique Training, heavy training with weapons/tools, etc, etc. works!  *It just makes you more prepared overall for a moment of violence!* Yet in the end I also know it comes down to the individual!  I have witnessed people freeze and others not freeze in a moment of violence. (work related)  The unique person who in a moment of violence has to react and take care of business or not and suffer the consequences whatever they may be.  *In the end the "individual" has to implement their training or lack there of and survive in a violent encounter*!  That is why someone with no experience may some times prevail because they just have "it" whatever that is that is needed in that moment.  Or why someone with loads of training may freeze and not be able to deal with the situation.  Or also why someone with experience and training may in turn just take care of business.  There are a lot of variables involved.   Bottom line is that you as a martial practitioner should train hard, learn as much as you can about violent encounters, understand that information and have belief in yourself and your training.  *If you have the above then you will probably be able to take care of business but there is no guarantee! There simply are no guarantees in a moment of violence!  Anyone who sells you a guarantee is full of crap so buyer beware!!!*


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I have taken many knees to the groin.  I will tell you that most don't hurt at all.  But sometimes, the lightest, incidental contact comes back after a long moment and hurts like hell.  I KNOW this because I've experienced it.  I don't just believe it to be true.



it can still be a viable technique for a woman to use, and she will never have the same experience as a guy will, getting hit in the groin.

I think you are trying to define something that ultimately is not definable.  Interesting discussion, but not sure just where it can go in the end.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

In the above mega paragraph unbroken by whatever is wrong with MartialTalk I said *I know* things in several areas.  That comes down to several things.  Serious life long training and continued training with intense motivation, Knowledge in having been in physical encounters.  An understanding of violence based on training, personal experience, friends and instructors experience, statistical evidence (police, military, civilian)and of course watching modern video evidence as well. (ie. from police, military, civilian encounters)  Finally belief plays an important role.  My belief in what I can do is based of the previous sentences.  Let me tell you one thing if you train but do not have belief in what you do then *more than likely it will not work for you*.  Belief is powerful!  Belief without evidence can still be powerful but can also be faulty. Belief based on evidence is even more powerful and can lend itself very well to violent encounters!


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> it can still be a viable technique for a woman to use, and she will never have the same experience as a guy will, getting hit in the groin.
> 
> I think you are trying to define something that ultimately is not definable.  Interesting discussion, but not sure just where it can go in the end.



Well, hold on.  My only real question in this thread is to explore how a person can be an expert at something he has no experience with.  And, by extension, to discuss how far removed from actual experience we can go before risking losing sight of reality.   

Many good points have been brought up, but at several turns, I think my position has been taken to an extreme that doesn't really reflect my thoughts.  

For example, I don't think i ever meant to suggest that a strike to the groin is not viable.  

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## mitsubishi

Absolutely it is possible to train as it's human nature. Its new theory that even the leader could be trained.Anyhow thanks for sharing some very good stuff here.


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> Well, hold on.  My only real question in this thread is to explore how a person can be an expert at something he has no experience with.  And, by extension, to discuss how far removed from actual experience we can go before risking losing sight of reality.
> 
> Many good points have been brought up, but at several turns, I think my position has been taken to an extreme that doesn't really reflect my thoughts.
> 
> For example, I don't think i ever meant to suggest that a strike to the groin is not viable.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



sure, but I mean there are just so many exceptions that it's really impossible to define any true parameters or rules about the topic.  In the general sense, yes and I do take you point and don't disagree with it. But it just doesn't apply across the board in any neat sort of way.


----------



## Steve

Flying Crane said:


> sure, but I mean there are just so many exceptions that it's really impossible to define any true parameters or rules about the topic.  In the general sense, yes and I do take you point and don't disagree with it. But it just doesn't apply across the board in any neat sort of way.


I understand.  And I agree with most everyone here that "self defense" training can be very helpful.  

What really remains are the questions regarding the nature of expertise, and how or whether a person can develop expertise at something without actually doing that thing, and then can they effectively teach it to others.  It's the teaching part that really interests me.  There have been many terrific posts regarding the nature of learning as a student, and that continues to be an interesting discussion.

I've also brought up a few times the nature of teaching as an instructor.  It's the natural cycle within martial arts for some students to move from a primarily learning role to a primarily teaching role.  Sure, I get that teachers are (should) also be continually learning.  What remains the unanswered question in my mind is how a person can learn "self defense" from a guy well enough to become an expert in "self defense."  The person can certainly become an expert in a system (whether that system is Krav Maga, BJJ, WC or anything else), but I wonder how it can be extended to something outside of a person's experience, such as "combat," "self defense" or even just "fighting."

