# I am a Self-Taught MA Expert



## Jenna (Sep 25, 2010)

I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?

We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.

Therefore aside from all the youtube MA wannabes that operate in their own video vacuums, do you think there are circumstances in which it is possible to train _oneself _to become expertin a martial endeavour?  Is it possible perhaps by employing empirical "research" training methods over a suitable period of time?  Or are empirical methods never any substitute for formal handed-down training?

Is it possible to generate fighting techniques from scratch by recursively defending oneself against attack in a training situation?  Or would this in itself require sufficient martial grounding beforehand?

With sufficient refining on these techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert?  Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?

Thank you so much for your time and thought

Jenna xo


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 25, 2010)

Hey J, 

Interesting.....



Jenna said:


> I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?


 
In short, yes. At length, well, I'll cover that as we go, but briefly you are asking two different questions here: Can you teach yourself a martial art, and can you learn to fight without formally studying a martial art. I'll deal with the martial art side dominantly.



Jenna said:


> We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.
> 
> Therefore aside from all the youtube MA wannabes that operate in their own video vacuums, do you think there are circumstances in which it is possible to train _oneself _to become expertin a martial endeavour? Is it possible perhaps by employing empirical "research" training methods over a suitable period of time? Or are empirical methods never any substitute for formal handed-down training?


 
What makes something a martial art is far beyond the simple physical actions of generating violence on another person. If all they get from their empirical research is "techniques", then they are missing most of what the art actually is. For example, I have the entire curriculum for Yokohama Den Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu, and can passably run through a fair amount of such systems as Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, Kiraku Ryu, and many more. However, all I know is how I interpret the techniques (for the most part), so I cannot claim to know the arts or systems themselves. All I can do is a hollow imitation of them. And that is the case with any form of etic (outside the culture, or in this case, martial art) research. Emic (inside the culture) is required to actually even begin to actually learn any of this.

Learning to fight, on the other hand, well, that's easy. Pick a rough bar, go up to the biggest guy there, and suggest that he improperly knows the next biggest guy there. Frequently. Next, check yourself out of hospital, and repeat until the last part is no longer required. Of course, that is just learning to fight, or defend yourself, and is far from learning a martial art...



Jenna said:


> Is it possible to generate fighting techniques from scratch by recursively defending oneself against attack in a training situation? Or would this in itself require sufficient martial grounding beforehand?


 
Again, you can learn (or, more realistically, develop) fighting skills in such a manner. If in a training situation as you suggest here (say, sparring for instance), the lack of real danger would actually make the process much longer than simply taking up a martial art in the first place.



Jenna said:


> With sufficient refining on these techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?


 
I wouldn't quite go so far as to say "always", as there are certainly people out there who are genuinely naturally talented in this type of endeavour, but in 98% of situations (if this is within the construct of the established art, therefore a set of criteria such as rules for competitive bouts are established), I'm going with the guy that's genuinely schooled. He/she would have gotten better quicker, and be geared up for the environment this hypothetical situation is occuring in.



Jenna said:


> Thank you so much for your time and thought
> 
> Jenna xo


----------



## Omar B (Sep 25, 2010)

I'm sure one can learn how to fight or be naturally gifted enough to defend yourself quite well.  But the term "martial arts expert" denotes knowing an art totally from start to finish where there is  nothing but physical prowess and some ideas about how things probably work mechanically.

Anybody can throw a ball, but it takes a good coach to make someone a major league pitcher.  Natural talent only goes so far.  Nobody would think they know enough about a single topic to suddenly decide to give himself the title "Professor."


----------



## seasoned (Sep 25, 2010)

That is a tough one Jenna, and I'm sure you will get many detailed responses. IMHO, as martial artist, we train diligently toward that day we may have to defend ourself against some adversary. But, on the other hand, I have seen untrained, hard core, ruthless, street fighters worth their weight in pure guts. For the most part they have trained themselves, with hands on encounters. I feel it is possible to train yourself to fight excluding the art form, but impossible to learn an art form without proper guidance. By training yourself without this proper guidance, you become no more then the street fighter, I have mentioned above.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2010)

First you have to tell me what an autodidact is ?
I think I had to get one of them replaced in the car a few weeks ago.

People maybe able to perform some semblance of a technique from study of video etc.

But to be perfectly honest I'm still learning and improving on basic techniques I first learned twenty years ago , and I was taught in a proper school , with instructors spoon feeding me all the relevant points of the technique.

Every now and then a little wheel of a cog will turn in my head when I am teaching some thing or even just thinking about it , and it will add another aspect or dimension to the technique that I had never even thought of before.

So if the subject can go that deep how can they find out all the nuances of the technique from video , so yeah  they maybe able to stop a punch .
But will it be with the level of finesse and relaxed energy expenditure  that I can do it with , no I think not.

Because part of the learning is being on the receiving end and feeling how someone a lot better than yourself does the technique , too much of it based through feeling to be able to pick things up from video and books etc.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 25, 2010)

*au·to·di·dact*

&#8194; <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/A08/A0829900" target="_blank"><img src="http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif" border="0" alt="autodidact pronunciation" /></a>&#8194;/&#716;&#596;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




to&#650;&#712;da&#618;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




dækt, -da&#618;&#712;dækt/ 

 Show Spelled[aw-toh-dahy-dakt, -dahy-dakt] 

 Show IPA 
  &#8211;noun a person who has learned a subject without the benefit of a teacher or formal education; a self-taught person.


----------



## Disco (Sep 25, 2010)

Bet you can't say that fast 5 times........:lfao:

Now to the question.........I really don't know when or how or even why the "ART" aspect came into play, but from the very beginnings, it was about fighting/combat/self defense. But now I'll answer a question with a question...."who trained the first guy that started the whole thing in the first place"?...........


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 25, 2010)

A person can be a natural or talented fighter without any training.  Martial arts are a bit different than fighting though.  Martial art styles are a systematic aproach designed to take the _*average* _person and give them the ability to defend themselves.  While a person might be able to teach themselves a few things _*IF*_ they have training partners, it is impossible to train oneself to an advanced or expert level.  To do that takes experiencing martial arts physically with someone who can show you the way. How do you teach yourself something you do not know?  In my mind it is analagous to a person being blind all thier life trying to imagine what a sunset looks like.  They don't have the experience of sight to have a reference point.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 25, 2010)

Though I would love to see the guy who claimed to learn judo or wrestling on his own ... or through the computer ... or from a video.

Ok, MA is something that needs you to interact with some, at least one person.  At best you need an instructor and a training partner.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2010)

Disco said:


> Bet you can't say that fast 5 times........:lfao:
> 
> Now to the question.........I really don't know when or how or even why the "ART" aspect came into play, but from the very beginnings, it was about fighting/combat/self defense. *But now I'll answer a question with a question...."who trained the first guy that started the whole thing in the first place"?...........[/*quote]
> 
> Chuck Norris


----------



## Omar B (Sep 25, 2010)

We all know it's true.  Chuck taught even the guys who taught him.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 25, 2010)

Omar B said:


> We all know it's true. Chuck taught even the guys who taught him.


 
Chuck even existed before the "Big Bang" in fact the "Big Bang" is just a distant cosmic echo from one of his roundhouse kicks.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 25, 2010)

Jenna said:


> I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?
> 
> We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.
> 
> ...


 
One could be an experienced fighter, without any formal training. Martial Arts, however, are a codified system of study, and hence more formal than simply fighting.

Most of those who are 'Self-Taught MA experts', however, are Walter Mitty's. Those who are simply experienced brawlers likely wouldn't classify what they do as 'MA'.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 25, 2010)

Wow thank you for these insights.  I am grateful for your thoughts and expertise.  I would love to post a video of someone self taught as an expert in a form - even their own - of martial art.  I am still searching!   Thank you all again for your contribution! Jenna xo




Chris Parker said:


> For example, I have the entire curriculum for Yokohama Den Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu, and can passably run through a fair amount of such systems as Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, Kiraku Ryu, and many more. However, all I know is how I interpret the techniques (for the most part), so I cannot claim to know the arts or systems themselves.



What, in addition to repeated practice of refining your technique Christopher, would it take then to "know" the art?



Chris Parker said:


> Learning to fight, on the other hand, well, that's easy. Pick a rough bar, go up to the biggest guy there, and suggest that he improperly knows the next biggest guy there. Frequently. Next, check yourself out of hospital, and repeat until the last part is no longer required. Of course, that is just learning to fight, or defend yourself, and is far from learning a martial art...



Why Christopher?  What is unique to our definition of martial arts, that the above scenario - repeated enough times to the theoretical limit - would be excluded?  Imagine the above scenario were put to a less harmful recursive loop: theorise a defence, test that theory and refine the result.  Would it not be possible through empirical methods to eventually given adequate time develop a "proper" codified system all to oneself?  Thank you 



Omar B said:


> Anybody can throw a ball, but it takes a good coach to make someone a major league pitcher


Would there be any situation Omar you could envisage whereupon a "natural talent" could, with enough empirical testing become a Major League pitcher?  Or is that highly unlikely?



Omar B said:


> Though I would love to see the guy who claimed to learn judo or wrestling on his own ... or through the computer ... or from a video


Yes! I would too! I think unfortunately those engaged in this kind of activity are the hyper-stimulated game-addicted movie-believing youtube wannabes and not serious "empirical" researchers LOL   And but yes I absolutely agree Omar with what you are saying.  I am operating purely as devil's advocate in a case of unmitigated martial hypothesis.  Thank you 



seasoned said:


> but impossible to learn an art form without proper guidance


Is it purely physical pursuits that this applies to Wes?  I would be thinking odd examples such as Steven Speilberg who dropped out of college yet whose art flourished regardless and David Bowie who I believe was never educated in any of his musical endeavours?  I do not know of sportspeople yet I wonder is it possible to become an artist (martial artist) by ones own empirical research?  Or is this unlikely?  Thank you 



mook jong man said:


> But will it be with the level of finesse and relaxed energy expenditure that I can do it with , no I think not


I like that point.  I think a mentor or guide would certainly expedite the "finessing" process that you mention mook jong man.  I wonder would you with enough repetition figure out for yourself the most efficient dynamics of your art?  Or would that never happen without the coaching?  Thank you 



WC_lun said:


> In my mind it is analagous to a person being blind all thier life trying to imagine what a sunset looks like. They don't have the experience of sight to have a reference point.


I understand the reference WC_lun and but I do not know if that is analagous?  I think the blind person no matter how many iterations of their attempts they perform will ever reveal the sunset to themselves of course.  I wonder though if you train empirically to protect yourself from a centre punch will you eventually arrive at some form of bong sau for example as the most efficient way to defend that punch.  Or will you never arrive at that conclusion independently of tuition and guidance?  Thank you 



Disco said:


> who trained the first guy that started the whole thing in the first place


Disco yes that is clever!  That is what I was thinking too when I thought of this thread!  Is it possible that each of us could be that "first guy" should we so wish?  Would we need a set of martial skills to begin with?  Could we start from scratch and through reasonably safe empirical trial-and-error training divine our own system?  Or is that impossible?  Thank you 



sgtmac_46 said:


> Martial Arts, however, are a codified system of study, and hence more formal than simply fighting


sgtmac_46 do you think that fighter can become a martial artist by refining of their existing technique?  Ultimately does MA differ from fighting where the end result is one's own defence?  What would you be unable to discern for yourself were you for example stranded on a hostile island needing to defend yourself against a fighting style you had not encountered?  Apologies for the weirdness of the example  Thank you


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 25, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> however, are Walter Mitty's. .



 "A Mitty".  Haha, there is a term I haven't heard in a long while.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 25, 2010)

Disco said:


> ."who trained the first guy that started the whole thing in the first place"?...........



In the fantasy world of my mind, I believe it went something like this.

"Say Bob, you are awfully quiet.  Are you still thinking about that big battle yesterday?"
"Yes, Joe, I am.  The strangest thing happened.  This guy with a sword was cutting down at me suddenly from out of nowhere, and I had dropped my sword, and I moved, like this, and I was not killed!"
"Really?  Wait, show me how that went?"
"Like this!"
"Holy cow! Do that again!  Holy cow, that works!  Hey but what if I attack like this, haha, got ya!"
"Yeah.  But I think If I moved HERE..."
"Holy Cow, that worked!  We need to teach that to the guys before the next battle!"


----------



## Jenna (Sep 25, 2010)

Cryozombie said:


> In the fantasy world of my mind, I believe it went something like this.
> 
> "Say Bob, you are awfully quiet.  Are you still thinking about that big battle yesterday?"
> "Yes, Joe, I am.  The strangest thing happened.  This guy with a sword was cutting down at me suddenly from out of nowhere, and I had dropped my sword, and I moved, like this, and I was not killed!"
> ...


Cryo, in your fantasy did it happen after or did you stick around and see Joe plagiarising Bob's tech and copywriting it as Joe-jutsu?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 25, 2010)

Disco said:


> Bet you can't say that fast 5 times........:lfao:
> 
> Now to the question.........I really don't know when or how or even why the "ART" aspect came into play, but from the very beginnings, it was about fighting/combat/self defense. But now I'll answer a question with a question...."who trained the first guy that started the whole thing in the first place"?...........


 

The 'first guys' were tribal elders, who survived combat and hunting forays and passed along hunting and combat skills via informal lessons to young warriors.

And as Cryo made clear in tongue-and-cheek fashion, it was almost certainly the result of very practical trial and error in both actual combat.......and to an even greater extent, ritualized tribal combat where young males developed skills in often bloody mock combat against fellow tribesman in order to attain manhood and develop their place in the tribe.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 25, 2010)

Disco said:


> Bet you can't say that fast 5 times........:lfao:
> 
> Now to the question.........I really don't know when or how or even why the "ART" aspect came into play, but from the very beginnings, it was about fighting/combat/self defense. But now I'll answer a question with a question...."who trained the first guy that started the whole thing in the first place"?...........


 
ding ding ding. we have a winner!!!!!!


the benefits you have from being taught is gaining the knowledge of multiple individuals along a long line of tradition. 

The benefits of self taught is control over your own progress and not being limited to following any crede.

Many are probably combinations of the two. 

http://www.villabrillelargusakali.com/?page_id=154

Escrima history perhaps for example.  A primitive fighting method, turned more complex, returned to primitive so the layman could learn quicker in simpler forms, influenced by invading and immigrant forces, split many times in different paths and combinations and each person making it their own.

Then you learn one of the systems. You are learning from many, many people when you do this. However in that group are people that were instructed by a few, some maybe by one, and originally perhaps just one somewhere responsble for part of your system. so self taught, and taught, and gained through experience.

It may not be quicker being instructed, better or worse is subjective, but when instructed it is more than one person you are learning from, even if you have only one instructor...

you could come up with your own. How effective that is would depend on you, as a person and your experiences and ability to test it in real situation. It had to start somewhere..............


----------



## searcher (Sep 25, 2010)

The question will become, "How do I know that the techniques I am working on are effective?" and "Who is going to call me expert?"

On the first, I suppose you would have to be willing to suffer through the pain of seeing if what you are doing will work or not.     Then you are going to have to convince someone to learn from you and let them see if what you have formulated will work or not.


On the second, I am not sure anyone in your lifetime would call you an "expert."     There are however exceptions to every rule and it COULD happen.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 25, 2010)

Jenna said:


> Would there be any situation Omar you could envisage whereupon a "natural talent" could, with enough empirical testing become a Major League pitcher?  Or is that highly unlikely?
> 
> 
> Yes! I would too! I think unfortunately those engaged in this kind of activity are the hyper-stimulated game-addicted movie-believing youtube wannabes and not serious "empirical" researchers LOL   And but yes I absolutely agree Omar with what you are saying.  I am operating purely as devil's advocate in a case of unmitigated martial hypothesis.  Thank you



No, wouldn't ever happen.  You may know how to throw a ball but is your form right?  Are you accurate?  Are you fast enough?  Ever pitched at a live person?  There is a lot that goes into a sport/art than just the mechanics of it, and even the mechanics are a lot more than they might seem from a video.  Just liek any sport, a martial art is very much dependent on working in a cohesive and welcoming environment where there is a definite leader and others learning along with you.  You can't become Captain Bad-*** by practicing by yourself on a mountain in winter ... no matter what the movies say.

Ever been in class and you are in your stance then Sensei walks by and adjusts you just an inch and suddenly everything perfect?  He bends your knee a bit more, or moves a toe point slightly or something else as minute and then suddenly the whole mechanics of what you are doing comes together way better?  I've seen toes moved a slight angle and suddenly punching power appreciable increases and torque on your joints drop precipitously.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 25, 2010)

searcher said:


> The question will become, "How do I know that the techniques I am working on are effective?" and "Who is going to call me expert?"
> 
> On the first, I suppose you would have to be willing to suffer through the pain of seeing if what you are doing will work or not. Then you are going to have to convince someone to learn from you and let them see if what you have formulated will work or not.
> 
> ...


 
Of course the same two questions could be asked of someone who is a proclaimed expert in a 'real' system......most especially the first question.

The real hinderance of trying to develop your own way from scratch is that many folks have already done the ground work, and you are trying to reinvent the wheel. It would be more efficient to 'steal' what they have already figured out, and apply it accordingly. 

As for who will 'call you an expert'.......who cares?  The folks concerned with whether someone else is an expert or not are generally the folks who themselves don't know anything to begin with.  There are no real 'experts'..........there are only students who have progressed further than others.


----------



## BloodMoney (Sep 25, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> One could be an experienced fighter, without any formal training. Martial Arts, however, are a codified system of study, and hence more formal than simply fighting.



+1

Pretty much sums it up in my opinion, nothing more to add


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 25, 2010)

I've heard the arguement before that there had to be a "first guy" to codify martial arts, and if he could do it, then so could someone else.  That arguement is not based on reality.  There wasn't a "first guy."  There have been thousands of guys over time.  Also the originators of the older fighting systems established what they did after already being experienced in the field of battle.  That means real world, life and death combat.  There just isn't any way for some kid pretending to fight ninjas in his mom's basement to get that same experience.

Jenna, to answer you question.  In my opinion, yes, over time, with a training partner and enough experimentation a person might be able to come up with a proper bong sau to defend a centerline punch.  Martial arts isn't about one technique though.  Its about concepts and principles manifesting themselves through technique.  While they might get that oe technique, I find it near impossible for a person to get the who;e picture through solo teaching.

Since you used bong sau as a reference, I will use Wing Chun as one.  Wing Chun was created in the mid 1600's.  There have been many, many, masters through that time that have added positively to the art.  How can one person be expected to create something similiar with only thier own limited experience as a base?  Heck, today even with the benefit of those masters there is lots of Wing Chun that is inferior and watered down.  I just don't see how a solo person could distinguish the chaff from the wheat enough to be establish anything worth while.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 25, 2010)

*ex·pert*

/n., v. &#712;&#603;k
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





sp&#604;rt; adj. &#712;&#603;k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




sp&#604;rt, &#618;k&#712;sp&#604;rt/ 

 Show Spelled 
  &#8211;noun 1. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert.
---
I suppose one could become an expert fighter, and a self-taught BMF (think wallet) but, I'd bet damn few do


----------



## Chris Parker (Sep 26, 2010)

Hey J,



Jenna said:


> Wow thank you for these insights. I am grateful for your thoughts and expertise. I would love to post a video of someone self taught as an expert in a form - even their own - of martial art. I am still searching!  Thank you all again for your contribution! Jenna xo


 
Well, I actually could provide that.... see below. Not as an example of an expert, it must be said, and that is in established systems very similar to ones that I am trained in, as well as my actually being rather autodidactic, according to a number of people around me....



Jenna said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > For example, I have the entire curriculum for Yokohama Den Asayama Ichiden Ryu Taijutsu, and can passably run through a fair amount of such systems as Katori Shinto Ryu, Kashima Shinryu, Kiraku Ryu, and many more. However, all I know is how I interpret the techniques (for the most part), so I cannot claim to know the arts or systems themselves.
> ...


 
Well, the systems I listed are classed as Koryu, and absolutely technically, you cannot be practicing the art without being a part of the Ryu itself, even if you are training in the techniques themselves. Part of this is the accurate transmission of the technical syllabus, but another very important point is the amount of imformation/teachings that are not part of the technical kata themselves. This is refered to as Kuden, or oral transmissions, and often are aspects of the kata that are not known or realised just by going through the physical actions.

So, essentially, to know the art is only possible if you are training it within the Ryu itself.



Jenna said:


> Chris Parker said:
> 
> 
> > Learning to fight, on the other hand, well, that's easy. Pick a rough bar, go up to the biggest guy there, and suggest that he improperly knows the next biggest guy there. Frequently. Next, check yourself out of hospital, and repeat until the last part is no longer required. Of course, that is just learning to fight, or defend yourself, and is far from learning a martial art...
> ...


 
Basically, because martial arts are not about fighting. In fact, martial arts aren't about self defence at all, frankly (yes, they can be used for it, but that's not what they are about, or designed for). A martial art is a realistically an internally congruent philosophies taught through the medium of combative techniques. Just learning to generate enough power to knock someone out isn't a martial art, it's just hitting someone.

As to whether or not a "proper" codified system could be developed, it could, but it will take many, many encounters such as the one I listed above, and if the entire aim is handling a bar fight, much of what would make it a martial art is missing.



Disco said:


> Bet you can't say that fast 5 times........:lfao:
> 
> Now to the question.........I really don't know when or how or even why the "ART" aspect came into play, but from the very beginnings, it was about fighting/combat/self defense. But now I'll answer a question with a question...."who trained the first guy that started the whole thing in the first place"?...........


 
That really depends on the art itself... I would say that the vast majority of arts were not designed for fighting/combat/self defence. That is one aspect of them, but it is not the real aim. The aim is to impart lessons, and the medium used is combative techniques. The technical repertoire is just too removed from what would be required if combative effectiveness is the only, or even primary, aim.

As to who trained the first guy, I'd go with Cryo's version... to a degree. The start was almost certainly effective technical developments (a new move, weapon, tactic etc for combat or hunting.... personally, I believe that hunting was the origin of martial arts, by the way), which would then be passed around. From that, certain groups realised that having these new developments gave them an advantage, so the transmission of such developments would be restricted. But so far we are just talking about technical aspects, and as I said, that is not the real focus of martial arts. The focus is on passing on lessons.

To give an example, Musashi developed his Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, according to popular belief, and used it to survive and prevail in over 60 duels in his lifetime. However, that is not the actual way it happened. Musashi had some little schooling in his youth, and prevailed through natural talent, strength of mindset, and luck more than anything else. He was 30 years removed from his dueling days when he developed his art. And, although he would probably be thought of as a self-taught person today, he really had a great education in the teachings of various schools, through association, experience in dueling with them, and fervant study of the martial sciences as revealed through the Gorin no Sho. Pure combative effectiveness does not a martial art make.


----------



## Drac (Sep 26, 2010)

..When I taught in the academy the head instructor would always refer to me as our resident martial arts expert, a term I disliked.."I am *NO *expert", I would tell him. "You know more about the MA than the other teachers and about 98% of the students, so you *ARE *an expert, so deal with it", was his answer..


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 26, 2010)

Well I never claim to be an expert at anything, for me too be an expert their would be no room to grow and in any Martial Arts we are growing are techs on a daily basis. I like the term season veteran in the Arts, because I have been doing it so long.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 26, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> you cannot be practicing the art without being a part of the Ryu itself, even if you are training in the techniques themselves. Part of this is the accurate transmission of the technical syllabus, but another very important point is the amount of imformation/teachings that are not part of the technical kata themselves. This is refered to as Kuden, or oral transmissions, and often are aspects of the kata that are not known or realised just by going through the physical actions.


 
I actually disagree, but its not worth a debate! You'll write this very well written long post explaining your position, and my eyes will glaze over by the third paragraph and I just won't care anymore.....

Sigh...You or I, and include anyone who has practiced swords for more then 10 years can pick up a schools techniques in no time flat. We just can. We also have the background and understanding of the mechanics to be able to pick up/figure out the nuances of almost any sword school, perhaps not perfectly, but we'll figure it out. There are no secrets.

Oh well off to swing swords!!


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 26, 2010)

_Can a person learn to fight on their own, without teachers?_  Certainly.  It'll be painful, and a lot of time will be wasted on inefficient ideas, and truly testing it today would be problematic.  Unless, of course, you want to do the development in the Gray Bar Hotel. 

_Can a person learn a given martial art on their own, without formal instruction?_  That's a different question.  A very few people out there have the combination of intellectual and physical talents that, given good reference material and time, they can learn the motions and many of the principles of a particular martial art on their own.  Some arts would be next to impossible; too much is so subtle that it's very unlikely that someone could puzzle it out properly on their own.  Other arts are very easy; lots of people, for example, have learned the rudiments of boxing from various manuals over the years.

_Can a person become a martial arts expert without formal training?_  This is yet another question:  what exactly do you mean by "martial arts expert?"  Is it a person with physical skills or simply knowledge?  You can certainly, through reading, interview, and other scholarly research techniques, learn about various martial arts without taking part in a single class.  I believe, for example, that the curator of a well known ninja museum in Japan has never trained in any of the documentable ninjutsu ryu. His expertise is for others to judge...


----------



## Jenna (Sep 26, 2010)

bribrius said:


> However in that group are people that were instructed by a few, some maybe by one, and originally perhaps just one somewhere responsble for part of your system


I wonder bribius is it possible that you, me or anyone here could be a "one" by putting ourselves through sufficient repetitions and refining of varying training scenarios?  Or not? Thank you 



searcher said:


> The question will become, "How do I know that the techniques I am working on are effective?"


Searcher, can we not ascertain that because those techniques do what they are designed to do?  Each technique serves a purpose which apportions its own success.  With sufficient iteration and refining would it be possible to design a perfect technique in which you are expert in its deployment?  Are there conditions to this happening?  Is it an impossibility?  Thank you 



Omar B said:


> Ever been in class and you are in your stance then Sensei walks by and adjusts you just an inch and suddenly everything perfect?