Terms like "combat" or "self defense" are, as you say, very broad.  And yet, as I've mentioned before, they are terms often used in discussion and sales brochures.  In fact, it's the very nature of our discussions here that got me to thinking about this.  People will often say "Well, that's martial sport.  I train for self defense."   "My style is for keeping me safe at night.  It's for self defense, not show."  "I'm not wasting my time with kata or forms.  I'm trying to learn to defend myself."   The question that comes to mind whenever I hear anyone mention "self defense" is, "How do you know?"  And I am pretty sure that very few people could really answer the question from person experience.  I've heard, "Well, my instructor/master/sifu/sensei says so, and he got into fights/challenge matches/brawls all the time."  Or, just as often, "My  instructor/master/sifu/sensei learned from so and so, who was a disciple of such and such."


----------



## Flying Crane

Steve said:


> I understand. And I agree with most everyone here that "self defense" training can be very helpful.
> 
> What really remains are the questions regarding the nature of expertise, and how or whether a person can develop expertise at something without actually doing that thing, and then can they effectively teach it to others. It's the teaching part that really interests me. There have been many terrific posts regarding the nature of learning as a student, and that continues to be an interesting discussion.
> 
> I've also brought up a few times the nature of teaching as an instructor. It's the natural cycle within martial arts for some students to move from a primarily learning role to a primarily teaching role. Sure, I get that teachers are (should) also be continually learning. What remains the unanswered question in my mind is how a person can learn "self defense" from a guy well enough to become an expert in "self defense." The person can certainly become an expert in a system (whether that system is Krav Maga, BJJ, WC or anything else), but I wonder how it can be extended to something outside of a person's experience, such as "combat," "self defense" or even just "fighting."
> 
> Terms like "combat" or "self defense" are, as you say, very broad. And yet, as I've mentioned before, they are terms often used in discussion and sales brochures. In fact, it's the very nature of our discussions here that got me to thinking about this. People will often say "Well, that's martial sport. I train for self defense." "My style is for keeping me safe at night. It's for self defense, not show." "I'm not wasting my time with kata or forms. I'm trying to learn to defend myself." The question that comes to mind whenever I hear anyone mention "self defense" is, "How do you know?" And I am pretty sure that very few people could really answer the question from person experience. I've heard, "Well, my instructor/master/sifu/sensei says so, and he got into fights/challenge matches/brawls all the time." Or, just as often, "My instructor/master/sifu/sensei learned from so and so, who was a disciple of such and such."



exactly.  

And as this discussion has shown, there's a whole lot of "mebbe" in the picture.  It's been an interesting discussion and I'm not trying to say that it hasn't been worth while.  

I think the discussion has shown that there's a lot of definition and marketing and whatnot that goes into this type of thing.  In some cases, it's not realistic to expect everyone who teaches to have direct hands-on experience with everything that they might be teaching.  They are teaching based on theory and a (hopefully) reasonably realistic approach to training.  And some do a better job of that than others.  With some of this stuff, there are some serious moral, ethical, and legal problems with the notion of deliberately seeking out specific experience with it.  In other cases, like LEO, military, etc., someone might have had some experience thru their profession.  But that doesn't mean only LEO and military people can be teachers.  

That's what I'm saying, it's just impossible to make some concrete parameters and definitions around this.  A whole lot of Ifs and Mebbes in the picture, mixed in with marketing that may or may not be accurate.

Good discussion, good to think about and consider, especially with regards to marketing, but ultimately without really definitive answers.


----------



## chinto

I know because when I needed it, what kata taught me worked very very well in a fight and i was uninjured and got clear. that attacker was however injured.


----------



## Jimfaul

I would agree with alot of what other people said.  There are plenty of experts in fields where they have never actually had to use what they have learned in a real situation.  However that being said if I had the opportunity I would prefer to train with somebody who has real world experience.  There are things learned from an actual experience that a non-experiencer could never pass on.


----------



## Tgace

Bumping this thread in light of action elsewhere on the same topic.


----------



## Tgace

This topic interested me enough to write a blog post on it:

http://tgace.com/2013/04/05/what-is-an-expert/


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace

Hmmmm...keep trying to post to the "expert" thread but it keeps showing up here...must be a tapatalk bug. Sorry.


----------



## StudentCarl

We train for many things that we hope never to do. Training is what takes over when crisis makes the brain downshift out of higher thinking into fight-or-flight. We know that good training tries to anticipate all of the challenges (not really possible, but the goal). We also know that even with perfect training some people fail to execute correctly when it's "real".  Some of what we train is skills, but some of what we train is polishing attributes, both physical and mental. Reality is never exactly like training anyway, and often the most critical skill is adapting effectively.

One of my old first sergeants said you always prepare, but you'll never be ready for it. Wisdom there.


----------