Oh of course yes! I appreciate Omar you have given a definitive no to the question and but I wonder could you with your training partner not arrive at the same conclusion with your own independent methodology having worked through sufficient repetition and refining?  Or must it be handed down?  Or is it simply the case that having technique handed down to us is the most efficient way to learn.  Or perhaps it is the easiest?  Id o not know I am just asking your opinion  Thank you



sgtmac_46 said:


> The real hinderance of trying to develop your own way from scratch is that many folks have already done the ground work, and you are trying to reinvent the wheel. It would be more efficient to 'steal' what they have already figured out, and apply it accordingly.


I totally appreciate the points you have made here sgtmac_46.  You are absolutely correct insofar as there is no sense in reinventing the wheel.  Basing this on the assumption that the existing martial art in question is indeed the perfectly circular wheel to support your vehicle then of course the wheel is already invented.  Some apparent perfect circles though are simply collections of tangential straight lines claiming to be perfect maybe  



sgtmac_46 said:


> As for who will 'call you an expert'.......who cares? The folks concerned with whether someone else is an expert or not are generally the folks who themselves don't know anything to begin with. There are no real 'experts'..........there are only students who have progressed further than others.


This is a well worded comment I think.  I have never appreciated the teaching of any martial artist who has informed me that they are an expert.  For me, it is a paradox that a true martial art expert appreciates what is missing from their knowledge.  Thank you 



WC_lun said:


> How can one person be expected to create something similiar with only thier own limited experience as a base? Heck, today even with the benefit of those masters there is lots of Wing Chun that is inferior and watered down.


I welcome and respect your comments thank you WC_lun!  I understand entirely the reference to an inferior Wing Chun.  I think a standard by which to compare a superior and inferior Wing Chun would be necessary then no?  If it is inferior by virtue of having no history or by virtue of having no style or integrity then that is superficial inferiority maybe?  If it is inferior because it does not work against opponents then that is the only true measure of inferiority no?  I do not know if I am properly making the point I am trying to.  If you were through you own relentless trial-and-error to divine a technique that could defend against a certain type of WC strike then is that still inferior because there is no history attached to it?  Or is it equal because it works?  At one point WC techniques were less than the perfectly refined movements they are now no?  Apologies if I am not being clear!  thank you 



Big Don said:


> I suppose one could become an expert fighter, and a self-taught BMF (think wallet) but, I'd bet damn few do


I agree!  Big Don what for you are the differences between an expert fighter and an expert martial artist?  Is there ever a possibility do you think for a self-taught expert fighter to match a properly trained martial artist?  Thank you 



Chris Parker said:


> As to whether or not a "proper" codified system could be developed, it could, but it will take many, many encounters such as the one I listed above, and if the entire aim is handling a bar fight, much of what would make it a martial art is missing.


You are agreeing Christopher that to develop a system of perfectly refined techniques is theoretically possible through empirical methodology yes?  Would it be possible do you think to bridge the gap between this "fighting skillset" should we say and a "proper" martial art?  Or is properness in that case subject to our existing arts having been formed historically in another older epoch?



Chris Parker said:


> Musashi had some little schooling in his youth, and prevailed through natural talent, strength of mindset, and luck more than anything else. He was 30 years removed from his dueling days when he developed his art. And, although he would probably be thought of as a self-taught person today, he really had a great education in the teachings of various schools, through association, experience in dueling with them, and fervant study of the martial sciences as revealed through the Gorin no Sho. Pure combative effectiveness does not a martial art make.


So Musashi prevailed because he has a modicum of schooling a natural talent and a perseverence.  If you yourself possessed those skills would you be capable of generating a fighting system which to all intents and purposes was a martial art? Thank you 



Drac said:


> ..When I taught in the academy the head instructor would always refer to me as our resident martial arts expert, a term I disliked.."I am NO expert", I would tell him. "You know more about the MA than the other teachers and about 98% of the students, so you ARE an expert, so deal with it", was his answer..


Yes I think that illustrates that perhaps one's expertise is dependent upon whomever is doing the classifying.  I wonder if we defeat an opponent or aggressor then that opponent or aggressor will see us as having greater expertise than theirs yes?  Do you think it is possible that you would be capable of developing the kind of expertise that your head instructor was referring to by your own empirical methods? Thank you 



terryl965 said:


> Well I never claim to be an expert at anything, for me too be an expert their would be no room to grow and in any Martial Arts we are growing are techs on a daily basis


I agree Terry yet compared to me you are an expert in your art.  Compared to others in your art you are an expert yes?  I wonder do you think you or any of us would be able to achieve expert level [comparable to other experts in other martial arts] by discovering techniques for ourselves through trial and error? Thank you 



Ken Morgan said:


> Sigh...You or I, and include anyone who has practiced swords for more then 10 years can pick up a schools techniques in no time flat. We just can. We also have the background and understanding of the mechanics to be able to pick up/figure out the nuances of almost any sword school, perhaps not perfectly, but we'll figure it out. There are no secrets.


Ken is a degree of formal training necessary in order to achieve this [or any] level of self-teaching capability?  You would approximate that at 10yr as an average?  Thank you 



jks9199 said:


> Can a person become a martial arts expert without formal training?  This is yet another question: what exactly do you mean by "martial arts expert?" Is it a person with physical skills or simply knowledge? You can certainly, through reading, interview, and other scholarly research techniques, learn about various martial arts without taking part in a single class. I believe, for example, that the curator of a well known ninja museum in Japan has never trained in any of the documentable ninjutsu ryu. His expertise is for others to judge...


Wow that is a comprehensive answer thank you jks9199.  To me an expert in martial arts may be adjudged so relative to those with whom they are engaged.  Were you to defeat me in a physical confrontation then it might be argued that you were in possession of a greater fighting expertise.  To me you are therefore an expert.  My point though is not to be adjudged expert by any arbiter of what is what in an art and but rather I am wondering is it possible to achieve a level of expertise in a martial art [real or invented] by running through sufficient iterations of defensive scenarios.  I think you have answered admirably thank you


----------



## Jenna (Sep 26, 2010)

Thank you all again for contributing your thoughts opinions and insights.  I appreciate and welcome these all greatly.  I only want to say that I believe most of us act as the autodidact when we engage in any independent training away from the gaze of our instructor.  I believe we do iterate a technique and refine it.  

Occasionally as Omar B mentions we benefit from the placing of one who is a greater expert than us.  I believe though that it is possible to achieve a state of technique perfection and become our own expert in that technique by our own independent [with a partner] refining process.  Why?  Not to reinvent the wheel and but rather because not all wheels fit all vehicles.  

I do believe in matters of martial art we are frequently our own best teacher  Jenna x


----------



## Omar B (Sep 26, 2010)

Jenna said:


> Oh of course yes! I appreciate Omar you have given a definitive no to the question and but *I wonder could you with your training partner not arrive at the same conclusion with your own independent methodology having worked through sufficient repetition and refining*?  Or must it be handed down?  Or is it simply the case that having technique handed down to us is the most efficient way to learn.  Or perhaps it is the easiest?  Id o not know I am just asking your opinion  Thank you



I'm sure you and a training partner could figure out the most efficient and safest ways for the body to do these movements.  But that takes knowledge in anatomy, kinesiology, sports science, physics, all disciplines that no one could ever claim to be an expert at on their own.  Practicing a punch with wrong mechanics and a bad base does not simply get better over years of practice, most people think they know something (I'm talking about these backyard black belts) and stick with their faulty methodology till somebody solidly thrashes them.

Of you could defer to the expertise on men who have worked on these for generations (many who know these disciplines) to arrive at what we have today.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 26, 2010)

Drac said:


> ..When I taught in the academy the head instructor would always refer to me as our resident martial arts expert, a term I disliked.."I am *NO *expert", I would tell him. "You know more about the MA than the other teachers and about 98% of the students, so you *ARE *an expert, so deal with it", was his answer..



Gotta love that.  Someone branding you an expert because you know more.  Kinda like army medics who get called Doc.  Definitions shift depending on where you are standing I guess, like how the word "theory means something different to a layman and a scientist.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 26, 2010)

Jenna said:


> I totally appreciate the points you have made here sgtmac_46. You are absolutely correct insofar as there is no sense in reinventing the wheel. Basing this on the assumption that the existing martial art in question is indeed the perfectly circular wheel to support your vehicle then of course the wheel is already invented. Some apparent perfect circles though are simply collections of tangential straight lines claiming to be perfect maybe


  Allow me to clarify.  I don't believe any one system is remotely perfect even for the person who developed it to work for themselves......much less as perfectly applicable to anyone else.  However, with many thousands of systems and variations of systems.  And with the ability to get exposure to those systems, in this day and age of mass information, whatever any individual is looking for, has not only already been developed extensively, but is accessible to anyone who takes a small amount of time to look.  So rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, one should, instead, take, buffet style, from the multitude of arts out there, and patch together what will work for them the best.  It will save them tremendous time and energy, and will expose them to new ideas they have never considered.




Jenna said:


> This is a well worded comment I think. I have never appreciated the teaching of any martial artist who has informed me that they are an expert. For me, it is a paradox that a true martial art expert appreciates what is missing from their knowledge. Thank you


 The best teachers always remember that they, themselves, are students.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 26, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Gotta love that. Someone branding you an expert because you know more. Kinda like army medics who get called Doc. Definitions shift depending on where you are standing I guess, like how the word "theory means something different to a layman and a scientist.


 

It's really all relative........to extend your medical analogy, you may have only a few classes in first aid and an educated layman's knowledge, but if you end up with a group of people in a disaster situation, and everyone else knows less, like it or not you have just BECOME the 'expert'.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 26, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> It's really all relative........to extend your medical analogy, you may have only a few classes in first aid and an educated layman's knowledge, but if you end up with a group of people in a disaster situation, and everyone else knows less, like it or not you have just BECOME the 'expert'.



It's like in Terminator where John Conner's wife is the doctor for the human settlement, even though she's really a veterinarian.  Close enough right.  Or when old peopel refer to me as a "computer whiz" (gotta love that word, only old people use it).  Sure I know my way around a computer, but I'm in no way a "whiz," I just know more than you.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 26, 2010)

Jenna said:


> I agree!  Big Don what for you are the differences between an expert fighter and an expert martial artist?  Is there ever a possibility do you think for a self-taught expert fighter to match a properly trained martial artist?  Thank you


The really good fighter might well be a better fighter than a trained martial artist, not everyone likes sparring... Furthermore, everyone has good and bad days, should the fighter's good day match with the Martial Artist's bad day...
The really good fighter will NEVER, imho, be a match as far as knowledge of any given system...
There are Black Belts, at my school, whose techniques and forms look so much better than mine, but, being literally half my size, they'll never beat me sparring...


----------



## Indagator (Sep 26, 2010)

I remember watching some random MMA stuff on the sports channel in the middle of the night a while back, might have been Strike Force or something. There was a guy competing who (the commentators said) had taught himself jujutsu from magazines and books. However, I took that with a grain of salt considering the fact that if he is competing professionally he'd be training in somebody's stable by now.

As for experts, although I don't follow the Chinese martial arts or their philosophies, a lot of what Bruce Lee had to say still carries a great deal of weight with me, and I remember a quote in which he had stated he wished never to be known as an expert, but only a great student of the martial arts.

Some guys, I suppose, can develop things on their own. Lenny McLean's formidable talents were developed pretty much independently, and he was probably the most skilled boxer in the UK during his prime.

I guess my final comment on it all has to be this:

Wisdom comes not through age, but through experience. In studying a martial art one draws on the experience of not one, but many wise men, stretching back through the ages.
The benefit to this goes without saying.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 27, 2010)

What's "art?'

I'm not being funny-I'm serious. I was taught, years ago now, that the difference between _art_ and *craft* is that "craft" can be taught, and art cannot. So, while I could learn the techniques of knifemaking and blacksmithing from various sources-including on my own-it wasn't truly "art" until I completed my masterpiece, an _expression of myself_ that could clearly be seen by the discerning eye to be _mine._ It's the same with the old masters-there is often some confusion between the work of a Leonardo and that of his students, who had clearly been taught the _technique_ of a da Vinci to the point where they could duplicate it, but not to _express themselves._

Likewise, Jenna, if you were to come to my dojo, you could learn the techniques of Miyama ryu jujutsu, karate, judo and aikido, and you might even learn a few other techniques if you stuck around long enough, but that wouldn't make you a "martial artist," it would make you a technician.-and, yes, a technician can be self-taught, no matter what people say about not learning from DVDs, or books, or, as others pointed out, experience. 

Additionally, you wouldn't exactly have learned the "Jeff Cuffee method," whatever meager insights into techniques and their deeper principles I may have been able to offer, because, well, I'm a 6'2" congenital klutz, and you're what I assume is a somewhat smaller girl, with a modicum of coordination. In the end, I'd be providing you with the material-techniques, strategy and and principles-to arrive at your own expression of those, and, as long it's confined to those techniques, to expressing what I've taught you, it's not a martial _art_, it's martial *craft*, and doesn't become "art" until you start to use that technique to express "the Jenna method." 

So, for the most part, the self taught are not "martial artists," and what they've learned to do isn't necessarily what they've bought. Heck, it's long been my opinion that most of us aren't "martial artists," we're technicians or craftsmen, and you don't need a teacher to be that.......though it surely does make it easier and better to progress: I spend a lot of my spare time wishing there'd been someone to teach me knife making back in the day, instead of having to do most of it myself.....



Indagator said:


> I remember watching some random MMA stuff on the sports channel in the middle of the night a while back, might have been Strike Force or something. There was a guy competing who (the commentators said) had taught himself jujutsu from magazines and books


 
RIch Franklin trained himself for MMA with videos. Of course, he has proper training now, and had a background in wrestling, but that's what the situation was when he brole into the sport.


----------



## First Action (Sep 27, 2010)

I dont think a 'trained' fighter will always beat a self taught on, it would depend on the level of the training, who trains harder, the style, experience etc. However, i think the self taught martial artist would definately benefit from formal lessons (as long as they were taught the right things)


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 27, 2010)

Omar B said:


> *It's like in Terminator where John Conner's wife* is *the doctor for the human settlement, even though she's really a veterinarian.* Close enough right. Or when old peopel refer to me as a "computer whiz" (gotta love that word, only old people use it). Sure I know my way around a computer, but I'm in no way a "whiz," I just know more than you.


 
Actually vets know more than most doctors as they can diagnose, treat as well as operate withrecourse to specialists and in this country are allowed to treat humans whereas doctors aren't allowed to treat animals!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 27, 2010)

Jenna said:


> I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?
> 
> We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.
> 
> Therefore aside from all the youtube MA wannabes that operate in their own video vacuums, do you think there are circumstances in which it is possible to train _oneself _to become expert in a martial endeavour?


Depends on the endeavor.  If the endeavor is to straight punch through boards, develop fitness, or to develop a system of fighting based on backyard fighting with your friends, sure.  Straight punching through boards is not all that complex, developing fitness in a martial arts based vehicle is not an MA, though I'd allow for it to be a martial endeavor.  If you develop your own system based on backyard fighting with your friends, then yes, you are expert in that system, as you will be the only one who knows it.  The effectiveness of said system is another thing entirely.



Jenna said:


> Is it possible perhaps by employing empirical "research" training methods over a suitable period of time? Or are empirical methods never any substitute for formal handed-down training?


Empirical study does not always receive its fair due, but there are some techniques that simply cannot be taught without being taught.  If the person is going to claim to be "expert" in an existing system with no formal training in said system, I'd say absolutely no, though depending upon the system, the nature of their research, and the methods used to test their knowledge, one may be able to learn to be proficient in it.  

If the person is developing their _*own*_ system, I'd say that if they limit the system to strikes that are of a gross motor skill nature and through trial and error in sparring with people who can fight, yes, a system could be developed and the one developing it would be "expert" by virtue of practice and having developed said system.  

Becoming *expert* (as opposed to simply learning) in more technically difficult arts without formal training is virtually impossible.  

For example, I would never learn kendo from or consider expert in any person who had not received formal training.  Kendo is, comparatively simple, when looked at along side other martial arts.  Until one has trained in it for a long period of time, they will never realize the depth of the art or the myriad of things that go into it.  Simply teaching the correct way to perform a straight down strike with the shinai is time consuming because it involves a lot of factors that people simply will not think of on their own.  Because the things that go into shinai strikes were developed in cutting with a real sword (rather than a baseball bat or an axe), which were themselves developed over centuries of sword development, one simply cannot become expert in kendo through empirical research or watching Youtube. 

Sad thing is, when those guys come into a kendo class, they're unteachable because they cannot let go of being 'expert' in their self taught style.  I have dealt with more than one over they years.  They always get frustrated and quit.   



Jenna said:


> Is it possible to generate fighting techniques from scratch by recursively defending oneself against attack in a training situation? Or would this in itself require sufficient martial grounding beforehand?


Yes, it is possible.  That is how martial systems began in prehistory: trial and error and likely study of others' trials and errors, recording in some way (be it written, drawn, or memorized) the methods that were developed. 



Jenna said:


> With sufficient refining on these techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?


Hard to say on that.  Too many factors to consider, including the art in question.

In kendo or BJJ, hands down no: the trained person will come out on top.  Too many subtleties that give the trained person the advantage, especially in kendo where size is not as much of a factor.  

If you're talking just plain striking arts, its anybody's guess: things like age, gender, weight, size, general athleticism, speed, agility, strength, creativity and natural punching ability are all factors that are not at all related or not directly related to formal training, all of which can have a major effect on the outcome of a fight.  

For example, a 6'4" 245 pound defensive tackle with no MA training will most likely beat in a fight a third dan female taekwondoist who weight 130 pounds  or a third dan male taekwondoist who weighs 185 pounds.  Tackle can hit and can take a hit and probably is pretty nimble for a guy his size.

In fact, the football player could, in theory, develop an SD/fighting system based on football, which he will be highly trained in already, and have it work well pretty well for him and guys like him.  He could even add in punting style kicks.  It may not work so well for a guy 5'8" tall and 150 pounds, however.  But it would work for him and he'd be "expert" in it.

Daniel


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Sep 27, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Depends on the endeavor. If the endeavor is to straight punch through boards, develop fitness, or to develop a system of fighting based on backyard fighting with your friends, sure. Straight punching through boards is not all that complex, developing fitness in a martial arts based vehicle is not an MA, though I'd allow for it to be a martial endeavor. If you develop your own system based on backyard fighting with your friends, then yes, you are expert in that system, as you will be the only one who knows it. The effectiveness of said system is another thing entirely.
> 
> 
> Empirical study does not always receive its fair due, but there are some techniques that simply cannot be taught without being taught. If the person is going to claim to be "expert" in an existing system with no formal training in said system, I'd say absolutely no, though depending upon the system, the nature of their research, and the methods used to test their knowledge, one may be able to learn to be proficient in it.
> ...


 
And as I heard Guro Dan Inosanto say, you have to respect the physical animal.  Some physical animals require an extraordinary amount of physical skill in order to overcome.  

A 6'4" 245 pound defensive tackle who can bench press 500 pounds certainly qualifies as a lot of physical animal to overcome.


----------



## Nomad (Sep 27, 2010)

I have a couple of thoughts on this one.  

First, traditionally, many of the progenitors of martial arts learned other formal arts that they then modified based on their personal experience or insight into new arts (see Bruce Lee, Ueshiba, even Funakoshi).  They also frequently sought out other good fighters/martial artists both to pressure test their art via challenges and to learn new techniques from one another.  So I don't really think any of the arts started in a vacuum.  (First, rock kata... pick up rock, throw at enemy!  Tomorrow, we try stick).

I also think a requirement for a martial art is to be able to pass on your knowledge and experience to others who don't have the hands on experience.  In my opinion, it's not enough to be a good fighter, you also have to codify your strategies/system of fighting enough to be able to accurately pass it on to others.  

One problem we see with this quite often arises from the relative lack of pressure testing on many systems in these peaceful times... in other words, inexperienced people have a hard time telling the valuable techniques and principles from the BS that is out there (sometimes all wrapped up in the same system because of poor understanding or interpretation of the techniques, or by deliberate spread of misinformation).


----------



## ap Oweyn (Sep 27, 2010)

Closest I can come to answer this question is floating another question:  "What's the motivation for self-teaching?"  

I do believe that someone should make their training their own, and that this takes a lot of introspection, critical thinking, etc.  But, in my observation, people who _set out_ to create their own styles are usually motivated by a desire to avoid accountability.  Can't be doing it wrong if you're the only person who can define "right."

Further, I think that people who want to self-train are often motivated by wanting to avoid some hardship of group training rather than truly believing that they've got a better way.  They don't want to deal with the hierarchical relationships (which don't exist in all settings anyway), the conditioning, the sparring, the inter-student conflict, etc.

Personally, I believe that accountability to something bigger than you is part and parcel of the learning experience.  And self-teaching tosses that straight out the window.  Unless you're substituting it with some other form of accountability (e.g., a rigorous competitive format).

In short, I don't get it.  Why would you want to forego those training relationships?


Stuart


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 27, 2010)

Jenna said:


> I welcome and respect your comments thank you WC_lun! I understand entirely the reference to an inferior Wing Chun. I think a standard by which to compare a superior and inferior Wing Chun would be necessary then no? If it is inferior by virtue of having no history or by virtue of having no style or integrity then that is superficial inferiority maybe? If it is inferior because it does not work against opponents then that is the only true measure of inferiority no? I do not know if I am properly making the point I am trying to. If you were through you own relentless trial-and-error to divine a technique that could defend against a certain type of WC strike then is that still inferior because there is no history attached to it? Or is it equal because it works? At one point WC techniques were less than the perfectly refined movements they are now no? Apologies if I am not being clear! thank you


 
While I enjoy history, it is definitley not what makes one Wing Chun better than another, or any art better.  Its not even the training methodoligies.  In my opinion, it is if the student uses the concepts and principles of Wing Chun to place an attacker/opponent into recovery mode, controlling the altercation to a satisfactory end.  If a person can do that, I respect thier skill and will call them a brother Wing Chunner, no matter what thier lineage or teacher.  Of course, the time a person has trained will also matter.  I'm not going to judge someone who has trained a week the same as some self-proclaimed grand master who has studied 20 years or more.

I have always had an inate understanding of the mechanics of fighting.  That's not saying I was ever a great fighter or could kick everybody's backside.  I just could always see and grasp things about fighting that some others seemed to find difficult.  That was refined a bit through many years of studying martial arts and some unfortunate encounters.  However, even with that natural ability and many years of study, it took a special teacher to show me the real deal and what I had been missing.  Maybe it is hubris on my part, but I just cannot see how a person studying alone, no matter how talented they might be, could discover and refine the art of fighting to such a degree as to be an "expert."


----------



## MJS (Sep 27, 2010)

Wow, I'm a bit late to this thread, but I'll throw in my .02 for ya. 



Jenna said:


> I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?
> 
> We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.
> 
> ...


 
I think that the potential is there for someone to defend themselves.  I mean, anyone can punch, kick, etc, but, the quality of that defense may not be anywhere near as good, as if you had training under a live teacher.

Could someone watch youtube or a tape or dvd or read a book, and pick up things, and attempt to do them?  Sure, but IMO, the quality will not be there.  Could I watch a Larry Tatum (Kenpo) dvd and pick up something?  Sure, but the difference is that I already have a Kenpo background, as well as a teacher.  Joe Smith, who thinks Kenpo is cool, but doesnt wanna invest in a school, could watch the same dvd, and attempt to pick up things, but his understanding and ability to perform those things will probably not be too good.  

As a ref. tool, sure, but as a sole learning tool..nope.

IMO, anytime someone has good, quality training, that should always give them the edge, but nothing says they still wont get their *** kicked. LOL.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 27, 2010)

ap Oweyn said:


> Closest I can come to answer this question is floating another question: "What's the motivation for self-teaching?"
> 
> I do believe that someone should make their training their own, and that this takes a lot of introspection, critical thinking, etc. But, in my observation, people who _set out_ to create their own styles are usually motivated by a desire to avoid accountability. Can't be doing it wrong if you're the only person who can define "right."
> 
> ...


less formality
quicker
you can pick and choose what you wish to learn and your own speed of progress

more discipline. you have to motivate yourself

quality control, instead of learning the seven hundred movements of a art learn the hundred that you like the most and are the most effective.
Anything questionable you wont waste your time learning. Toss it out. without mentioning names a certain one comes to mind where they tossed out a hundred of the ones above blackbelt, revamped the program, added some different ones. If you think about that for a minute that was a hundred things someone before that was learning that someone else suddenly thought was a unnecessary waste of time. How would you like to be the one wasting five years learning a hundred things that were decided were not needed? self decided quality control. If everyone else can screw with a art then why cant you cater it to yourself?

You won't have to learn something then make it your own. You can make your own curriculum and just keep it your own.

More options. Yes, that is right . MORE OPTIONS. You can blend whatever you want with what. No repeating katas you dont like. Make your own sequence. No repeating moves you dont believe are effective anyway. No learning techniques and spending hours on them, days on them, which prove pointless. But you can add WHATEVER YOU LIKE without being concerned about failing your next belt test or not performing it correctly, just as so.

I agree with you on avoiding accountability in some cases. However in others it may make one more accountable. They have no one to blame but themselves, no one to motivate them but them, and no one to ensure they are disciplined enough to continue it, but them.

Perhaps why most people fail at self training. It is actually HARDER. But if someone really loves the arts it might be a option. They would have control over their own path, to choose and make as they go, instead of being pushed along anothers. I can see how learning a art from someone could restrict a persons full potential as much as help them. It restricts what they learn, how they learn it, how they apply it in most cases, and what can be added to it or taken away as it is often discouraged by the formal testing and necessitys required for achieving rank.

Also if you make your own path, you may be able to like it more. Anything you like, that you feel comfortable with, especially that you choose your way as you go, you will be more likley to excel in. So as many drop out of different arts because they basically dont like it, one could choose the other method and excel without facing the misery of repeating things they dont like, dont want to know, and dont think they can apply which isn't them.

Being forced through a art is not for all people. It may actually discourage them, make them learn things they do not want to, make them learn things they cannot apply, make them learn things that just isn't who they are. Basically a discouraging kill joy. They end up beating their head off a wall instead of progressing. Or progressing so pain stakingly slow they would have been better off on other endeavors. Perhaps why so many dont achieve the upper ranks. Not because they can't, but because they dont want to.

The spiritual side and history. yes, you can avoid this as well. As well as all those historic neat little things you might learn or follow that you can't apply to much of anything. I remember having to read and memorize shaolin kenpo history when i was a kid. The little story about the mountain and the monks blah blah blah.......Understand the spirtual side etc. And escrima. (another art that was sliced and diced depending on the purpose and students) Looking back i dont regret it. But it isn't for everyone. I didn't like it at the time it bored me silly. You can avoid much of that with self teaching and leave the spiritual, history, and take what you wish to know.

disclaimer: before i get flamed for this post please realize i would always recommend learning from a qualified instructor first. And even in self training at least take a minimum of classes from a qualified instructor even if it means only paying for a occasional private class. This post is a reflection of my understanding that not all people are intended to learn through formal classes and that occasionally a person may exist that would be capable of better progression through self training if they have natural ability and insight.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Sep 28, 2010)

I'll have to respond to this in more detail later, but it seems to me that you're confusing "self-trained" with "self-taught."  Many of the benefits you cite are only going to be benefits to someone who already knows what they're looking at.  What you describe requires someone to make informed decisions about their training.  Someone who's literally self-taught, on what are they going to be basing those training decisions?


----------



## ap Oweyn (Sep 28, 2010)

bribrius said:


> less formality


Less formality than what?  I've been training for about 26 years.  Ten of them were spent in formal schools with uniforms, etc.  But I've trained in groups where people wore baggy jeans and Doc Martens to practice, classes where people called the teacher "dude" rather than "sir," etc.  But there was still a teacher.



> quicker


How?  If we're talking about someone who is literally self-teaching (i.e., teaching themselves from the ground up), then odds are decent that they're either taking longer to work out correct technique or speedily developing incorrect technique.  The OP stressed empirical research.  Doing that on your own, versus availing yourself of an experienced teacher, is not going to be quicker.  Not if you're doing it right.


> you can pick and choose what you wish to learn and your own speed of progress


Again, it seems to me that this hinges on one's ability to make informed training decisions.  And where does that sense come from, if not from experience?  



> more discipline. you have to motivate yourself


 
One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.  It's easy to tell yourself that you've had a good workout.  That you've done enough reps.  That your form is good enough.  Convincing an experienced coach of same is often harder.  And he's offering a different perspective on your performance.  People are notoriously bad at evaluating their own performance objectively (in either direction).



> quality control, instead of learning the seven hundred movements of a art learn the hundred that you like the most and are the most effective.


 
"Like the most" is a conclusion that you can reach on your own.  But "most effective"?  How do you determine that if you're self-teaching?



> Anything questionable you wont waste your time learning. Toss it out.


Sure.  It'll be like when we were in school, saying "when am I ever going to need math?!"

Good thing nobody let me toss math out.



> without mentioning names a certain one comes to mind where they tossed out a hundred of the ones above blackbelt, revamped the program, added some different ones. If you think about that for a minute that was a hundred things someone before that was learning that someone else suddenly thought was a unnecessary waste of time. How would you like to be the one wasting five years learning a hundred things that were decided were not needed? self decided quality control. If everyone else can screw with a art then why cant you cater it to yourself?


 
One's ability to do what you describe is directly correlated with their experience level.  People with little experience tend to confuse "worthless" and "I can't do this well."  I wouldn't want a self-taught auto mechanic deciding what I did and didn't need in my car either.



> You won't have to learn something then make it your own. You can make your own curriculum and just keep it your own.


 
What does that actually mean though?



> More options. Yes, that is right . MORE OPTIONS. You can blend whatever you want with what. No repeating katas you dont like. Make your own sequence. No repeating moves you dont believe are effective anyway. No learning techniques and spending hours on them, days on them, which prove pointless. But you can add WHATEVER YOU LIKE without being concerned about failing your next belt test or not performing it correctly, just as so.


 
Again, you're describing the benefits to someone _with a background_ already.  If an experienced practitioner decides to customize his training, then sure.  I've ditched kata from my own practice.  But I believe you need to understand a tool, know what it does, before you pitch it.

Besides, as before, there's a whole range of established training methods that embrace a whole range of training philosophies.  Stripped-down self-defense.  Competitive training.  Philosophy in motion.  In my view, your efforts are better spent identifying something that provides what you want.



> I agree with you on avoiding accountability in some cases. However in others it may make one more accountable. They have no one to blame but themselves, no one to motivate them but them, and no one to ensure they are disciplined enough to continue it, but them.


 
That assumes that most people who go this route will train up to some inner-held ideal.  Rather than modifying the ideal to closer match up with their performance.  I don't have data, but I'm wagering that the latter happens a lot more than we'd like to admit.



> Perhaps why most people fail at self training. It is actually HARDER. But if someone really loves the arts it might be a option. They would have control over their own path, to choose and make as they go, instead of being pushed along anothers. I can see how learning a art from someone could restrict a persons full potential as much as help them. It restricts what they learn, how they learn it, how they apply it in most cases, and what can be added to it or taken away as it is often discouraged by the formal testing and necessitys required for achieving rank.


 
You're describing the most formal learning environments and talking as though they represented the full range of supervised training.  There comes a point in most experienced martial artists' lives when they start to take this more independent approach.  



> Also if you make your own path, you may be able to like it more. Anything you like, that you feel comfortable with, especially that you choose your way as you go, you will be more likley to excel in. So as many drop out of different arts because they basically dont like it, one could choose the other method and excel without facing the misery of repeating things they dont like, dont want to know, and dont think they can apply which isn't them.


 
Nobody can apply something until it's properly trained.  If someone doesn't like a style, that's fair enough.  But the web is full of people who wanted to be founders of this, sokes of that, and grandmasters of the other.  Most of them go on and on about freedom of expression, their "own paths," and what is and isn't for them.  



> Being forced through a art is not for all people. It may actually discourage them, make them learn things they do not want to, make them learn things they cannot apply, make them learn things that just isn't who they are. Basically a discouraging kill joy. They end up beating their head off a wall instead of progressing. Or progressing so pain stakingly slow they would have been better off on other endeavors. Perhaps why so many dont achieve the upper ranks. Not because they can't, but because they dont want to.


 
Yeah, why do that when you can just self-teach and say that you're whatever rank you like.



> The spiritual side and history. yes, you can avoid this as well. As well as all those historic neat little things you might learn or follow that you can't apply to much of anything. I remember having to read and memorize shaolin kenpo history when i was a kid. The little story about the mountain and the monks blah blah blah.......Understand the spirtual side etc. And escrima. (another art that was sliced and diced depending on the purpose and students) Looking back i dont regret it. But it isn't for everyone. I didn't like it at the time it bored me silly. You can avoid much of that with self teaching and leave the spiritual, history, and take what you wish to know.


 
I studied taekwondo for five years without learning a jot of history.  Those schools exist.  And you can still benefit from the technical instruction.

As for eskrima, that's a topic near and dear to my heart.  Fascinating history.  But, again, I've practiced it for 20 years and haven't faced a whole lot of formalized spiritual instruction.



> disclaimer: before i get flamed for this post please realize i would always recommend learning from a qualified instructor first. And even in self training at least take a minimum of classes from a qualified instructor even if it means only paying for a occasional private class. This post is a reflection of my understanding that not all people are intended to learn through formal classes and that occasionally a person may exist that would be capable of better progression through self training if they have natural ability and insight.


 
Again, self-training is different from self-teaching.  Maybe there are people out there who will actually perform better on their own.  But I'd say that, for the majority of people, it's a recipe for mediocrity.

That's just my view.  Subject to change if I start seeing self-taught people who actually look like they know what they're doing.


Stuart


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Sep 28, 2010)

I have to agree with Oweyn.  I do my own workouts, I choose what I feel is most important to work on and I make my own training schedule.  That being said I have over 10 years experience in MA, mostly karate.  I'm not a shodan, either.  I occasionally go to "pay as you show up" clubs and try to broaden my experience with other philosophies and techniques as part of my self training.  I don't trust my bias and being too hard on yourself isn't constructive.  Even if you're doing great you can't really trust your own opinion so you have to air on the side of caution.  In order to develop good habits you need unbiased feedback.  Even with a qualified instructor, their feedback may have a vested interest in building themselves as a good teacher.  Judging my own character, for me at least, is far harder than trying to judge another's.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 28, 2010)

Good questions



Jenna said:


> I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?


 
Yes and no. As in all things it depends. But possibility would be something I would have to say yes too. Highly Probably, most likely not. That being said, those that teach themselves improvement from some form of basics is more common. 




Jenna said:


> We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.


 
There are some who can listen to music and reproduce. There are people who can watch a technique and do it in a controlled setting. Some might even say they have gained a level of expertise. 




Jenna said:


> Therefore aside from all the youtube MA wannabes that operate in their own video vacuums, do you think there are circumstances in which it is possible to train _oneself _to become expertin a martial endeavour?


 
Yes. But I think actual play and or some testing would be required. I also think that if one were to have some basics and then started asking questions and they had enough of an understanding to see something positive and also to see something negative and all the grey area inbetween where sometimes it might work, or might only work at a certain skill set. 

If someone has been trained in one thing those skill sets could carry over and help someone in learning something else. 



Jenna said:


> Is it possible perhaps by employing empirical "research" training methods over a suitable period of time? Or are empirical methods never any substitute for formal handed-down training?


 
I believe that a truly open minded scientific and empirical approach would work. The problem is that someone would have to be trained as a Scientist first. (* See comment above *) I think this would help them. But doing it slow is not the end of the learning process. Or just proving that someone could do it. They should sit back and realize that it needs to be tested in a controlled format first and if possible for real or as real as possible. 




Jenna said:


> Is it possible to generate fighting techniques from scratch by recursively defending oneself against attack in a training situation? Or would this in itself require sufficient martial grounding beforehand?


 
Yes and Yes. If one has the grounding then it makes it much easier. It also explains why people can move from one art to another as they have a base to work from. But, if they have nothing then it depends upon the analytical mind and are they open minded enough to test it and if it fails, say thank you to the person who resisted and or countered. 




Jenna said:


> With sufficient refining on these techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?


 
I knew some street fighters that were self trained or trained by watching some others. They learned by going out and doing and see what worked. One guy know only the sucker punch and the trap the hand down and punch. After that he knew nothing. But most people were afraid of him as he had knocked out just about everyone he had ever swung at. 




Jenna said:


> Thank you so much for your time and thought
> 
> Jenna xo


 
No thanks needed when there is a well thought out question that interests me.  


Thanks


----------



## MartialStudy (Sep 29, 2010)

> I want to ask is "self-taught martial art expert" a contradiction in terms or are there circumstances do you think under which it would be possible to become a martial art autodidact and teach oneself to fight for defence and/or sport?



I believe this has already been said, but I would reiterate that there does come a point in your Martial Arts study where you have to step away from whatever instruction you are receiving and become very critical of the techniques you've learnt and how they apply to you.  Due to the fact that martial techniques are incredibly personal (ie. your body shape, strengths and weaknesses affect what is useful), solo study becomes an essential way of discovering how best to utilise the tools you have.  If this means employing empirical research to achieve it, then so be it!

That said, I don't believe it's possible to do this from scratch!  Certainly I would say that there is no way of achieving expertise in an internal art (Ba Gua, Xing Yi or T'ai Chi for example) without actually "feeling" the the effects by an instructor.  I say this because some internal martial arts techniques are unachievable without a great deal of practice, so much that it can seem a ridiculous pursuit unless you have felt someone perform the technique on you!



> We can all perhaps cite examples of persons in various endeavours that have achieved a level of expertise with little or no formal schooling in that endeavour.



In this case I would suggest that someone who is self-taught would most likely be exposed when fighting or training with someone who has been "school-taught".  Perhaps the self-taught individual would have surprising ways of achieving their results (unconventional, for example) but I pose this theoretical situation to you:

Two identical twins of equal ability in every sense set out to learn the same martial art, one with hands-on guidance from an experienced practitioner, the other relying on self teaching.
For me this is a no-brainer; while the self-taught individual will need to spend time identifying where the problem in their technique lies and then figure out how to correct it, the other will have expert eyes immeditately inform them where the problem lies and exactly how they need to adjust it.

Having said this, your final question does pose an interesting twist to the theoretical situation:


> With sufficient refining [..of self taught..] techniques would it be possible to defend oneself against and/or defeat an opponent formally trained in a similar style martial art to your "new" style in which you have become a self-taught expert? Or will a trained fighter always beat a self-taught expert?



I would suggest that facing a similarly skilled opponent with a refined and well-taught art gives the self-taught individual a number of disadvantages.  For me, the most important one to consider is that founders of great martial arts will inevitably have already been taught another art beforehand, that's to say Bruce Lee was already skilled in the ancient art of Wing Chun, with centuries of refinements.  Without these years on your side, it's highly unlikely that your techniques developed would be superior - possible, but unlikely.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 29, 2010)

Thank you all again for these wonderful and well-thought through responses.  There is very little for me to disagree with [even if I wanted to, which I do not!] I am seeking no argument with nobody only discourse for its own sake.  Thank you all 

As *ap_Oweyn* has asked: what would be the motivation for self-teaching?

I appreciate that this hypothetical can easily be regarded as quixotic or just a plain waste of time.  Still, for the individual with - as *WC_lun* puts it: "inate understanding of the mechanics of fighting" - the pursuit of self-teaching a MA of one's own design in itself is quite a feat of purity I think.  

Methodically and rigorously working through a variety of applicable scenarios, this empirical research student knows what works for her  or him from what does not.  As *Nomad *has suggested, in "peaceful" times one may not be able to discern useful technique from the extraneous and carried-over baggage of any pre-existing art through its history.  

Of course this is an extreme beyond most of us.  Nonetheless were it possible to iterate sufficiently then the student and their research partner(s) would gain a set of personalised and tailored techniques that were pressure tested and proven fightworthy.  Is the same level of tailoring possible out of a class endeavour?  Of course. But it would still take an amount of time to achieve a level of personalisation where any technique was OPTIMAL for the student performing it.  What the instructor teaches worked for the instructor.  If you are lucky the instructor will have used that technique and proven to themselves that it works.  Sometimes though they will have relied on second- or third-hand information etc. Notwithstanding that, a good instructor may take the time to work through a technique that it may be free to adapt [and I know many instructors that hold no such liberty in teaching technique].  Even so receiving instruction is not as tailored as figuring out for oneself.  For one to take what the instructor has given and interpret that to an optimal for oneself takes time.

As an example, I might take an old Toyota and strip to chassis then put in a new engine, tune her up and bolt on some spangly turbo and skirts.  It is still a Toyota from Japan.  Yet it is my version of that Toyota that suits me.  However, had I an "inate understanding of the mechanics of..." auotomotive design and sufficient time, I might do better to mould up, tunnel test and eventually have my own vehicle that has no trunk space because I do not require it, has only one seat because I take no passengers, is fuel efficient because I am a cheapskate and looks pretty because I am a poseur.  It is a better representation of what is MY vehicle than any other representation.  

Can this apply to martial arts pedagogy?

Jenna xo


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2010)

bribrius said:


> less formality
> quicker
> you can pick and choose what you wish to learn and your own speed of progress
> 
> ...


Ap Oweyn's response pretty much covers my own thoughts, but I would like to add that what you describe above is a person learning on their own to perform techniques they have personally selected, as opposed to being expert, which is another matter.



bribrius said:


> Being forced through a art is not for all people. It may actually discourage them, make them learn things they do not want to, make them learn things they cannot apply, make them learn things that just isn't who they are. Basically a discouraging kill joy. They end up beating their head off a wall instead of progressing. Or progressing so pain stakingly slow they would have been better off on other endeavors. Perhaps why so many dont achieve the upper ranks. Not because they can't, but because they dont want to.


Forced? Unlike algebra, there is no requirement in western school systems to have minimum credit hours in a martial art. If mom and dad 'force' their kid to take a karate class, the issue is with mom and dad, not the method of instruction.

Parental coersion not withstanding, people sign up of their own free will. If your instructor is 'forcing' you to do something, there is probably a good reason.

I have a student who 'self taught' himself kenjutsu. He went through the same kumdo school that I did about a year after I started there and spend most of his time there arguing with the instructors because he wanted to "modify things" to work for him rather than practice them as they were taught. He was unintentionally disrespectful to the instructors there and ultimately quit at the end of his contract, only to go back home and diligently continue his backyard practice.

He came to me asking me if I could help him with regards to his arms being strained and his inability to make more than two or three good strikes with a shinai. I looked at what he was doing and told him it was all wrong. I showed him how to do the strikes correctly.

Rather than practice what I told him, came back the following week and said, "I tried it but it didn't work." When I informed him that a few days of practice was not going to fix the problem, but that he would need to be training regularly and really should come to class so that I could evaluate him and really see what he was doing, he did not like the answer. To his credit, he came to class. I corrected more problems in his technique than there are techniques to teach to a brand new studedent who's never picked up a sword. And this is just in working on a *single* basic strike.

And yes, he believed that he was expert before he ever set foot in a class.

Yes, this young man learned how to swing a sword by watching movies. He could lift it up and make it come down where he wanted it to. He could manipulate the sword quite well in terms of doing showy spins and twirls. 

But he was no expert, and the moment he was faced with a resisting opponent, he was unable to deliver an effective strike. His footwork was horrible, his stroke was sloppy and shortened in such a way as to compensate for his inablilty to do it correctly, and his posture was horrible, causing him to twist in such a way that his chudan guard was shortened by almost a foot! All because of too much Youtube and Star Wars and not enough actual instructors.

Whether or not he comes back in anybody's guess. It takes much more discipline to place yourself under the direction of another than it does to do what you think is effective.

As far as the spiritual/historical aspects of various arts, most arts can be found in schools that are highly spiritual/philosophical and in schools that are all physical training, so avoiding the history lessons should not be difficult. Of note: I have yet to train in a school that did anything more than cursory study of history or spirituality.

Daniel


----------



## bribrius (Sep 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Ap Oweyn's response pretty much covers my own thoughts, but I would like to add that what you describe above is a person learning on their own to perform techniques they have personally selected, as opposed to being expert, which is another matter.
> 
> 
> Forced? Unlike algebra, there is no requirement in western school systems to have minimum credit hours in a martial art. If mom and dad 'force' their kid to take a karate class, the issue is with mom and dad, not the method of instruction.
> ...


i am having enough trouble making the case for self instruction. As it is difficult on its own but also unlikely to blossom from a novice starting from scratch. Where as i know people that have done and do so none of them have so with NO instruction by another. More they have a higher percentage self taught but still a grounding from schooling and instruction. How can i defend a individual idiot you bring up? But in answer i could say that while individual techniques may not be performed correctly it is made up by the larger scope of knowledge it can provide quicker, from various arts. As a self taught person could go through much more material faster. Even if some is incorrect, the sheer number learned may adjust for it and even a incorrect technique will usually work to some extent. What is correct debatable in itself. Has no one training and learning in a school learned incorrectly? How many training and instructed in a school have learned incorrectly? could you find a more accurate and detailed explanation of something from a book than a crappy instructor? I would venture to say yes. Good personal instruction by a qualified person is invaluable. But some of the instruction offered may be less than desirable. As those are so quick to pick on youtube videos of idiots on here, they fail to mention many of these idiots have schools and are labeled "instructors".

And as is correct technique. Correct does not necessarily mean it will work. It is in timing and application. Not everyone will you find useful. Perhaps when considering correct technique one would look for what can be used in 90 percent of engagements. It is here the self taught martial artist may excel. As they perhaps are looking more for results rather than knowing the correct way of doing something just for the sake of doing it.

The question, as was already rebutted and which i cannot respond as i do not know, is at what experience level and knowledge is a person capable of making the necessary decisions on what to learn and practice. I have never seen someone do it, nor have i, completely from scratch. And each things merits or lack of have different levels of experience and skill required just to understand the benefits of learning it.

As to effective or not. That is demonstrated everytime someone with no formal martial arts training or very little of it beats up someone who has spent years studying a art. while they may just be a fighter (but what is that really but a combination of arts) the effectivness is proven everytime it happens. If one would judge just by results i would be tempted to say the proof either way is "in the pudding". But then one would question where a fighter in such a case learned, if it wasn't in a dojo. It could still be from instruction of many others along with self instruction. who after all can be solely self taught? Just having a interest in arts compels you to learn from another which you may do even if not taking classes. Many street fighting techniques similiar to those instructed by professionals.

The person you speak of, if i may ask a question of them. Could they win a sparring match against someone with more instruction who isn't self taught? In my opinion many could. course there are a number of factors to take into consideration beyond skill level.

Thankyou for your comments sir. I do not disagree or agree.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2010)

bribrius said:


> i am having enough trouble making the case for self instruction. As it is difficult on its own but also unlikely to blossom from a novice starting from scratch. Where as i know people that have done and do so none of them have so with NO instruction by another. More they have a higher percentage self taught but still a grounding from schooling and instruction. How can i defend a individual idiot you bring up? But in answer i could say that while individual techniques may not be performed correctly it is made up by the larger scope of knowledge it can provide quicker, from various arts. As a self taught person could go through much more material faster. Even if some is incorrect, the sheer number learned may adjust for it and even a incorrect technique will usually work to some extent. What is correct debatable in itself. Has no one training and learning in a school learned incorrectly? How many training and instructed in a school have learned incorrectly? could you find a more accurate and detailed explanation of something from a book than a crappy instructor? I would venture to say yes. Good personal instruction by a qualified person is invaluable. But some of the instruction offered may be less than desirable. As those are so quick to pick on youtube videos of idiots on here, they fail to mention many of these idiots have schools and are labeled "instructors".
> 
> And as is correct technique. Correct does not necessarily mean it will work. It is in timing and application. Not everyone will you find useful. Perhaps when considering correct technique one would look for what can be used in 90 percent of engagements. It is here the self taught martial artist may excel. As they perhaps are looking more for results rather than knowing the correct way of doing something just for the sake of doing it.
> 
> ...


The last point that I bolded ties into my defensive tackle post on page 2. Training is only part of the picture, as there are factors that lay outside of training that have strong and measurable influence on the outcome of a fight. 

It can be as simple as mental attitude: one is committed and the other is not. 

Or it can be physical: Lou Ferrigno in his prime may have had zero MA training, but I suspect that even highly trained individuals would have had some difficulty against a man 6'6" and 285, every pound of it being muscle, sinew and bone. Or the big ol' farm hand or construction worker who drinks and fights every Saturday night and always comes out on top with no formal training. 

It can also be a physical advantage of natural speed and agility. Some people are just hard to pin down and hit and are quick enough to strike back, all with no training whatsoever.

Then there are those people that just don't feel it no matter how hard you hit them, but you feel every blow they deliver.

There are generally quite a few effective ways to deliver strikes, so outside of some universal principles, correct is within the context of a style rather than in an all or nothing context. Also, a lot of what is effective can vary depending upon your opponent. This is a lot of the reason that there are age and weight classes and gender divisions in competitive fighting.

Self teaching from a novice or beginner level is generally successful in proportion to the degree to which it focuses on strikes and gross motor skills. The more complexity is involved, the more challenging it becomes. Grappling, for example, is a lot more difficult to 'self teach' because you need a partner to practice it, so the risks of injuries from mistakes is greater and the subtleties and nuances are more difficult to pick up. 

With weapon arts, "correct" is most definitely important, much more so than with fist fighting, and there is generally a much greater correlation between correct and effective. But in most of these discussions, it is generally unarmed fighting that people have in mind.

Daniel


----------



## bribrius (Sep 29, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> The last point that I bolded ties into my defensive tackle post on page 2. Training is only part of the picture, as there are factors that lay outside of training that have strong and measurable influence on the outcome of a fight.
> 
> It can be as simple as mental attitude: one is committed and the other is not.
> 
> ...


There is alot to be said for physical advantage but many don't want to hear it.  MA does help a less advantaged opponent in this but it never goes away.

Good example. i stand and let my kid hit and kick me.  sometimes i hold my coffee cup.  It gives her practice but i practice my balance as well. The objective for me is to not spill the coffee while she is kicking and hitting me.  Usually strikes to the legs, gut and chest. yep, size matters. I am a decent sized man but there are some out there with arms twice my size and real thick bones. Couldnt imagine facing off with someone that weighed four hundred lbs. Hard to get around that.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 29, 2010)

Ultimately, one can learn to fight effectively without formal training, though it is a lot harder these days, as the fisticuffs that kids engaged in in school when I was a kid are bannished under threat of suspension.

I think that it is possible to become a proficient fighter in a general sense with no formal training. And physical advantage, be it inherent or trained in (An athlete of average size has a physcial advantage by virtue of regular physical exercise and strengthening) is a great aid in this.

But being an expert requires a lot more than just being an effective fighter. Expert implies a certain level of technique beyond that of mere proficiency. 

Another factor is what you're trying to be expert in. If you are planning to fight in WTF tournament rules, you'd be better off in a school that teaches sport TKD and runs the drills necessary to be competitive in that environment. Those skills, however, do not fully cross over to self defense.

Daniel


----------



## Hudson69 (Sep 29, 2010)

I agree with most of Chris Parker's statement.  Someone can grow up learning to fight or just be good at it but that does not make them, per se, a martial artist in the formal sense.

There are also some people out there who can probably self teach themselves a martial art if given access to the materials as well as the required mechanics of a system.

The first one is pretty easy to do, especially if you grow up in a rough neighborhood or you have a lot of older brothers...

My .02 only


----------



## Omar B (Sep 29, 2010)

Daniel, your story was great.  Reminded me of a story from when I was a teen.

I started at a new high school and I met this dude Tony (who is still my best friend to this day).  He and I both played guitar so we got along, but most evenings after school I would go to Karate.  So one say he tells me about this kid Chris in his building who knows karate too.  Now bear in mind that Tony's in a wheelchair, so one MA is pretty much the same as any other, punching, kicking and spinning.  

I eventually met Chris one day at Tony's and I ask him what style he studied.  He tells me he taught himself, I didn't think much of it at the time.  But he was a huge Dragonball and MA movie fan.  After leaving Tony's place and walking to the bus this kid shows up again spoiling for a fight because "You think you're better than me because you go to karate school!"  

So he launches himself into the air in what looked like a skinning back kick (or what he interprets as one from movies) which I simply blocked and he slams to the ground like a sack of bricks.  He picks himself up and starts punching at my face and upper body, I block with every block hurting him more and more.  So he starts moving his upper body while leaving his feet planted in the same spot, kinda like a snake (I think I've seen that in MA movies before).  So there he is wasting energy throwing his torso left and right, making weird noises and vocalizations.  So I kicked him in the knee and he fell to the ground unable to move.

In all the years I've known Tony and he's lived in that building, the kid still has trash to talk about me.  About how I only know how to block, how I only kicked once and didn't show any "skill" as he puts it.  He also still has crap to say abotu me paying to learn karate, Tony tells me he still goes out into the apartment courtyard every day jumping, spinning, throwing those wild kicks with no technique to this very day.


----------



## WC_lun (Sep 29, 2010)

I'm just going to throw a couple of things out there to think about a person teaching themselves.  Serious study of fighting in order to fight, whether it is striking, grappling, weapons, sporting or self defense takes actually doing it.  That means at the minimum at least one training partner that is willing to go toe to toe with you.  If you don't have that, you are practicing theory of a martial fantasy.

Yes, a person can work to increase thier physical attributes and physical attributes are helpful.  However, if your martial art depends upon physical attributes to be successful, then a student would be better served to just take up a membership in a decent gym. There is a lot more to real martial arts than physical ability.  That "lot more" is what makes it really difficult for the novice to correctly pick up anything by themselves.

If a martial art school claims to teach self defense, but the students cannot defend themselves against the average trouble maker, the school should quit making the claim of self defense.  It isn't.  There may be equally valid reason to train there, such as excercise, comraderie, or sports.  So when I hear the talk about non-trained fighters beating trained fighters, I think that either the non-trained fighter is an exceptionally talented fighter, or the trained fighter is poorly trained...or both.  Honestly, I have never seen a self-trained person who is not poorly trained.  Thier training is based upon thier fantasy, not reality.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 29, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I'm just going to throw a couple of things out there to think about a person teaching themselves. Serious study of fighting in order to fight, whether it is striking, grappling, weapons, sporting or self defense takes actually doing it. That means at the minimum at least one training partner that is willing to go toe to toe with you. you are being too nice. i would say multiple training partners.If you don't have that, you are practicing theory of a martial fantasy. Agree. There probably are some out there...........but the sparring makes it more fun i dont get it...
> 
> Yes, a person can work to increase thier physical attributes and physical attributes are helpful. However, if your martial art depends upon physical attributes to be successful, then a student would be better served to just take up a membership in a decent gym. There is a lot more to real martial arts than physical ability. That "lot more" is what makes it really difficult for the novice to correctly pick up anything by themselves.
> 
> If a martial art school claims to teach self defense, but the students cannot defend themselves against the average trouble maker, the school should quit making the claim of self defense. agree again. It isn't. There may be equally valid reason to train there, such as excercise, comraderie, or sports. So when I hear the talk about non-trained fighters beating trained fighters, I think that either the non-trained fighter is an exceptionally talented fighter, or the trained fighter is poorly trained...or both. Honestly, I have never seen a self-trained person who is not poorly trained. Thier training is based upon thier fantasy, not reality.


 
I have seen someone with mostly self training/self taught. No fantasy though. They fight on weekends for money. Think i mentioned him in another thread....

I have sparred with him multiple times. Hard hitter, limited technique but enough to kick your head off and can hold his own on the mat. But mostly it is his mentality that pushes him. I actually think he enjoys fighting a little too much. I wouldn't under estimate him. Another i knew is a life long bouncer. The ones that wear the full contact and tap out shirts and smile at the thought of breaking someone in half. Big, big guy. Self trained mma ufc style. Another was a bar brawler but had some minimal training. Heard of him taking out three guys before. He fought for real. Been in jail a few times as well for it, lengthy record of assaults. Last time ten years inside but there were other offenses included other than assault (he sold drugs and i think someone overdosed, plus trafficking). He took someone with years of training and knocked them through the front window of a bar from the street. I never sparred with him. You dont spar with someone like that you put a choke chain on them and call them a pitbull. He found jesus now and is a christian so doesn't fight at all. Good thing because more than once he put someone in the hospital with serious enough damage to put him in court for jail and paying medical bills. He is also about fourty now and, well we all get older and settle down.

I know another is a third degree black belt. (could be higher by now) who beat up a couple cops....lots of assaults here on the police record too.

How would he fair against the rest? The second two would kick his ***. The last pretty quick. Probably destroy him. The first, oddly enough i dont think would. Have another friend that was in ma school for years. i dont know the belt rank but after twenty years it must be something. He is a good fighter, no doubt. Better than about anyone else i have seen. But the guy i mentioned who put someone through the window, yeah, he would kick his *** too. Probably beat the others though. Hard telling without matching them up...

Only reason i am even attempting the other side of this argument at all....

technique? eh... some. some ma amongst all of them. And still, not all self taught. All have instruction just some very little. complete self taught i dont know anyone...... But some of the baddest people i have known didn't get lots of belts..... And none you could call a expert so i guess i fail in my defense. Fighters yes, expert, no. If it is a matter of how much instruction formally, well i have taken down people with much more instruction and rank than myself. would come out third in my list above. Which means i freely admit there is people i know with less instruction than myself that could beat me. Achieving ranks is about learning your art. Not necessarily about using it. And some tactics can be learned that are amazingly effective outside of what your art is. Point is i know some people that are self taught to a extent and compare in my mind from history, knowing them and sparring with them. what else could you answer this question on that is practical? But that isn't expert, as has already been mentioned in the thread. We aren't speaking of fighters, but experts.  The validity of being a expert and not judging your merit on your ability to fight and defend.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Sep 30, 2010)

I think one of the big advantages to more formal training is context.  And context can be applied in a lot of senses.  One of my coworkers found out I practiced martial arts and remarked that I must be pretty tough.  It kinda surprised me because I don't view myself that way.  And still don't.  What I explained to her was that I have two basic groups of friends:  1) The nerd contingent and 2) the fighters.  Frankly, I'm much more of a nerd than a fighter (though I'm a bit of both, I suppose).  

Now, amongst my nerdy friends, I'm pretty tough.  But compared with the fighters (guys who trained daily and, in some cases, twice a day), I'm nothing.  That's context.  Were I not surrounded by trained fighters, I could go around thinking I'm better, tougher, and more skilled than--in truth--I am.  But being constantly exposed to people like that, I know precisely where I stand.  Somewhere in the back.

Another sense in which context matters: Say I taught myself to play chess.  Easy enough to read the books, learn the rules, and play chess against the people I know.  And, having learned how they play (assuming they were any real good in the first place), I might start feeling like I had a pretty good handle on this chess thing.  But being in a larger pool of players, I would quickly have to face the fact that I'm a middling chess player at best.  (This is an analogy, by the way.  In real life, I'm the worst chess player since Albert Sucksatchess.)

Martial arts are sort of unique among fields of study because you seek to become an expert in something that you're simultaneously working very hard to avoid.  We have this unattainable "ideal" state in which we could handily cope with multiple armed attackers on "the street."  Where most of us are really only approximating that, to one degree or another, via competition, simulations, training drills, etc.

Because we're necessarily and consistently removed from the thing we're supposedly working toward, we're only ever triangulating the truth, seldom landing directly on it.  And the potential for self-deception goes up rapidly when we start to operate in a vacuum.  Teachers and a steady stream of training partners help prevent that kind of tunnel vision by giving us more points of reference.  I thought I was a pretty strong kicker until I came across the muay thai fighter who sent a 75-lb. heavy bag horizontal in the air every time he kicked it.  If I were just training myself at that time, I wouldn't have seen that guy and realized just how very far I still have to go.


Stuart


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 30, 2010)

One other observation about formal training is that guys and gals who want to do more than just punch and throw basic front kicks generally are not the ones who claim to be self taught MA-ists.  

Its the guys and gals that want to be Jackie Chan or Jet Li.  The problem with self training is that some of those techniques, if performed incorrectly over a long period of time can cause injury.  So while the incorrect technique may work in a fight, it may also cause joint issues later on.

Thus correct is not always simply about fightworthiness.

Daniel


----------



## AlanE (Nov 13, 2010)

ap Oweyn said:


> I think one of the big advantages to more formal training is context. ...





ap Oweyn said:


> Martial arts are sort of unique among fields of study because you seek to become an expert in something that you're simultaneously working very hard to avoid...
> Because we're necessarily and consistently removed from the thing we're supposedly working toward, we're only ever triangulating the truth, seldom landing directly on it. And the potential for self-deception goes up rapidly when we start to operate in a vacuum. Teachers and a steady stream of training partners help prevent that kind of tunnel vision by giving us more points of reference.
> 
> Stuart


 Many good points! 
We create our world. If we are to be happy, we create. We create something that can be compared and put in context, and we're further ahead than if we use eventual comparisons to demotivate. <- I doubt that makes sense, but to me it does! 

I seldom mention MA involvement in many introductions that my job presents because I'm not "training with you my two evenings in Korea," my life doesn't completely revolve around MA, and I'm very happy and appreciative of the spectrum of involvement and skill that exists.

Jenna, please forgive me if I missed this same reply in 5 pages: We all must train in isolation. Even in a crowd we're alone in our effort. We benefit from sparring and tips and training and guidance, and at the end of the day our advancement is what we do and think about in our non-dojo days just as much. Like integrity - when no one is looking. Like our diets, making them healthy so we can be available as grandparents that are involved - not too involved! - and a source of joy for the whole family.

Since so much of our true success is how we spend our time alone, you can be very viable as an athlete who knows herself, but probably not highly competitive within disciplines. 

Regarding chess (!), Stuart: I learned from books and could solve very deep problems when alone lying on my stomach as a kid. In competition I had success, advanced, then got involved in speed chess. I was trounced by 2 players routinely. Those 2 good friends had seen so much in a few years - more games played per hour in speed chess than slow chess - they were light-years ahead of me in intuition. It took me about 3 years to catch up to them in speed. My deep thinking and intuition were then close, and it took immersion in competition for this to happen.

Jenna, fair competition brings out our best, while solo training perfects our habits. We're at our physical peak a short time in our lives and it's fun (usually related to competition)! We can be at our best - often (may or may not involve competition). Good habits last our lifetime. 

Constant competition can be a downer without sufficient alone time. Many a high school 'nerd' is now without physical problems at age 40, while HS and college athletes point to their bum knees and say they wish they had done it differently. They had to be surrounded by others, or later on attendance/participation became a sign of their 'character' (with some peer pressure).

Whether solo training (the more important of the two, IMO) meets up with competition, or invites assistance, is entirely up to you. You answer only to yourself. Solo training is the best value there is if you are training consistently on your schedule. You could hardly do more for yourself. However, training a MA form vs. training your movement, strength, and reflexes, are different. My personal opinion is to train athleticism with bread & butter MA moves learned the first years of training, rather than total martial skills set. I know this lacks 'realism.' I hear the same argument as a personal trainer, and my motto I tell clients is the goal of exercise is to be able to exercise tomorrow. Isn't the goal of MA also longevity? Overall fitness supports longevity. Yes, an event could occur where you are attacked by a better-trained fighter and he/she prevails... 

I like training on my schedule, then coaching soccer & other sports, afternoons for a full season permitting. My personal training is done with client's mobility in mind. After awhile, for self-defense purposes, who really doesn't know how to stomp a knee? How often can the mind really train in that? Like Stuart said, we train more often in things we won't do. It's ironic. How viable is any of our training? Police yes, they use their training often. Those who compete, yes, more so - even in self-defense the set-up and speed is an asset. Bravery, getting used to taking and dishing, yes. Follow thru, yes. Chin tucked, yes. Being told lighten up, yes. Humility may be the most important skill of all.

On my travel schedule I can train stationary striking alone, and I can't train wrestling (I was always a striker anyways). It's something and clearly not competitive. It's peaceful and consistent and to me, fun. It keeps my mind and body fit. I'm everyone's first call to help them move furniture, for some reason. Am I a martial artist when no longer attending class? I'll always consider myself a MA, and not say I'm one - I'm not really giving back to the MA community, am I?  I still have people I spar with, however, we are limited by our familiar circle and also our growing older and slower together. It's a fact. 

I'm not sure why you asked Jenna, but I hope I gave you some more perspective. 

Take care,
Alan


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 13, 2010)

self taught martial arts expert sounds like an oxymoron to me.


----------



## AlanE (Nov 14, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> self taught martial arts expert sounds like an oxymoron to me.


It has that ring about it, doesn't it?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 14, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> I actually disagree, but its not worth a debate! You'll write this very well written long post explaining your position, and my eyes will glaze over by the third paragraph and I just won't care anymore.....
> 
> Sigh...You or I, and include anyone who has practiced swords for more then 10 years can pick up a schools techniques in no time flat. We just can. We also have the background and understanding of the mechanics to be able to pick up/figure out the nuances of almost any sword school, perhaps not perfectly, but we'll figure it out. There are no secrets.
> 
> Oh well off to swing swords!!



Yes, you can. But I think Chris' point is that you won't be able to reconstruct the underlying concepts. And in a way, that part will determine how a MAist will fight, not which techniques he will use. It is less about techniques, and more about how and when they will be used, to what end.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Nov 14, 2010)

As for the original topic: no I don't think you can be a self taught martial artist, unless what you are doing is a) effective and b) you took the time to codify it enough that whatever you are doing is identifiable.

Most MA founders in history had previous training before founding their own system. There are only so many ways to have basics, and reinventing them is silly if you can take some basics 'off the shelf' so to speak. Even people who are self taught develop a consistent set of basics if they have any actual success at applying their art.

And I believe that some people have an innate talent for violence and fighting. Bas Rutten was not a result of his training. His training merely enhanced and brought out his abilities to the point where noone could take him on. I've known people with only the most rudimentary training who could easily beat guys with experience, simply because they could dish it out as much as they could take a beating and go on.

However, I do think that most untrained people are full of it and have just watched too much tv. Most, but no all.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 15, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> self taught martial arts expert sounds like an oxymoron to me.


Agreed.  Most who claim to be self taught and throw their videos up on Youtube are simply deluded individuals who want to show off how cool they are, and little more.

The supposedly self taught individuals who display what looks like years of training probably had years of training and simply are unwilling to to give credit to those who taught them.  That presents a different issue: why do that?  The obvious answer is ego, though I am open to there being other reasons.

Daniel


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 15, 2010)

AlanE said:


> It has that ring about it, doesn't it?



Yep.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Agreed.  Most who claim to be self taught and throw their videos up on Youtube are simply deluded individuals who want to show off how cool they are, and little more.
> 
> The supposedly self taught individuals who display what looks like years of training probably had years of training and simply are unwilling to to give credit to those who taught them.  That presents a different issue: why do that?  The obvious answer is ego, though I am open to there being other reasons.
> 
> Daniel



You guys would have a field day with the supposedly 20 something year old 'martial artist' who is 'self taught' and who claimed to create his own arts on this other MA forum I post on. Check him out on youtube. He calls himself wushurichard.  I kid you not.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 16, 2010)

Ha, thanks, Blade, but I think MAP seems to enjoy having him all of their own.... his support of Choson Ninja (Greg Park) is rather interesting, though....


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 16, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, thanks, Blade, but I think MAP seems to enjoy having him all of their own



they won't ban him like some other sites had done because they have too much fun


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 16, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Yep.
> 
> You guys would have a field day with the supposedly 20 something year old 'martial artist' who is 'self taught' and who claimed to create his own arts on this other MA forum I post on. Check him out on youtube. He calls himself wushurichard. I kid you not.


Well, in his case, I suppose he can call himself 'expert' in whatever art he has created by virtue of being the creator.  In terms of knowing what his art contains, its history and its philosophies, I suppose he really is the expert.

The question then becomes whether or not his art contains recognizable techniques found in other arts.  Can he do these techniques at an expert or even proficient level?  If he cannot perform existing techniques at an expert level, or even demonstrate expert understanding of them, then what format he has assembled them into is irrelevent: he is no expert, founder or no.

Daniel


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 16, 2010)

Er, I've seen his videos, Daniel, and, uh, the answer is no. Many times over, no. No, his "technique" is far from expert, it's far from realistic, it's far from practical, it's far from passable, it's far from any sense of reality, really.

Really, jump over there and find him. Tell you what, here's a link to one of his threads about one of his latest "creations", and I'll let you make up your own mind...

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96260

Just don't say we didn't warn you.....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 16, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Er, I've seen his videos, Daniel, and, uh, the answer is no. Many times over, no. No, his "technique" is far from expert, it's far from realistic, it's far from practical, it's far from passable, it's far from any sense of reality, really.
> 
> Really, jump over there and find him. Tell you what, here's a link to one of his threads about one of his latest "creations", and I'll let you make up your own mind...
> 
> ...


My question was actually rhetorical and meant more broadly, but I was pretty sure that what you state above was the case 

For entertainment, I may check it out, however.

Daniel


----------



## ETinCYQX (Nov 16, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Er, I've seen his videos, Daniel, and, uh, the answer is no. Many times over, no. No, his "technique" is far from expert, it's far from realistic, it's far from practical, it's far from passable, it's far from any sense of reality, really.
> 
> Really, jump over there and find him. Tell you what, here's a link to one of his threads about one of his latest "creations", and I'll let you make up your own mind...
> 
> ...


 
I haven't even watched the videos and I cannot stop laughing. Thanks for the link.

The guy "Killa Gorilla" has a priceless sense of humour as well.


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 16, 2010)

ETinCYQX said:


> The guy "Killa Gorilla" has a priceless sense of humour as well.



For sure 

I love going over there partly because 99.9% of that forum is goof balls. really funny


----------



## ETinCYQX (Nov 16, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> For sure
> 
> I love going over there partly because 99.9% of that forum is goof balls. really funny


 
Yeah, it's nice to take things less seriously sometimes; this place can be a bit uptight for my tastes on occasion.

I feel compelled to ask, though, where in Newfoundland are you?


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 16, 2010)

ETinCYQX said:


> Yeah, it's nice to take things less seriously sometimes; this place can be a bit uptight for my tastes on occasion.
> 
> I feel compelled to ask, though, where in Newfoundland are you?



east coast


----------



## ETinCYQX (Nov 16, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> east coast


 
I'm in Central right now, moving to the Avalon peninsula shortly for school. St. John's in particular is a gold mine in MA compared to where I am now. BJJ, MT, TKD, Judo, Shotokan, the mind boggles...


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 16, 2010)

ETinCYQX said:


> I'm in Central right now, moving to the Avalon peninsula shortly for school. St. John's in particular is a gold mine in MA compared to where I am now. BJJ, MT, TKD, Judo, Shotokan, the mind boggles...



Yep 

any person who like MA would have a field day with st john's as there are so many MA there......


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 17, 2010)

Chris Parker said:


> Er, I've seen his videos, Daniel, and, uh, the answer is no. Many times over, no. No, his "technique" is far from expert, it's far from realistic, it's far from practical, it's far from passable, it's far from any sense of reality, really.
> 
> Really, jump over there and find him. Tell you what, here's a link to one of his threads about one of his latest "creations", and I'll let you make up your own mind...
> 
> ...


Well that was... strange and disturbing.

Daniel


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 17, 2010)

I think one of my favorite parts of wushurichard's stuff is he has an exact date, even down to it was a Tuesday, that he established his "art."   Like he laid an egg and that is the day it hatched.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 17, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> I think one of my favorite parts of wushurichard's stuff is he has an exact date, even down to it was a Tuesday, that he established his "art." Like he laid an egg and that is the day it hatched.


 
Whatever dropped out of his butt, I don`t think it was an egg..


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 17, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Whatever dropped out of his butt, I don`t think it was an egg..


 
That was kind of my thinking as well


----------



## Blade96 (Nov 18, 2010)

whats most disturbing is that wushu richard is actually serious! and not trying to be a troll but actually believes the garbage he spouts!


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 18, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> whats most disturbing is that wushu richard is actually serious! and not trying to be a troll but actually believes the garbage he spouts!


Hardly surprising.  People have a way of deluding themselves.  Youtube has a way abetting people in their delusions; everybody thinks that they're the next viral sensation.

Daniel


----------



## Fei Ze Min (Nov 18, 2010)

Sure you can be a self-taught expert.  We must first define formal training.  What is formal training?  If it is the systematic unfolding of information to lead a student from point A to point B then anything can be considered a "formal teacher".  If I walk into a rough bar and throw a right hook into the head of the biggest guy there then his reaction and my confrontation with him become the formal teacher.
Teaching comes not from situation but from reflection of the situation just encountered.  I can read books or watch videos and get information that I can reflect upon get together with a friend turn that information into intellegence.  Intelligence is applied knowledge.  
So define formal teacher or teacher in general.

I think that as human beings we lost the art of observation.  We are too used to being spoon fed "truth" or "reality" and we have yet to experiance either and accept the "word" as truth rather than the "experiance".

One can say that a teacher will provide the "experiance" for you and talk you through it while you go.  This is not true.  The teacher may provide you the forum with which to spar however onece the punches start flying how quickly the words of the teacher are not remembered anymore and we revert to our primal instincts.  

We become better at something the more we engage in it and dissect our experiances in a way that are meaningful to us.  This is something that a formal human teacher can not provide because they are simply not us.

This is not to say I will stop going to class because I love the conversation, the fighting, and the beer afterwards!

MMMM.....BEER


----------



## KenpoVzla (Nov 18, 2010)

It can happen yes, but it's very unlikely. Grand-Masters had to at some point "self-teach" different ideas and concepts.....think of Mas Oyama going to his mountain retreat for mind and body learning.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 18, 2010)

KenpoVzla said:


> It can happen yes, but it's very unlikely. Grand-Masters had to at some point "self-teach" different ideas and concepts.....think of Mas Oyama going to his mountain retreat for mind and body learning.


 

True, but I don't think Mas Oyama, and masters like him, are newbs who with very little experience that want to call themselves "experts" or create new systems.  In my experience, the best masters I have ever met get really uncomfortable when you ask them if they are an expert.  Usually the most they'll say is they've been working at it for a long time.  

A self trained expert, just isn't.


----------



## Cirdan (Nov 18, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> True, but I don't think Mas Oyama, and masters like him, are newbs who with very little experience that want to call themselves "experts" or create new systems. In my experience, the best masters I have ever met get really uncomfortable when you ask them if they are an expert. Usually the most they'll say is they've been working at it for a long time.


 
Perhaps this is the quality that allowed them to becaome true masters.


----------



## Fei Ze Min (Nov 19, 2010)

Anyone who walks around calling themselves a master whether self taught or not, isn't a master.  There in my opinion is no such thing as a master just people who are better than you or better than some.  The old saying rings true "no matter how good you are there is always someone better" So no one is a master.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Nov 19, 2010)

Fei Ze Min said:


> Anyone who walks around calling themselves a master whether self taught or not, isn't a master.


We overblow the master thing in martial arts. Master does not mean perfection, nor does it mean ultimate fighter. To 'master' a skill means that you have become proficient in it. The term is used all the time outside of MA and nobody gets all lofty or philosophical about it. Being addressed as a master is, in some organizations, part of earning a specific rank. So long as people do not let it go to their heads, it isn't really an issue. 

The same holds true for any other title one might be addressed with. I've seen managers of small retail stores get caught up in their title of 'manager.' You'd think that they were the president of the company. Nothing wrong with the title or being addressed as such. Nobody rolls their eyes when your doctor instroduces herself as 'Doctor Smith.' She earned the title.

Now, guys who are self taught and look like the gent in the videos I saw on that other site calling themselves master are just plain silly. But plenty of people of dubious skill, background, and education call themselves doctor as well. 



Fei Ze Min said:


> There in my opinion is no such thing as a master just people who are better than you or better than some. The old saying rings true "no matter how good you are there is always someone better" So no one is a master.


A master carpenter, mechanic, electrician, or whatever is a master by virtue of what they have learned and the quality of work that they do, not based on being better than everyone else. They still learn new things year in and year out as they spend more time in their trade and as the trade changes with the advance of time. 

Likewise, a master in martial arts is generally a master by virtue of knowledge, time in the art, and presumably quality of their practice. This in no way implies that they have learned everything or are better than everyone. 

Now, I do agree with you that runnng around calling yourself master frivolously, such as on Youtube, is pointless, silly, and is asking for negative criticism, as calling yourself master on a youtube vid will insure that virtually every deviation or mistake that you make in the video, no matter how minute or what the reason, will be scrutinized and pointed out.

Daniel


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 19, 2010)

That's an excellent point. 

Hell, nobody calls people out on an MA or MS degree, despite it being short for "master of..." something.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 19, 2010)

ap Oweyn said:


> That's an excellent point.
> 
> Hell, nobody calls people out on an MA or MS degree, despite it being short for "master of..." something.



I think the distinction is that I say I 'have a MBA', rather than stating I 'am a Master of Business Administration'.  I think it makes a difference in perception and social interaction.  People would think there is something wrong with you if you introduced yourself with the latter.

And there is certainly a stigma in certain martial arts in referring to yourself as a Master.  It's certainly not a done thing in Okinawan karate, and as that is my primary martial art I do have a degree of antipathy for its usage, even when the user is in another martial art where perhaps the title is normal currency.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 19, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I think the distinction is that I say I 'have a MBA', rather than stating I 'am a Master of Business Administration'. I think it makes a difference in perception and social interaction. People would think there is something wrong with you if you introduced yourself with the latter.
> 
> And there is certainly a stigma in certain martial arts in referring to yourself as a Master. It's certainly not a done thing in Okinawan karate, and as that is my primary martial art I do have a degree of antipathy for its usage, even when the user is in another martial art where perhaps the title is normal currency.


 
I don't much like the term myself.  I don't even like using the term "guro" (the relatively humble designation of "teacher").  I like "master" even less.  Hell, I don't even put the master's degree after my name on my business cards.  That said, it's not uncommon for people to say "I have a master's degree" versus "I have an MA or MS."  

The difference, of course, being that virtually nobody says "I'm a master of science in... "  That _would_ sound odd.


----------

